Libra
Active Member
I think she was trying to get it out of him.Didn't work.
-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
May 2009: Kazuo Ishiguro: The Remains of the Day
- Thread starter Robert
- Start date
I think she was trying to get it out of him.Didn't work.
Robert
Active Member
I think you're right.
Comeflyaway
Member
Not sure if it's appropriate, but the descriptor (for Stevens) that came to mind throughout the entire book was "tightass." The guy couldn't loosen up for anything -- not Miss Kenton, not his father dying, not a lighthearted American, not friendly strangers. He was pretty confident that that worked for him, but geez. Come on.
Libra
Active Member
Comeflyaway
Member
What can I say, I'm eloquent :innocent:
Libra
Active Member
I feel the same frustration,like you want to grab his shoulders and shake him but then again,he grew up around these surroundings and what is a proper butler,a "great" butler.The same way his father was.
Comeflyaway
Member
That's definitely true, good point. 
Stewart
Active Member
He makes the biggest, most subtle mistake in the very last line of the book that hints that he's even more like his father than first thought.
beer good
Well-Known Member
I've been trying to put together some thoughts on this, and I might as well jot them down now or I'll never get it done.
On a whole, I thought it was a very well-written book, raising a bunch of interesting ideas, but never quite managing to capture me completely. I think part of it is the same problem that I have with a lot of first-person narratives; I love Stevens' voice for the most part, Ishiguro really captures it, but there are a few points in the story that I simply don't buy that Tightass Stevens would actually say this, to himself or to someone else. For instance:
However, like I said, I really liked the book. The parallel between Stevens the person and the big politics of the various times is subtle, but it's there; the American's speech on professionalism/realism vs amateurism/honour reflects Stevens' own issues; too much and too little ruins everything.
As a servant, he can see everything happening around him, he gets to meet all the "great" people (as shown in the scene in the little village), but he has no response to the claim that every English citizen, having fought for democracy, has the same dignity as the highest Lord... because he has none himself outside of the one reflected upon him by his "betters"? Because he never fought for anything himself - whether country, politics, or love? He's a professional. Love, by definition, is for amateurs.
That's about as coherent as I am about the book right now. Hmmm.
I watched the movie too. Thought it was a pretty faithful adaptation, keeping all aspects of the story intact rather than turn it into just the story of Kenton and Stevens, even if it was a lot less subtle about the war-related aspects (making the Jewish girls German refugees, moving the American's speech from 1923 to 1936, etc). A good film, though I'm not sure if Hopkins was right for the part; he's much more convincing as Stevens the man than as Stevens the butler.
On a whole, I thought it was a very well-written book, raising a bunch of interesting ideas, but never quite managing to capture me completely. I think part of it is the same problem that I have with a lot of first-person narratives; I love Stevens' voice for the most part, Ishiguro really captures it, but there are a few points in the story that I simply don't buy that Tightass Stevens would actually say this, to himself or to someone else. For instance:
Yes, it's a fun scene (as is the one where he's ordered to explain the birds and the bees to Lord Darlington's godson) but I don't quite buy that Stevens would narrate it. It's too obviously designed by Ishiguro to showcase their unresolved relationship for Stevens to NOT get it if he's going to mention it at all. He'd either be clueless and find it pointless (and not mention it) or realise what it is and find it unseemly (and not mention it).
However, like I said, I really liked the book. The parallel between Stevens the person and the big politics of the various times is subtle, but it's there; the American's speech on professionalism/realism vs amateurism/honour reflects Stevens' own issues; too much and too little ruins everything.
On the other hand, they contrast Stevens and Kenton with the young couple who run away from the house, naively thinking they can live on love alone. It's a balance thing.
I'm not sure that makes him an anachronism as such. It's not like sentiments like that have disappeared over the last 50 years.
To me, the payoff was the question: "Where's the dignity in that?" The novel doesn't necessarily offer any answers. Stevens lives to serve others. He's so hung up on doing things right that he never stops to ask himself if he's doing the right things.
As a servant, he can see everything happening around him, he gets to meet all the "great" people (as shown in the scene in the little village), but he has no response to the claim that every English citizen, having fought for democracy, has the same dignity as the highest Lord... because he has none himself outside of the one reflected upon him by his "betters"? Because he never fought for anything himself - whether country, politics, or love? He's a professional. Love, by definition, is for amateurs.
That's about as coherent as I am about the book right now. Hmmm.
I watched the movie too. Thought it was a pretty faithful adaptation, keeping all aspects of the story intact rather than turn it into just the story of Kenton and Stevens, even if it was a lot less subtle about the war-related aspects (making the Jewish girls German refugees, moving the American's speech from 1923 to 1936, etc). A good film, though I'm not sure if Hopkins was right for the part; he's much more convincing as Stevens the man than as Stevens the butler.
Libra
Active Member
I see what you mean beergood,so he got it when Miss Kenton was after him for the book but " He's a professional. Love, by definition, is for amateurs."?
I think also he was doing his duty when he was asked to talk to the godson about the birds and the bees,obeying an order.I don't think he would have said no to anything he was asked to do because he felt that a great butler should do exacly that.
I never knew this movie was based on the book.I passed on it when it came out,now I will have to see it and compare.Thanks.
beer good
Well-Known Member
No, that's not quite what I meant, although I'm not sure what to make of that scene. It's so obviously set up to be a scene showing how he doesn't get it - hence his surprise when she explicitly says she pictured a life with him at the end - and yet there's no point to him narrating the scene in that way if he doesn't get it. It's a scene that worked much better in the movie, where the camera is the independent narrator.
As for love being for amateurs, "amateur" means "lover."
Comeflyaway
Member
No, that's not quite what I meant, although I'm not sure what to make of that scene. It's so obviously set up to be a scene showing how he doesn't get it - hence his surprise when she explicitly says she pictured a life with him at the end - and yet there's no point to him narrating the scene in that way if he doesn't get it. It's a scene that worked much better in the movie, where the camera is the independent narrator.
As for love being for amateurs, "amateur" means "lover."
It's a really astute point that you've made. I feel like you've articulated something that's been on the periphery of my thoughts on this whole book, and first person accounts in general. Good observation
Libra
Active Member
No, that's not quite what I meant, although I'm not sure what to make of that scene. It's so obviously set up to be a scene showing how he doesn't get it - hence his surprise when she explicitly says she pictured a life with him at the end - and yet there's no point to him narrating the scene in that way if he doesn't get it. It's a scene that worked much better in the movie, where the camera is the independent narrator.
As for love being for amateurs, "amateur" means "lover."
Like you said,there are not many clear answers in the book and I have been trying to understand or find some meaning ,if there was any,about their relationship.He constantly talks about her letter in the end,and does drive all the way there to see her,like he had some hope of her returning to work.From one side he was like a robot with no "feelings" and sometimes you get a glimpse of a "maybe he does have feelings for this woman" and his professionalism does not allow it to come forth,and that is where it becomes confusing and will remain that way for me.
Teasing her all the time too,I find is another way of an emotion held back and this was his only way to bring it out,cruel yes,but again,he had a father the same way.
It's a really astute point that you've made. I feel like you've articulated something that's been on the periphery of my thoughts on this whole book, and first person accounts in general. Good observation
That is my favorite part of these book discussions,you see others point of view and some things just click.
Libra
Active Member
True,it seems it's the only way he knows though,and does not see that he is missing out on those true pleasures.
The point you make about page 43 is interesting. In fact in that class being rude to someone of your own status may or may not have repercussions, but being rude to a servant was very frowned upon. Why? Because it was recognised that they couldn't reciprocate for fear of loosing their homes and jobs.