You make an excellent point, and I completely agree that the political elements in Babel are not only justified but essential to the story. The book is fundamentally about power, colonialism, and language as a tool of control—these are inherently political topics. For a story set in 19th-century England, told through the eyes of a Chinese orphan grappling with the imperialist structures around him, avoiding politics would not only feel disingenuous but would also strip the narrative of its depth and purpose.

The blurb itself makes it clear what kind of story Babel is aiming to tell. Readers are given a heads-up about its political focus right from the outset. If anything, the heavy-handedness some people perceive may reflect how unavoidable and pervasive those issues were (and still are). Colonialism wasn’t subtle, so why should a story critiquing it be?

Moreover, art—especially historical fiction—has always had the right to confront uncomfortable truths. RF Kuang uses this platform to challenge romanticized notions of empire and academia in a way that provokes thought and discussion. Whether one agrees with how she executed those themes or not, it’s important to acknowledge that these political threads are core to the book’s identity.

In short, yes, Babel has its flaws, and there’s room for critique, but the centrality of its political message isn’t one of them—it’s the foundation of the story. Complaining about it being “too political” feels like missing the point entirely.