the legacy of bachelor Japanism is, and Reed has it right, that “the idea of Japan as antipode queers fundamental Western hierarchies of truth, propriety, and representation” (p. 294), then that important job has been taken over by the current culture-wide assault on gender and sexual canards by movements both in and outside Japanophilic circles, indeed everywhere, including state legislatures debating admission to public restrooms. There is no need now for bachelors to superintend our reception of things Japanese, which is a good thing because there are no more bachelors. We are called other names now. There are things in this book, of course, that I wish Reed had done better, or not at all. I would like to think there might have been a way to get around the problem of inconsistent Japanese names and terms other than leaving them the way Reed inherited them. I not am sure his criticism of Isabella Stewart Gardner and her “Buddha Room” gallery is necessary, especially after he had had his go at the MFA. Reed’s impatience with “‘Bachelor’ sister” Amy Lowell’s 1917 prose poem “Guns as Keys: And the Great Gate Swings” seems a bit gratuitous. His concluding pages, which introduce the new idea of how sexual identity is presently modeled as an ethnicity, is on target but out of place. But these faults are minor and all are trumped by Reed’s relentless and welcome redress of stubborn, long-lived errors in art historiography. Even more valuable is his sober refl ection from a distance on what bachelor Japanism did in making the messy, intertwined history of aesthetics and sexuality in the West messier still, sometimes to the good and sometimes not. This book is pertinent reading in the fi eld of Japan studies for exactly that. We Japanists today, bachelor or not (the correct answer is “not”), continue to discover and invent an exceptional Japan, and our still occasionally errant selves, at the same time.

中文翻译：

---

在当代日本辩论宅男：历史视角和新视野编辑。作者：Patrick W. Galbraith、Thiam Huat Kam、Björn-Ole Kamm

单身日本主义的遗产是，里德说得对，“日本作为对立面的想法酷儿了西方关于真理、礼节和代表的基本等级制度”（第 294 页），然后这项重要的工作已被当前的亲日圈内外的运动对性别和性丑闻的文化范围内的攻击，实际上无处不在，包括州立法机构就公共厕所的准入进行辩论。现在不需要单身汉来监督我们对日本东西的接受，这是一件好事，因为没有更多的单身汉。我们现在被称为其他名称。当然，这本书中有些东西我希望 Reed 做得更好，或者根本没有。我想可能有一种方法可以解决日本名称和术语不一致的问题，而不是让它们像 Reed 继承的那样。我不确定他对伊莎贝拉·斯图尔特·加德纳 (Isabella Stewart Gardner) 和她的“佛堂”画廊的批评是否有必要，尤其是在他去了 MFA 之后。里德对“‘学士’姐姐”艾米·洛厄尔 1917 年的散文诗“枪作为钥匙：以及大门的摆动”的不耐烦似乎有点无缘无故。他的最后几页介绍了目前如何将性身份建模为一个种族的新想法，这是有针对性的，但不合时宜。但这些错误都是次要的，所有这些都被里德对艺术史学中顽固的、长期存在的错误的无情和受欢迎的纠正所压倒。更有价值的是他从远处冷静地反思了单身日本主义在制造混乱时所做的事情，西方的美学和性史交织在一起，梅赛尔仍然存在，有时向善，有时不向往。这本书正是在日本研究领域中的相关阅读。我们今天的日本人，无论是否单身（正确答案是“不是”），继续发现和创造一个特殊的日本，同时我们仍然偶尔会犯错。