I like business novels and read them often.
Not that many, but I have favorites: Ryo Kuroki, Maïn Koda, Tadashi Saegusa, Saburo Kajiyama, Akira Tachibana, Michael Lewis, and others.
Kuroki's novels especially. Every time I read him I'm overwhelmed by his reporting and information-gathering, and the stories are fun as drama. A lot of them fire me up — recommended.
Lately I've been wondering why his work is so interesting, not only within "business novels." That's today's theme.
One point I've been thinking: he doesn't write villains as mere fools.
Business novels often become good-versus-evil stories. For simplicity I said "villains," but it also covers opponents to beat and counterparties to negotiate with. Hanzawa Naoki, trending lately, is a classic good-vs-evil type. (I only know a bit of the synopsis and haven't watched the show, so sorry if I'm wrong.)
In fiction, those opponents are often "vulgar and unpleasant." For example: they talk down to the hero constantly; the hero, fed up, lays groundwork and gets them to accept terms that over-deliver for that person personally — then the other side breaks promises after benefiting, or overreacts when a deal closes, still shows no interest in the hero, never notices their own vulgarity, and lives on carefree.
Personally I don't get furious at that kind of portrayal, but I sometimes feel: the world isn't that simple. Of course binary good/evil is easier storytelling. Still, I doubt the pattern where villains are always stupid and simple and justice just smacks them down.
On that point, Kuroki's antagonists often have their own circumstances inside the company, or are rough but a bit charming, or get some follow-up later even if they were awful in one scene. I like that kind of writing, and I think reality is actually more like that.
With that in mind, take criticism of a policy that goes: "Why don't they do X? Think a little — X is obviously the right answer!" Even if the criticism has some logic, the critic may be treating government or ministries as villains who are stupid and simple. (In the worse case, they think they themselves are justice.)
That stance is clearly not great. Indirectly, it even feels a bit discriminatory. And this isn't only about government — even with an unpleasant person nearby, you should at least keep room to think: this person probably has their own logic. You don't have to get cozy or force friendship, but casting them as a dumb villain isn't desirable.
I fully get "hate the monk, hate the robe" — but if you're going to evaluate someone, better start from: unpleasant, maybe, but not stupid and simple.
Writing this far, I realize I've landed on a painfully obvious conclusion, like an elementary school principal's talk. This was blog post number 50.
Tweet© 2020 ZUUHE