I read this because I had just helped organize a conference in Kowloon Tong, and spent 5 days visiting there and many of the other spots featured in the book. During our visit there, the final protesters from Occupy Central were arrested and carted off, which is something Theroux would have predicted. It is surprising, though, how vital a city Hong Kong remains, despite the ominous Chinese government presence. This is still a world class city, bursting with economic vitality and culture. Public services that we encountered such as the MTR and police seem first rate, at the same standard as in the most prosperous, democratic countries. When the last protesters were finally arrested, a reported 80% of citizens wanted the protest to end. One commentator said that life in Hong Kong was comfortable. People would prefer democracy, but if they have to wait, that will have to do. They are very upset by increased inequality, and increasing unaffordability of living standards for most people. But, it is not clear to these pragmatic people that more democracy would solve those problems: after all, similar trends are evident in many advanced democracies.So how does the book fit into all this? I'm sure that the emotions of worry were truly there in the run-up to the "Chinese take-away". For a while after, the property market and stock market tanked, but everything came back up and the place today is booming. At one point in the book, Bunt says that gamblers never win, but in this case, the people of Hong Kong gambled big time and won in many respects. So the book seems to have correctly captured the spirit of the moment, which in retrospect was prudent but overly pessimistic. However, serious challenges remain. It is less than 20 years since the takeover, and too early to tell where Hong Kong may be heading in the next 20.
Paul Theroux’s Hong Kong handover novel Kowloon Tong is a bit of a satire, a bit of an allegory, and a bit of a thriller. Well, it’s not much of any of these things, hence my dissatisfaction with it. I wish he would have taken any of these possible motifs and developed them more fully. And, to be honest, it wasn’t much of a thriller, there's no resolution. I don’t think it was as good as his other fictional efforts like My Secret History and My Other Self. Nor does it have the energy or life of his travel books. He is a bit over the top with the stiff upper-class blue blood types; the main characters, Bunt and his mother Betty. However, it is often for comedic effect. The locals don’t fare much better; there aren’t any characters that you can really relate to, because the only character worthy of any pity, Mei-ping, is scarcely more than a caricature. And Hung, the mustache-twisting villain, is essentially one dimensional, without a background. Overall, a short, mild diversion, it’s not one of those novels that stay with you beyond the short time you spent with it.
What do You think about Kowloon Tong (1998)?
Not at all a bad read. Interestingly enough, I was in Hong Kong in 1996, before the "Chinese take-away", as Theroux refers to it in the book. The story was a quick, easy read and didn't get boring. However, my problems with this book stem from the fact that (1) Theroux naively attempts to explain a culture that is foreign to him and thus makes overgeneralizing statements that end up trivializing the culture he sets out to explain and share and (2) I felt it was a bit too similar to the story and tone of Orwell's "Burmese Days", in which there is the same sense of colonial cynicism towards the idiotic, ungrateful people they, the British, are out to save.
—Ami
Ambivalent. I know I gave it four stars and I stand by that; I throughly enjoyed the reading experience and I couldn't wait to find time on the train or lingering somewhere to catch up with the characters. But there's still issues. None of these people were at all likable, particularly the protagonist. But there in lies the joy as well as the ambivalence. Its all unsavory folks doing despicable things, bumping around with not much place to go. And in that context, it's all fun. If it weren't for Theroux's prose it could have been a simply horrible novel. But his type of emotional, textural reporting- a journalism not of the proceedings but of what it felt like to be there -is what make this a worthwhile read. The real Hong Kong is a beguiling, layered city and while the characters in Kowloon Tong often felt more like caricatures, there's a certain amount of truth in that kind of portrait. These people do exist in Hong Kong, I've met them all, but keep in mind that's just one strand in a huge, tangled bowl of noodles. Still, some more sensitive readers may dismiss the whole thing as a racist, sexist and even misogynistic rant. If that's all you take away from it, then you'll totally miss the point. If you can't stand any of that kind of sentiment in your fiction then just give this book a pass. Theroux mostly exposes all of it for what it is and lets you have some amassment at the expense of the perpetrators. So yes, 4-stars. It's not without flaws but it could be the flaws that make it so good.
—Jason Wincuinas
I wanted to read this because Theroux is a good writer and the book got a very good review when first published in 1998. And, because I had been to Hong Kong, I thought a book about the Chinese takeover, written as a mystery, would be great. But I hated this book--all of the characters are despicable, some outright racist. And the women factory workers (undocumented immigrants) are completely exploited for work and sex. I hated every minute of this book and threw it away when I finished it. I am even sorry I read it.
—Margaret
