Does this book belong to historical fiction or political satire?

[Chizioboli]

This is purely a historical fiction book, given its delicate description of all that transpired between Korea and Japanese in the latter's search for independence

[WADonnelly]

I think that this is much more a piece of historical fiction than a piece of political satire but there is nothing stopping it from being both.

[Brainiac140]

I don't see how comedy is related to this book. It's 100 percent historical fiction. There's absolutely nothing satirical about it.

[Kennedy NC]

This book is certainly a historical fiction and the plot is too grim to belong to a satire.

[Jessica045]

As much as I would like to categorize the book as purely historical fiction, I would also say that it had elements of political satire in it. Some events that the book were meant to ridicule and criticize the activities of politicians. So, I will say that it was 75% historical fiction and 25% political satire.

[Suzer6440 xyz]

I honestly feel that this book can be both, however I lean more toward it being historical fiction if I had to pick one. There are too much history of Korea for it not to be this kind of genre

[Francis Aderogbin]

The book had some contents related to satire, but it contained more historical events. It is also politically inclined. So I will say it is more of historical fiction than political satire.

[jaym_tan]

I didn't find any hint of satire in the book, there were a lot of important topics raised though like how the society of Korea worked in that day, and their struggle for independence from Japan.

[Nferdi20]

The book is definitely historical fiction; however, it does have touches of Menippean satire because of class differences. The lower class rejects and makes fun of the ruling class's attitudes because of their views on women's roles in marriage and society and the arrogance and racism towards working poor and peasants.

[Nferdi20]

In my opinion, the book is definitely more historical fiction than satire. I did not get the sense as I read through the story that it was making fun of anyone or anything politically. The story was merely depicting how Korea struggled and fought to save its culture.

[Gabriella H]

I think the vanished can mainly be categorized as historical fiction. However, it is also a political satire, as there were scenes that ridiculed the then-Korean royal family and even the invading country, Japan.

[Shridhar Suryawanshi]

Well, in my opinion, the book it is both historical fiction and a political satire. Because as we all know, history is loaded with politics. I mean, I don't think the original purpose was to go toward politics, but it just happened.

[Obi Egbuniwe]

One does not necessarily exempt the other. Both genes can gleefully coexist and they do here. Certain scenes that are intended to show the excesses of the ruling class are present but aren't overtly comedic. I would still call it soft satire.

[ELSETH MAEVE]

I think that it is a historical fiction. Thing is that it is hard for history to survive without a bit of politics. That tiny bit of politics is meant to give structure to the story.

[Mrunal Tikekar]

I did not think it was a satire. The connections to other countries seemed to be part of the historical fiction narrative. Satire might have been unintentional.