We could always let the genre itself catch our attention from the very beginning. In "The Rise of the novel" , Ian Watt associated "formal realism" with jury trial in modern society for its emphasis on "individualism" and "uniqueness" as the only base and reference of any of our judgement on a stranger. As a writer, Chiu had the clear self-awareness of what she was dealing with. She talked about lesbian sexuality, about the rapture between physique and spirituality, the cleavage between "we" and "the others", and, perhaps that's why she chose the epistolary genre with a touch of formal-realism style, thus giving her characters and herself a fair trial, giving the right of judgement to her readers. We shall always remember this as a fact when we try to look into her novel.
She provides us with two pairs of completely different discursive imagination of "lesbian sexuality". I would rather say that there are two pairs of dichotomy. One is "positive" and "passive", the other is "westerness " and "easterness", by depicting which, she actually depicted two kinds of reality: the inevitable unevenness inside lesbianism, and the epistemological and ontological differences between "lesbian sexuality " in the west and the east. I'm not saying that Chiu was an orientalist or a supporter of the gender dichotomy based on "logocentrism". In contrast, she was exactly the opposites of both groups.
She mentioned from the very beginning, that "homosexuallism only has its significance when politics was the premise." I interpreted this as an evidence that the lesbianism in her novel is not the "lesbianism" in texual sense, but the "lesbianism" in cultural sense. That is to say, it's always about the uneven power relation between different gender, different sexual orientation, and different sexuality.
To give the full picture of this uneven power relation between lesbianism and heterosexiualism, Chiu represents the chaotic usage of the discourse in her picture of lesbian sexuality. We are not discussing on "terms" or "jargon", but a discourse system borrowed from the traditional heterosexual relationship. For instance, he narrator (also the protagonist)says that "Laurence enters me", that "I hate my nature and essence, hate my furious passion, hate my strong positiveness, hate the truth that I'm always yearning for you, that I always need you, hate that I am possessive over you, and I hate my ‘masculinity’ （This hatred forces me to become 'feminine'）" .
On the other hand, Chiu attempted to breach the rule of that discursive system by telling us what does "the overwhelming yearning of one human body for another" mean, and from her point of view, it means that under the overwhelming yearning, there's no difference between "the yearning of one woman for another", and "the yearning of a man for a woman". She tried to solve problem of the uneven and the injustice with poetic diction, yet in the world of literature. We cannot judge her on that. All in all, it is not her responsibility, or any other writer's responsibility to provide a ready-made solution to problems in the real world.
I'd like to quoate her words (perhaps from Habermas) once again： “Always maintain the truthfulness of living. Only when we decided to seek the living condition of this truthfulness, can we started to learn what does it mean 'to live' ”.