Thank you, Emi!
Thank you, Emi, for your highly interesting comparison of the two books! And I am very sorry indeed for my answer coming so very late – I really could not make it earlier.
I found especially interesting what you said about the reasons for the differences between the two books (inside – outside perspective). Seen from this point of view, they obviously both have their merits.
I have to admit that I had a certain prejudice against Hills´ book (that I would never have expressed here as it cannot be more than a mere prejudice, me never having read the book), I think especially because of the chapter titles concerning Masako and Naruhito - something like "mummy´s boy" and "daddy´s g.irl " – that, to me, seem to be rather "cheap" psychology, so to speak.
Of course, Naruhito´s existence WAS very important for his mother. Her situation was already so difficult that without him being born so shortly after her marriage and without his being a boy she might have completely broken down. (We know that he was for several years her only child and that she suffered, at least, one miscarriage between him and his brother. I really do not want to imagine what would have become of her if she had been childless during these years before Fumihito was born. Horrible thought indeed.) So, of course, there always was a special contact between them – so special maybe that it was not so easy for her to welcome his bride with open arms as she could do with his brother´s bride… So far the situation matches the cliché of "mummy´s boy". But as to Naruhito being spoilt and pampered and protected from the rough side of life (as you would assume a "mummy´s boy" would have been) – all who have read "The Naru-chan-constitution" at the beginning of this thread would know what an incorrect description of the circumstances of his education that would make…
The same thing is to be said about "daddy´s g.irl" – sure, Masako followed in her father´s professional footsteps, so far correct. But the term does not show that she actually followed in her MOTHER´s footsteps, too, who had been a business woman and had been working for Air France before her marriage – certainly unusual in her generation. And, what is more, the term actually clouds the fact that although Masako DID follow in her father´s professional footsteps she acted by doing so AGAINST HIS WISH AND ADVICE: Hisashi Owada had made it clear to his daughter that he wanted her to stay in the US and to start working there. He probably foresaw with how many obstacles his daughter would have to deal if she returned to Japan, still insisting on having a brilliant career, and like a caring father, he had obviously wanted to protect his daughter from adversity. (Nice try…
)
Both these incidents biased me against Hills´ book as they seemed to me to denote an attitude of hunger for the sensational and an unwillingness to really take a close look at the facts of the individual case and a tendency to take refuge in psychological commonplace clichés instead. But now I see that he might have used these expressions because he simply did not have some of the information that Fritz and Kobayashi had – for example about father Owada´s advice to his daughter that is probably an insider information. And, anyway, these are only chapter titles, maybe chosen a bit unluckily, but that does not necessarily mean that the actual content of the chapter could not be much more reflected and to the purpose.
I would, actually, be very interested indeed to know if this is so. So if you, Emi, or anybody who has read the book would like to share their opinion on this point I would be quite thrilled to hear it. And one thing more: you mention that Hills says more than Fritz and Kobayashi about the attitude in Japan concerning IVF. If you could give some of the details of what he says I would also very much like to hear it. I am interested in that because I, personally, after the information I got, do not doubt any more that Aiko as well as Hisahito were conceived by IVF, and I am even more convinced of it as the people concerned try to cover it up in a – to me - absolutely ridiculous way. (See also this link that says:
"Shukan shincho reported that the baby's father, Prince Akishino, had let it slip that he and his wife were expecting a boy, exposing the official story -- that the couple "didn't want to know" the s.ex (credited to Ichiro Kanazawa, medical supervisor to the Imperial Household Agency) -- for the lie many suspected it was."
The Family And The Society: Search results for A+ +would+be+better+for+Japan
I am not sure if this will work as I cannot write g.irl properly. If it does not, try
The Family And The Society: It's a boy for Japan: magazine and then serach in the blog for
A+ g.irl+would+be+better+for+Japan - obviously, you would have to remove the period that I had to put to make it appear)
Even before Kako was born the press had been speculating that this child might be the future heir of the Japanese throne, if a boy. And then, in December 2003, the Akishino couple had been officially requested by the Grand steward of the kunaicho to have another child "for the interest of the monarchy". Under these circumstances, it is simply not believable that the Akishinos "did not want to know" their baby´s gender before birth. The whole nation was eager to get this information and only the parents of the potential "little saviour" should feel no curiosity? And if I even go so far as to believe that: is not it then the last piece to make the story impossible to believe that, according to press reports, prince Akishino took the information that the baby was born and was a boy "with calmness"? Sure, sure, I know he is a Japanese prince and owes it to his dignity to not jump high up into the air and scream: "Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! We did it!" (Although it is a nice picture…
) But if he really did not know before that it was a boy I would, at least, have expected him, to smile gladly and say: "Thank you for this very good piece of news." instead of showing "calmness". In my opinion: they were overdoing it. I would rather have believed that Hisahito was a piece of luck if they had behaved more naturally during the pregnancy and afterwards.
It seems to me that the only explanation why it was so important to act the i.nnocent was because there was indeed something that they wanted to hide from the public at any cost, and that can only be the fact that Hisahito´s life began, as well as his cousin´s, in a test tube.
And I simply wonder that obviously nobody had scruples to take refuge in this method on one hand, and that, on the other hand it should still be so absolutely unthinkable to admit it. You can think about IVF whatever you want and I certainly understand people who have a problem with it, that´s not my point. But for people who have made use of IVF so readily in order to solve what they see as a major national problem it seems to me to be a bit ungrateful to afterwards disown it.
Maybe this is also an "Nobody mentions the elephant in the room"-thing but I would really like to know some more about the Japanese public opinion about IVF because it might help me to understand this attitude better that seems to me to be highly inconsistent.
Well, so far. (I have to say still more but I think for today that will do.
)