Yellowface: Was The Commentary on the Industry Too Tame?

I recently finished the ‘hard to put down, harder to forget’ novel, Yellowface. The critically acclaimed piece was praised for being an ‘unflinching industry critique’ for its stripped back commentary on the publishing industry where the reality of becoming the next big hit is far from a fairy tale. Our protagonist June is an unreliable narrator that witnesses her prominent author friend Athena die in front of her, not before stealing her manuscript. This became her claim to fame and fortune that she felt was always out of reach on her own. Although the story starts off on an exciting incident, I couldn’t help but feel disappointed when sitting back and reviewing the piece as a whole. 

June was, purposefully, a terribly written protagonist. Her obvious cynical view of the world and how it treats ‘people like her’ was clearly meant to enrage the reader. Her character felt surface level even when attempting to go into the centre of her depression. The reader is not supposed to feel sorry for the character that stole a dead woman's work. But the attempts to humanise her by bringing up the rape she went through in college and resentment she felt to Athena for publishing this trauma without her permission, felt like a slap in the face. It was an unnecessary event that didn’t even explain the built up hate June had of Athena for years. Is the reader expected to infer that Athena treated June terribly over the years and her death was a result of karma? Or is June already a narcissistic nightmare before she got her hands on the manuscript? We are already told that June felt like Athena kept her around as an ego boost, so what purpose does their barely detailed relationship serve the narrative of the publishing industry? Is it that God has favourites? 

The main issue was how low stakes the commentary felt when condemning the publishing industry. So you're telling me publishing is a popularity contest?? Shocking! I don’t think you need to do a lot of critical thinking to figure this one out for yourself. Of course it is unfair that marketing and publishing companies are more likely to flock to an author that has a gripping narrative to tell. A profitable back story of a manufactured public persona will resonate with readers. This builds a character that can be branded to consumers. So is it really a dissection of the industry if it only reflects on the cosmetic first layer?

The book left too many questions unanswered to be anything worthy of a critique on the industry. While the story telling and shock value made the story enjoyable, I don’t think it has the substance to be called a ‘provocative’. If it were to really pull apart the industry and display an actual controversial take, I doubt the author would have been able to continue to publish under the same name. Perhaps if the story had been told by a no name author or under a pen name the story might have had more freedom to explore the grittier side. It is a shame the worldbuilding was too afraid to mirror modern day.