Talk:Memoirs of a Geisha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Japan (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 04:37, September 23, 2016 (JST, Heisei 28) (Refresh)
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Novels (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Official Sony Website Link?[edit]

Should there be a link to the official Sony website? goodwillstacy 09:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


I think the Film Adaptation part of the article is baised towards the point of view that the innacuracies in the film are an insult to asian culture. The person who wrote it puts forth opinions without attributing them to anyone, for example "Many people were upset that..." "The production crew, however, paid little attention, in a move that some consider arrogant pan-Asianism, and a refusal to recognize the diversity of cultures in Asia." " the Chinese Internet community where some users were unhappy..." "Some argue that part..."

Not prostitutes[edit]

Geishas are not prostitutes as they do not earn their living primarily through giving sexual pleasures to men. They do, however, act as drinking companions, entertainers through dance and drama and letting the men pay to be served as a master or a husband. According to the book ( which I read ), there are instances where a geisha can sell their prized virginity for a price, although this is not necessary in their 'job description'. But that is just my opinion. Read the book, then make your own assumption.

I found this to be an interesting piece:

"[Arthur Golden] described such practices as 'mizuage' or the selling of a young geisha's virginity to the highest bidder, which she [Iwasaki] has been reported as saying does not exist." - AWF

Indeed, there was never such custom as to sell one's virginity to the highest bidder. Wanderer 05:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
While Mineko Iwasaki makes the claim that there was never a practice of "mizuage", there are other sources/interviews that make the opposite assertion. I think this is a difficult issue that cannot be resolved one way or the other. (For another source, see Lesley Downer's book "Geisha: The Secret History of a Vanishing World") LJade728 16:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why as Mineko Iwasaki has been given an out of court cash settlement and been apologised to that she would do so much to discredit Arthur Golden.If there are more than one accounts to prove that such practices did (or do) exist (mizuage) then why is she saying they dont exist,maybe it's to preserve the secrecy of the Geisha or maybe she is trying to get more publicity for herself user:wongdai 17:10 31 march 2007

The definition of "geisha"[edit]

The current article seems to imply that the profession of a geisha is prostitution. This couldn't be further from the truth and it's frustrating to see debates of an "actress [playing] a prostitute in native Chinese films" when it shouldn't apply.


If you wanted to pronounce the names of the characters, here's how it is: Chiyo/チヨ (CHEE-yoh), Hatsumomo/ハツモモ (HAW-soo-MOH-moh), Pumpkin is probably Pumukumin/プムクムン (poo-MOO-koo-MEEN). --PJ Pete

Some Edits[edit]

I changed the movie controversy part to make it clearer, and amended the 'seppuku' part as seppuku is no longer practiced in Japan. Indeed, even plain suicide is frowned upon, as in any other country. ____________________________________________________

I don't think this is true: "It's still controversial for a famous actress to play a prostitute in native Chinese films due to the relatively conservative values of Chinese society"

The sentence needs to be amended indeed. But the point is there. Name one famous Chinese actress that played a modern hooker (not in ancient times or like Gong Li in Farewell My Concubine) in a high-profile Chinese movie in recent years. That's partly because the mainland government doesn't allow movies centering on a prostitute set in today's China to be produced. You cannot find a Chinese version of Pretty Woman. Besides, people do tend to frown upon the portrayal of prostitution in Chinese society. So this sentence needs to be rewritten as "It is still rare for a famous actress blah blah blah." You can find plenty of films about modern prostitution in Hong Kong though. --wooddoo Eppur si muove 14:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
This is completely wrong. Arguably the biggest Hong Kong actress right now, Cecilia Chung, just played a prostitute in a movie set in modern time. -- 10:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Wrong my axx. I said "You can find plenty of films about modern prostitution in Hong Kong though." Give me one reason you chose to ignore it.--wooddoo [[User_talk:Wooddoo-eng|Eppur si muove]] 07:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can't help getting the feeling (despite the laboured analysis in the article) that the reason for the outcry is not conservatism, but the perception that a Chinese actress playing a Japanese prostitute somehow represents a 'humiliation' of China.Bathrobe 14:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

This article needs a synopsis. Also there should be a sub-heading for the movie version.
Given the way in which the Japanese used Chinese women as 'comfort women' during the second world war when Japan occupied parts of China, Chinese sensitivity on the issue (of Chinese actresses playing a role which in the film is portrayed as prostitution even if it isn't the case in real life) is surely to be expected, ne?
Which is even more reason to explain why the Chinese are upset. The long and elaborate explanation about misconceptions about geisha and prostitution misses the point: Chinese nationalists are not upset about an actress playing the part of a prostitute: they are upset about a Chinese actress being forced to play the part of a Japanese prostitute.
Bathrobe 04:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

if that is, indeed, what they are upset about, then they are laboring under a misconception, as i seriously doubt that she was being forced to play the part...

Movie vs Book[edit]

I'd love to see more about the book in this article. Is it a novel based on a true story, as the lawsuit suggests? Why is written by someone other than the person the story purportedly happened to? At this point, the largest section of the article is dedicated to the controversy of prostitutes in Chinese society. That seems a bit off center. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 03:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If you read Mineko Iwasaki's biography, you'll find that Golden's book is basically a sick, twisted version of her life story. He obviously made copious notes about her life, thought, "Hey, that's so cool. Now all I need to do is make the main character seem really sad and depressed, so all the American readers will feel sympathetic but smug at the same time, and I'll have a winner!"

Italic textThis book is not based on Mineko's life, she was just a large influence. do your research people...

If you ever thought Golden was a good writer, ask yourself why he hasn't written any bestsellers after this...... John Smith's 16:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Whatever you think of the novel, I hardly think that's any measure of literary merit. I mean, Harper Lee only published one book. NeonDaylight 08:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have it on very good authority that Mr. Golden is working on his next novel.

Having read Iwasaki san's book, I'd have to say there's a definite possibility that her account of her own life may not be entirely accurate either, given the self-satisfied and self-congratulatory tone of the thing. I think it would probably be difficult (impossible?) to know the truth from reading only these two books, and any reference to the discrepancies between them and resultant controversy should be kept neutral and avoid conclusions.

Influence for Memoirs of a Geisha[edit]

This interview is courtesy of, vintage section ( The interviewee is of course, author Arthur Golden.


Q: What sparked your interest in the subject of geisha?

A: I studied Japanese language and culture in college and graduate school, and afterward went to work in Tokyo, where I met a young man whose father was a famous businessman and whose mother was a geisha. He and I never discussed his parentage, which was an open secret, but it fascinated me. After returning to the U.S., I began work on a novel in which I tried to imagine this young man's childhood. Gradually I found myself more interested in the life of the mother than the son and made up my mind to write a novel about a geisha.

I read everything I could find on the subject, in English and in Japanese, and ended up writing an 800 page first draft focusing on five years in the life of a Kyoto geisha shortly after World War II. Then as I prepared to revise the manuscript, a longtime Japanese friend of my grandmother's offered to introduce me to a Kyoto geisha named Mineko--retired already at the age of 42 and evidently willing to talk to me. I flew to Japan to meet with her, not at all certain what to expect. I worried she might spend an afternoon chatting with me about the sights and then wish me best of luck. But instead she answered every question I asked, always with great candor, and took me on an insider's tour of the geisha district of Gion in Kyoto, even arranging for me to observe and photograph the daily ritual of a geisha being helped into her kimono by a professional dresser. She took my understanding of a geisha's daily existence and stood it on its head. I had to throw out my entire 800 page draft and start from scratch.

Q: Why was she willing to open up to you? You state in the beginning of your novel that geisha don't generally talk about their experiences.

A: She had a number of reasons, I believe. For one thing, she knew I wasn't approaching her as a journalist, but as a fiction writer. I didn't want salacious details about her customers; I never asked for names, or even about experiences she'd had, but only about the rituals and routines of a geisha's life. I found Mineko to be a very kind woman with a generous spirit; we became and remain friends. Actually, I can think of another reason why she helped me: during her years as a geisha, Mineko had at one time or other met many of Japan's great living writers and artists. With her considerable respect for cultural traditions, probably she felt some concern for a struggling young writer.

Q: You mention that Mineko had retired already in her early forties. Is this common among geisha?

A: Most geisha never have the option of retiring, but Mineko was enormously successful and made a great deal of money. I don't think she enjoyed being a geisha. She wanted to run a little bar in the Gion district rather than continuing to wear herself out going from teahouse to teahouse entertaining customers. In fact, I think she'd just opened a bar at the time she met her husband, who is an artist. She retired from the Gion district when they decided to marry.

Q: Is Mineko the model for your protagonist, Sayuri?

A: No, I wouldn't say that. Though it's true that after meeting Mineko, my understanding of geisha changed fundamentally, and of course, my idea of Sayuri changed along with it. I had imagined that geisha probably sprinkled their conversations with high-handed references to art and poetry, but in fact, Mineko was too naturally clever to resort to anything so artificial. For example, when she and her family came to visit us in Boston, I took her to Harvard Yard to see the place; it happened to be an hour or so after commencement ceremonies had ended. We sat together on a bench while I explained the meaning of the different colored gowns--black for undergraduates, blue for master's degrees, and red for PhDs--when an older man stumbled by, clearly a bit drunk. Mineko turned to me and said, "I guess that man's nose just got a PhD." That comment strikes me as so characteristic of Mineko. She became such an exceptionally successful geisha partly because of her cleverness--though her great beauty had a good deal to do with it as well.

In establishing Sayuri's voice in the novel, I considered it essential to find some quality of cleverness that would help her rise out of the mire in which most geisha have no choice but to spend their lives. So in this sense, I did draw on my knowledge of Mineko to create Sayuri. However, the story of Sayuri's life in no way relates to Mineko's. In fact, I've never asked Mineko anything beyond the most superficial questions about her history. I didn't want to limit the possibilities that might suggest themselves to me as I tried to imagine Sayuri's struggle.

Q: Did you feel any reluctance, as a man, to try writing a novel from the point of view of a woman?

A: I certainly did. As an American man of the 1990s writing about a Japanese woman of the 1930s, I needed to cross three cultural divides--man to woman, American to Japanese, and present to past. Actually, I see a fourth divide as well, because geisha dwell in a sub-culture so peculiar that even a Japanese woman of the 1930s might have considered it a challenge to write about such a world. Before meeting Mineko, I'd written a draft in third person. Even after interviewing her I felt no temptation to try entering the head of my protagonist by writing in first person. Instead I wrote another 750 page draft in third person. While I was revising it for submission, a number of big name agents and editors in New York began calling me--very heady stuff for an unpublished writer. But when they saw the manuscript, they all lost interest. I know I'm a perfectly competent prose stylist; I didn't think the writing itself had scared them away. And the subject matter is so fascinating--or at least it was fascinating to me. The way I saw it, if I'd failed to bring the world of geisha compellingly to life, I'd done something dreadfully wrong. And in fact, as I came to understand, my mistake was having chosen to use a remote, uninvolved narrator. So you see, I'd ended up writing a dry book precisely because of my concerns about crossing four cultural divides.

By this time I'd spent more than six years on the project; I certainly felt no temptation to give it up. During these years of work I'd come to know my protagonist and the sub-culture in which she dwelt so much better than I'd ever imagined possible; very quickly I began to ask myself why I shouldn't try crossing those cultural divides after all. As for seeing things from the point of view of a woman, well, I knew my wife quite well; I understood how she felt about things. I felt I could say the same about my mother, and my sister, and quite a number of women friends. If I could understand and sympathize with their points of view, perhaps I could do the same with Sayuri's.

Q: Why did you choose to begin the novel with a translator's preface. The book isn't really in any meaningful sense a translation, is it?

A: No, it isn't a translation; I wrote it in English. My Japanese is fine, but certainly not good enough for that! I did, however, always try to keep in mind how things would be expressed in Japanese, and to select words and phrases that I felt would convey the same tone. But the translator's preface serves quite a different purpose. In writing a novel from the perspective of a geisha, I faced a number of problems. To begin with, how would Americans understand what she was talking about? Even fundamental issues like the manner of wearing a kimono or makeup couldn't be taken for granted if the audience wasn't Japanese. When I'd written the novel in third person, the narrator had had the freedom to step away from the story for a moment to explain things whenever necessary. But it would never occur to Sayuri to explain things--that is, it wouldn't occur to her unless her audience was not Japanese. This is the role of the translator's preface, to establish that she has come to live in New York and will be telling her story for the benefit of an American audience. That's also the principle reason why the novel had to end with her coming to New York. It took me a number of tries to find a believable way of getting her there.

Q: Here's a question you've undoubtedly heard before: Are geisha prostitutes?

A: As a matter of fact, all through the years I worked on this novel, that was the first question people asked me. The answer isn't a simple yes or no. The so-called "hot springs geisha," who often entertain at resorts, are certainly prostitutes. But as Sayuri says in the novel, you have to look at how well they play the shamisen, and how much they know about tea ceremony, before you determine whether they ought properly to call themselves geisha. However, even in the geisha districts of Kyoto and Tokyo and other large cities, a certain amount of prostitution does exist. For example, all apprentice geisha go through something they call mizuage, which we might call, "deflowering." It amounts to the sale of their virginity to the highest bidder. Back in the '30s and '40s, girls went through it as young as thirteen or fourteen--certainly no later than eighteen. It's misleading not to call this prostitution, even child prostitution. So we can't say that geisha aren't prostitutes. On the other hand, after her mizuage, a first-class geisha won't make herself available to men on a nightly basis. She'll be a failure as a geisha, though, if she doesn't have a man who acts as her patron and pays her expenses. He'll keep her in an elegant style, and in exchange she'll make herself sexually available to him exclusively. Is this prostitution? Not in the exact sense we mean it in the West, where prostitutes turn "tricks" with "johns," and so on. To my mind, a first-class geisha is more analogous to a kept mistress in our culture than to a prostitute."

Chinese character for Geisha[edit]

The Chinese character 藝妓 / 艺妓 is actually a accurate written word for Geisha, so the paragraph in this article about the misuse of the Chinese character should be removed. Go to the Wikipedia's article about Geisha, and go to Japanese version, the Japanese word for Geisha in the article (also the article's heading) is written as 芸妓 instead of 芸者.

I'm not saying 芸者 is the wrong word for the term or 芸妓 is the right one, I think it depends on the region or the area where the Geisha art is developed. In the Japanese language article, it stated that in the Kyoto, Osaka (Kansai) region, they tend to use the word 芸妓; while the Tokyo area tend to use 芸者.

If you don't know Chinese, please do not speak. 藝妓 WAS correct, but the character 妓 has undergone a drastic change from a neutral term describing a woman artist to a prostitute. That's why in modern China, the political correct term for geisha is 藝伎 not 藝妓. Many people are misled by the word that they think geishas are acturally whores. That's the point of that paragraph.--wooddoo [[User_talk:Wooddoo-eng|Eppur si muove]] 07:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV warnings added for movie and book controversy sections[edit]

I added warnings for both sections because there seems to be disagreement in both.

First, the book controversy seems heavily POV against the author and cites no proof, someone should add links to or something else to back up the accusations. Also, I would suggest that even the biography by the geisha Iwasaki should not be considered neutral or authoritative, as she would obviously never say anything negative about her profession, whether it was true or not.

Secondly, the movie section seems to talk alot about supposed Japanese and Chinese uproars about certain aspects of the movie without providing proof. Please add links to newspaper articles, etc. -- 06:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are going to cite the neutrality surrounding the book controversy here, you may as well do it at the Mineko Iwasaki article as well. Not that I agree with you on that issue though, since they both seem to convey the facts as far as the issue of controversy is concerned and do not put the author in an unfair light, even though he did breach his agreement with the woman. 12:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
That's actually part of the problem, there are articles where the author says he had no such agreement. 23:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Removed the NPOV tag on the casting controversy. See this :

novacatz 00:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I came here to air my own qualms about NPOV (specifically, in the section on the book) but found this discussion already in progress.
The second paragraph of the "Controversies" section needs to be given citation or removed. Without citation, it reads like a Wikipedia editor has read Mineko's book and drawn their own conclusions then written them up here, which is of course a flagrant violation of WP:NOR. It almost amounts to "She should be very offended by how similar the novel is to her own life, except that it's all entirely different," and really just comes across as character assassination against Golden. References would fix this. Binabik80 00:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Addendum: Upon further reviewing the paragraph, especially its second to last sentence, and also reading Mineko Iwasaki, I didn't feel I could simply note my objections here and leave the article itself unchanged. I've removed the offending text here pending discussion; if someone feels very strongly about replacing in the text before consensus is reached, I would appreciate the placement of the {{OriginalResearch}} template at the head of the article. Binabik80 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
One issue that Iwasaki never mentioned in public, but became quite clear after she published her own biography, Geisha of Gion, was how closely Memoirs of a Geisha mirrored her own life. Indeed, many of the main characters all corresponded to people she knew or was close to. But such characters, nasty and bitter as they were in Memoirs of a Geisha, were actually very kind to her in real life. When Sayuri enters the okiya, she is treated like a slave. But in real life, Iwasaki was shown much love and attention, given a very privileged position. "Hatsumomo" was actually a sister that she developed a close relationship with, and "Nobu" was a lover that she cared deeply for. Though she could never have said it in public (a traditional Japanese woman would not share her inner-most, personal feelings), Golden's book would have been like reading a warped version of perfectly happy events in her past. She had opened up to Golden, and he had broken her confidence to write a one-off bestseller.
Further addendum: I received a response at Talk:Mineko Iwasaki. Binabik80 15:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Japanese Title[edit]

I know that this is an American film, but shouldn't we also include the title in Japanese as well?

Why? It's not Japanese in any way. Like The Last Samurai (which is the same in Japanese). And click the link to Japanese Wikipedia: it's just called "SAYURI". elvenscout742 15:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Separate page for book and movie[edit]

shouldn't there be a seperate page for the movie and the book since there is a lot of info on the movie Tomba 04:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As an alternative, the novel could be primary (with infobox book) and the film adaptation secondary. I recently did this for The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. --Christopherlin 05:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone want to beat me to putting up a book cover image? :-> --Christopherlin 14:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the two articles should be separated, one for the book, one for the movie. Plenty of other book/movie articles are like that and it makes finding information on either easier. Tartan 22:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


I've added a section about newspaper articles claiming that this film may be banned in China, could somebody please watch this situation. I've put in the dates and the source of this information, but it is likely to change and will need updating.

Please do not delete this section if the film is not banned, I think it is important to record that people are suggesting that the film will be banned and why. Even if it is not banned in the end, it should be recorded that there was controversy.


Blue Eyes of the Poster[edit]

Hi, Could someone explain why the woman on the movie poster has blue eyes? Thanks.

OK I understand why she has blue eyes. Are people really offended by that? That the attracive woman needs to have blue eyes?

The protagonist having blue eyes was decision by the director that was a departure from the novel. In the novel, the protagonist is supposed to have GRAY eyes, not blue.
They seem to change alternatly from grey to the very strong blue seen in the posters. She has blue/grey eyes to symbolize the water in her.

Grey-Blue water eyes, to represent the Euro-centric/Western presence in the book and the movie. Exotification of Asian cultures is presented both in the book and the film.

Title Track of Sayuri's Snow Dance[edit]

I'm looking for a track which I think is not on the soundtrack. It's the one where Sayuri danced to on stage with the snow falling around her. Deos anyone know the title of that piece? Let me know! Thanks!

Relevance of Sandra Oh Commentary?[edit]

I'm curious about the reasons for inclusion of the section under Casting Controversy, beginning with "While many people are offended by the casting, Korean-Canadian actress Sandra Oh..."

While Oh's comments are on the topic of the acceptability of inter-asian acting, she doesn't seem to make any direct reference to Memoirs of a Geisha / Sayuri. I have real doubts that this section should be in this article. Perhaps an article on inter-asian casting or acting would be better, unless Ms. Oh had something to say directly about Memoirs of a Geisha.

We also need a source for the quote above it ending "...written by whites". We also need a source for "The second character 妓 means prostitute." I'm adding citation needed tags to both these claims.

Would anyone here object to my removing the comments by Sandra Oh? Alternatively, can anyone suggest a way to make them more applicable to this article? Kasreyn 19:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The book and movie should be separate articles[edit]

Agree? The current article seems to devote so much more to the movie, that it seems it wouldn't make sense to be a sub-article. TheKillerAngel 00:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. If you look up at section 11 on here it's been mentioned. :) Tartan 10:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree but you should make the movie and not the book the default article, since more people are familar with the film. It's annoying how many posts are here on the film, all because this is the default. --Charizardpal 02:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


If any of yall read the book, you would know the plot summary. The plot summary gives way too much details about the book, especially since the ending is revealed. Therefore, it would be optimal to add a spoiler warning so that those who have not read the book can enjoy it. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor8698 (talkcontribs) 22:44, July 3, 2006

Absolutely - on an website that didn't consider itself an encycloepdia. That sort of nonsense is suitible for usenet forums and the like but certianly not an encyclopedia that considers itself a competent source of knowledge. Also note I've changed the header to "plot" to ensure this. Readers are not stupid. An article that says plot means it will talk about the book. If it didn't, we wouldn't be doing our job. In an encyclopedia, what we do is give "way too much information". That's what an encyclopedia is.-Randall Brackett 22:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that information should be cut. That's sort of missing the point. Take a look at other books that have Wikipedia entries - if they have anything that says plot, plot overview, or something on those lines, there's a spoiler warning as a courtesy (take Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets for example, you'll find one in the "plot overview"). As noted by Wikipedia:

"Not all visitors will recognize the nature of Wikipedia, which strives first to inform, spoilers or not. An article may contain analyses and background detail not available—or at least, not obvious—in the work described. Where this is the case, a spoiler notice should be made prominent as a simple courtesy."

That's exactly the point here, it's supposed to be a simple courtesy, that's it. It's proper Wikipedia formatting. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor8698 (talkcontribs)

Nor did I. As I recall, I distictly remember being strongly opposed to removal of such content. Such would be considered a invalid fiddling with wikipedia namespace. And it is perfectly obvious. When you see "Plot", what do expect to be contained within..? Its really simple. Also please see here. -Randall Brackett 01:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point that a "Plot Overview" seemingly will tell you what the story is about. However, everyone probably won't see things the way you do. What may seem so obvious to you doesn't mean everyone else will see the same. There are some people in that forum that may sympathize with your cause, however, it is proper Wikipedia formatting that a spoiler warning be included, and that talkboard are all mere opinions.

It isn't "proper wikipedia formatting". Where ever did you get that idea...? -Randall Brackett 09:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is, in essence, considering that such a "spoiler warning" is in existance, and any article that provides details about an ending fits into the definition of a spoiler.

As of right now though, I'll drop the subject, as I can see that this is a relative minor issue with the article, and I think it'd be better for us to work on differant projects than rather argue about this trivial matter. Also, this issue seems to be causing much aggitation for you, so this should be put on hold before this small matter evolves into personal attacks. However, don't consider this a dead issue with the article, as it could be revisited later.

I'm not stressed. This content really is quite inappropriate. If I ever in our conversation I directed a personal attack, I most certainly apologize for the slight. -Randall Brackett 18:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I stand by what I said, but for the reasons above I cited above we can see later.

The Metaphors and Implications in this Book[edit]

I personally believe that there are many metaphors in this book. You could take for one Chiyo/Sayuri's blue/gray eyes. Couldnt they mean more than just that she has water in her personality? Like that she is easily recgonised and that may be the reason for why she is well known, distinguisable and how the chairman found out who she was and began his secret campaign to help her.

Also such things as her father at the very start of the book talks about how he has creases and worries and goes on to how some geisha Mr Tanaka was being entertained by is buck toothed. Couldnt that be implied that Sayuri is very self conscious and knows that she is beautiful?

Please keep adding, i think i have only scratched the surface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


I just wanted to say that the "hair cut" during mizuage is the cutting of the top knot of a Maiko's hairdo. Just to be a bit more specific. ^^ -- (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Memoirs of a Geisha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)