Yang/Young//杨 is a brand-new Gen-Z coming-of-age story with a Kiwi-Asian twist, part of Auckland Theatre Company’s Here & Now Festival. Co-writer Sherry Zhang reflects on writing her first play. 

I never thought I’d write a play. In a scene that puts High School Musical’s Troy Bolton to shame, I chose the rowing team over the high school musical in Year 12. Maybe no one really sets out to write a play. There are far superior… sexier writing jobs out there. Author, poet, journalist, copywriter? Hot. But a playwright? Messy, emotional creatures! 

Nuanzhi Zheng, my co-writer, is to blame. Though to be honest, I don’t think she ever set out to write a play either. 

I met her three years ago participating in the 2017 season of Other [chinese], a live documentary theatre show at Q Theatre on being Chinese in Aotearoa. We both thought the other was hilarious. We liked the same films – Lady Bird and Easy A. We bonded over the painful and tender connections we held with our mothers. As these are apparently the only three things needed to cement a friendship, we ended up hanging out even after the show ended. 

As we turned 20, we couldn’t stop overanalysing our own coming of age, and the fact we never saw faces like ours, voices like ours or stories like ours reflected back. 

So we started dreaming up the characters who later become Qiu Ju Yang and Poppy Young, our darling protagonists of Yang/Young/杨. We drew outfits for them. Made playlists for them. We interviewed our friends and asked them about their time in high school. We split Qiu Ju and Poppy between us, so our own distinct storytelling style became embedded in each character’s voice. It’s your classic coming-of-age story, but from a queer, Chinese-New Zealander lens, and intersected with surreal fantasy elements – two separate but intertwining storylines, with family and friendship at their core.  

At first Qiu Ju seems like your typical “perfect” Chinese daughter. She’s quiet, obedient, takes care of her grandma and plays the clarinet in the school orchestra. But she’s wrestling with her sexuality, her desires for something else and frustrations at being boxed in. It’s not your usual coming out story, because not all of us can Love, Simon it: hug our parents and be chill. It’s not about finding the perfect girl to fix everything, but realising you’ve always been enough. 

Poppy, on the other hand, is your classic “it” girl. She’s popular, dating the golden boy, and a spoken-word poet. As an ex-spoken-word poet, I can’t imagine what’s more cream of the crop when it comes to high school social hierarchy. However, when her boyfriend breaks up with her, she starts spiralling and does the terrible teenage things we’ve all done when heartbroken. And through her search for validation and connection, she finds it at home where it’s always been. 

Despite our broken smattering of Mandarin and Shanghainese, we knew our story needed to be trilingual. To weave in between the languages, just like the way our families raised us in their mother tongue in Tāmaki Makaurau. Some of the scenes we wrote separately in our bedrooms. Other scenes were loud yelling and devising affairs, us bantering off each other. 

Writing can often feel lonely, but co-writing meant it always felt like a conversation. We were generous and constructive in the criticism of each other’s writing. I could trust Nuanzhi to tell me if a line didn’t land right, wasn’t funny, or just kinda redundant. And boy, did she. Our writing partnership didn’t just appear from day one. It took a year of not writing and just eating at BBQ Duck Cafe, talking about our teenage angst, and going to art together to figure it out.

In the four years since we started writing the play, a lot has changed. 

At first, it was going to be a super-small, low-budget, two-person show. All other characters were represented by props. We’re both still surprised Timothée Chalamet is now a real boy, rather than a face on a broomstick. Our dramaturg Nathan Joe became our director. Our storytelling family grew larger, with a cast of gorgeous, funny, warm and intelligent young actors brought on by Auckland Theatre Company’s Here & Now Festival. We’ve got lighting, sound, design and stage managers! 

And in those four years, the landscape for Asian creatives has also changed. 

Proudly Asian Theatre has always been pushing for Asian storytelling excellence. They were the ones who advocated for us to be in the room with ATC, and their collaboration with ATC on Single Asian Female brought us one of the first east Asian main-stage plays in Auckland a few months ago.

Creamerie graced our TV screens. We finally got our first Filipino nurse on Shortland Street. Recently, the first anthology of Asian New Zealand writing, A Clear Dawn, was released. The tide is turning, and we’ve had enough of being side characters. 

Look, even I’ve come a long way. When I was five, I only wrote stories about white girls with blonde hair. Because that’s what I thought stories were. But in the last four years, we’ve also had a global pandemic. My grandma passed away in China, and I couldn’t attend her funeral due to travel restrictions. Anti-Asian hate has been on the rise, from everyday racism to real violence. There are questions within the community about colourism, privilege, racism and queerphobia. 

There are so many voices, stories and perspectives. There is so much more mahi to be done. 

It’s been overwhelming watching a world we’ve been chipping away at for the last few years come alive. Sure, we thought we were funny. But it’s another thing sharing it with our cast and crew, and seeing them laugh, grow quiet, cry, and laugh again from our words. It’s going to be so much seeing a room of strangers resonate with our stories of growing up in Tāmaki Makaurau.  

The play is a mash-up of our diary entries, dreams, fears, fantasies and hopes for our generation and the next. It’s a love letter to our parents and grandparents who raised us. And it’s a reckoning of our whakapapa, our ancestors, who we’ll always hold in our storytelling. 

It’s a celebration of our community. Giving aroha to our best messy teenage selves. 

Sherry Zhang is co-writer of Yang/Young/杨, part of Auckland Theatre Company’s Here & Now Festival, on at Basement Theatre July 23-30.

The prominent opponent of NZ’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic demanded changes and deletions to a Spinoff commentary by Wiles, while insisting he was making no ‘attempt to suppress genuine public scientific criticism’.

Spinoff journalism is made possible thanks to support from members. Click here to learn more.

Simon Thornley, the leader of New Zealand’s Covid-19 “Plan B” group, which has vigorously opposed New Zealand’s pandemic response and railed against “Covid obsession”, has threatened legal action against Siouxsie Wiles and The Spinoff in relation to an opinion piece published in May. 

Lawyers acting for Thornley, a University of Auckland academic, wrote on May 21 alleging that an article by Wiles, headlined “There’s a lot of vaccine BS around. Here’s why I won’t be debunking it”, was a “defamatory publication”. 

In the article, Wiles, also an academic at the University of Auckland, addresses “all the ‘fake news’ about vaccines that’s floating around” and notes research which suggests debunking specific claims can be counterproductive.

Thornley is mentioned once in the piece, in reference to his connection to the group Nga Kaitiaki Tuku Iho Inc (NKTI), which recently took the New Zealand government to court to try to stop the Covid-19 vaccine rollout. “Simon Thornley of the Plan B group, about whom I’ve written before,” she said, “has given evidence in support of the group trying to halt the rollout.”

Thornley, a senior lecturer in epidemiology and biostatistics, does not dispute the fact of his evidence in support of the action led by Nelson lawyer Sue Grey. 

“Although, viewed in isolation, this reference to Dr Thornley might appear innocuous, when considered within the broader context of Associate Professor Wiles’ article, and prior public comments she has made in respect of our client, we consider the articles to be clearly defamatory,” Thornley’s lawyers wrote.

“The articles at least infer that our client’s evidence in support of NKTI’s court proceedings constituted disinformation, if not imply that Dr Thornley is responsible more broadly for spreading or promoting disinformation.”

The letter went on to demand a series of corrections to the article, including a statement that “There is no suggestion that our client is producing or promoting ‘disinformation’”. It further stated: “The reference to Dr Thornley’s evidential support for NKTI’s proceedings should also be removed from the articles.” It required The Spinoff to “urgently confirm … that the reference to Dr Thornley in the articles will be deleted and that the above correction will be published at the bottom of the articles”.

Despite the demands, Thornley’s lawyer urged that “this letter should not be taken in any way as an attempt to suppress genuine public scientific criticism and debate”. 

The Spinoff defended Wiles’ commentary in a letter from its own lawyers on May 26, noting that it “stands by the article, and does not consider that the publication of the proposed ‘correction’ is appropriate. It considers that the appropriate manner for Dr Thornley to respond to Associate Professor Wiles’ opinion is through continued public debate, addressing the concerns that she has raised.”

Thornley’s lawyer responded in turn on June 21, saying: “Our client is not interested in engaging in a debate as to whether or not the article in question was defamatory. However, for the avoidance of any doubt, and despite the labels applied, we do not accept that the defamatory content of the article is saved by the defences of truth, honest opinion or public interest, or on any other basis.”

It added: “Your client’s position is disappointing, but as made clear in our letter of May 21, our client’s primary purpose was to place Associate Professor Wiles, your client, and NZME [publisher of the Herald, which republished the article under a copy-sharing agreement] on notice that continuing publication of defamatory references to him will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate legal action. That remains the position.”

In an interview for this story, Wiles said she stood by the reference to Thornley in her original piece and her previous arguments in relation to Plan B.

“I believe his arguments are wrong and poorly made, and I believe his decision to give evidence in support of the group seeking to stop the vaccine rollout was irresponsible and provides succour to those who peddle disinformation.”

Wiles said she did not resile from her earlier contention that he and the Plan B group have “cherry picked” evidence. “I’ve consistently argued that in their opposition to lockdowns last year, Plan B was highly selective in its use of evidence, as it was in its continuing attacks on the elimination strategy. The same cherry picking and use of questionable evidence is there to see too in Thornley’s most recent claims around death rates from Covid-19. His focus on the average IFR [infection fatality ratio] relies on an author who has been roundly criticised, while ignoring a range of other research. Even the focus on the IFR overlooks the wider impact of infection, such as Long Covid. The data on Long Covid shows just what a serious disease it is.”

Wiles added: “I have to say it is quite staggering, too, that Simon Thornley should deploy lawyers to send legal threats, especially given his avowed support for free speech.” 

Despite the widespread criticisms of Thornley and Plan B from public health experts and other commentators, it was notable that she was apparently the only one to be in receipt of a legal threat, said Wiles. 

A number of other individuals have targeted Wiles given her high profile in the New Zealand Covid response. “There seem to be a lot of people who don’t want me to communicate about the pandemic. Thornley’s legal threat comes on top of an Official Information Act request by a guy in Dunedin who thinks I’m lying about my PhD, the person who lodged a complaint with my employer about what they see as my ‘unethical conduct’, and the many nasty and abusive emails, phone calls, texts and social media messages. It’s exhausting and depressing.” 

It felt to Wiles like “part of a pattern of harassment that I seem to be the only person receiving”.

Thornley was approached for this story but refused an interview. “I don’t want to discuss it sorry, I don’t want to comment,” he said in a phone call.

The University of Auckland declined to comment on the legal letter, however a spokesperson said: “The University of Auckland supports our academics in their role as critic and conscience of society and we respect academic freedom and freedom of speech based on academic expertise.”

Wiles was named New Zealander of the Year in 2021 and was earlier this month given the Critic and Conscience Prize, awarded to support academics who engage in important public debate.

In March, an open letter from the group Fight Against Conspiracy Theories, signed by Wiles, urged the Plan B group to disassociate itself from Voices for Freedom, a group which opposes vaccines and other measures such as mask wearing, and, as reported by Stuff, “is known to spread conspiracy theories and encourage its followers to ignore public health guidelines”.

Despite VFF’s involvement in the dissemination of conspiracy theories, including the distribution of flyers containing misinformation and conspiratorial claims, Thornley was a keynote speaker at a March event held by VFF, and VFF members appeared on a Covid Plan B webinar in December. 

Thornley told Stuff that Plan B and VFF agreed on some issues and differed on others. Both criticised the government’s “excessive response” to Covid-19, but “we don’t engage in conspiracy theories. We just share science. They share science as well. There is certainly some scientific stuff on their page … but I can’t take responsibility for what this group promotes.”

Michael Baker, an epidemiologist from the University of Otago, has strongly criticised Thornley’s ideas. He has not received any legal letters, and nor has Stuff, which published Baker’s remarks as part of an extended feature on Thornley and his critics.

“I have not heard of any academic debates in NZ resulting in legal action for defamation,” Baker said. “Such actions, if common, could have a chilling effect on public debate that would be very undesirable.”

In its letter of June, Thornley’s lawyer said that despite Wiles and The Spinoff being singled out, he “does take issue” with other articles published about him, but did not feel the need to reply to them with a legal letter because “others have effectively responded elsewhere”. A single reference is made to bear this out: a video posted by a Christchurch-based doctor whose claims about Covid-19 tests have been assessed as “misleading” by an Agence France-Presse fact check.