Ouyang Yu Bilingual Blog

 This is a hard question, and it deserves a clear, unsentimental answer. The short version is:  it’s not mainly about “Asian writers being worse,” and it’s not simply about racism either. It’s about power, gatekeeping norms, language expectations, and cultural comfort.  In Australia these factors stack up in ways that disproportionately affect writers of Chinese background. Below is the honest breakdown. 1. Publishing in Australia is culturally conservative (even when it claims diversity) Australian publishing is  small, risk-averse, and centrally gatekept . A handful of editors, prize judges, reviewers, and university-linked tastemakers largely decide what is “publishable” or “important.” They tend to favour: Familiar narrative structures A recognisably “Australian” voice Themes that fit existing national conversations Writers who fall outside this comfort zone face a higher rejection rate—not because their work lacks merit, but because it’s harder to  place . ...

  Asian writers in Australia often face high rejection rates due to a deeply rooted, persisting, and often unconscious, privileging of Anglo-Celtic, white-centric perspectives in the publishing industry . Historical, structural, and cultural barriers, including systemic racism and the marginalization of Asian-Australian narratives, contribute to this exclusionary environment, which can make it difficult for diverse voices to find a foothold.   Key reasons identified include: Systemic Bias and "White Australia" Policy Legacy :  The Australian publishing scene is heavily influenced by a history of excluding non-white voices, with pressures to maintain Anglo-Celtic cultural dominance still present. This often results in a "multicultural cringe" where diverse stories are undervalued. "Soft" Racism and Patronizing Attitudes :  Even when not overtly racist, some editors and readers hold prejudiced, patronizing views that exclude Asian-Australian experiences, oft...

  Literary rejection acts as a fundamental mechanism in maintaining Western literary hegemony by defining, preserving, and policing the boundaries of the "canon." By controlling which narratives, styles, and authors are considered "universal" or "classic," Western-centric institutions (publishing, academia, critics) systematically exclude or marginalize non-Western, female, and minority voices, labeling them as regional, political, or subpar .   Mechanisms of Hegemonic Rejection The Myth of Universality:  Western hegemony often rests on the claim that its literature embodies universal human values. Works that do not adhere to European, Enlightenment-based aesthetics are rejected as "too specialized" or "parochial". Marginalization of Non-Western Authors:  Writers like Rabindranath Tagore, Lu Xun, or Zora Neale Hurston have historically been neglected, not for lack of literary merit, but because their works did not fit the established, o...

  Western literary hegemony refers to  the dominance of European and North American literature, values, and critical frameworks as the universal standard, often marginalizing non-Western perspectives . Rooted in colonial history and perpetuated through education, publishing, and canon formation, this cultural supremacy presents Western viewpoints as natural, shaping global literary consumption and academic discourse.   Key aspects of western literary hegemony include: Canon Formation :  The systematic elevation of European authors (the "Western canon") as superior, universal literature. Cultural Imperialism :  The spread of Western languages (English, French, Spanish) and literary forms (e.g., the novel) often at the expense of indigenous literary traditions. Internalization :  Subordinate cultures often adopt Western, or "hegemonic," viewpoints as the norm, internalizing them through educational systems. Academic Dominance :  Literary journals, awards...