The Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 07. 2024
- ★★★★☆|☆☆
“I can't even say I made my own mistakes. Really-one has to ask oneself-what dignity is there in that?”
Timestamps and links below the fold ↓
0:00 Intro
0:11 Summary
1:04 The Science of Storytelling by Will Storr
★★★★☆|☆☆
Find on Chareads - chareads.com/books/the-scienc...
Watch my review - • The Science of Storyte...
See on Goodreads - cha.rs/3GSVGEYTJ/gr
Buy on Book Depository - cha.rs/3GSVGEYTJ/bd
Buy on Amazon - cha.rs/3GSVGEYTJ/amzn
2:08 Dignity as a fatal flaw
3:17 Reticence and regret
4:25 Review
5:01 Comical
5:42 Democracy vs aristocracy
8:08 Class barriers
9:14 Manor house communities
10:08 What remains of the day
11:02 Goodbye
Find on Chareads - chareads.com/books/the-remain...
See on Goodreads - cha.rs/3GT4RLLZA/gr
Buy on Book Depository - cha.rs/3GT4RLLZA/bd
Buy on Amazon - cha.rs/3GT4RLLZA/amzn
🏡 chareads.com/
📚 / charlotte-dann
🌟 / charlotte_dann
His father's demise was the most heart wrenching part of this book
I admire you putting your thoughts out there and creating a space to discuss the novel, but I think you’ve majorly misunderstood it. It is definitely not nostalgic - any wise historical novel typically isn’t - and I don’t think it’s trying to put democracy vs aristocracy up for debate. The book definitely draws a conclusion on Lord Darlington: he was LITERALLY a Nazi supporter!! You can’t make a clearer villain than that.
I think it’s more of a cautionary tale and an analogy for the average human experience. We are all “butlers” (Ishiguro has confirmed this metaphor). Most of us play small roles in the world and don’t see the full extent of what our work, actions and relationships are effecting in the greater story of humanity. However, it’s dangerous to take a stance like Stevens and resign yourself to ignorance. The first person narration is meant for us to question his philosophy, not accept or admire it, and we should see by the end that it’s clearly flawed and, frankly, even delusional. On a smaller scale, there’s also the tragedy of what could have been with Miss Kenton. Because he resigned himself to such a narrow view of his own existence and devoted his entire being to his job, he failed to see the affection she had for him and ends up alone. Maybe he wants to be alone, sure, but I think we’re meant to see him as a shadow of a man and, in the absence of love, one who has not fully lived. All he has now are “the remains of the day”, because his warped worldview made him waste most of the day away.
Absolutely
I don’t see Lord Darlington as a villain. He is a genuinely tragic figure. His alleged ‘Nazism’ grows out of a real concern to help the defeated German people. Inevitably, he becomes a ‘useful idiot’ for real fascists and anti-Semites, which is his tragedy. The book makes this much clearer than the film.
I think you may see it as her misunderstanding the entire book, but i see the opposite lol. The Lord of Darlington is clearly shown as complicated. His godson literally explains what happened, he was a noble man who was being used. It was by Nazis, which makes it worse, but it started from a hope of helping the German people after we completely destroyed their economy after WW1.
And with the butler, i see it more of how a lot of people live life, doing what they think is right. But it talks about how to respond to us finding out that we may have spent years, even decades, living wrong. This creates regret and even depression as we long for what could have been. But, the book ends with a pretty well written conclusion, we can only just accept it and continue trying to live our best. Enjoy the remains of the day. I think it being first person isn't meant to actually make it easier to criticize him, but actually the opposite. It would be so hard to empathize with someone like him unless we knew his inner thoughts in this way. It's why the writing is so brilliant in my opinion. It shows you how his mind has changed his perception of the past to protect himself, which does happen a lot to people.
"meant for us to question his philosophy, not accept or admire it, and we should see by the end that it’s clearly flawed and, frankly, even delusional".
Spot on. A classic case of "unreliable narrator" (since it's told in First Person). Unfortunately, without picking up on that, a reader can easily be led down the "nostalgia" rabbit hole perspective. I've seen so many reviews where the reader came away thinking Stevens' reminiscing was pure nostalgia, and that at least it ended on a hopeful note because Stevens had learned how to banter! It's unfortunate, because once you do pick up on Steven's stubbornly delusional outlook, the story is ten times more powerful and sad, especially in the end.
I largely agree with you, except for Lord Darlington, I think he's a lot more human than simply being a Nazi supporter. I think his godson puts it well, that his nobility is far too great for this new world, his goodness is being manipulated by the people around him. This is what the American drunk leader was trying to say, the irony is that because it's told from Steven's warped and subjective perspective, it comes off as though the American 100% wrong. The problem here is that neither Darlington nor the American was in the wrong. I think the word "balance" is a key theme throughout the book, not as in the book directly refers or displays balance, but rather it displays the inbalance in ourselves as people and characters. It is very real in that sense, few people on this earth are actually balanced individuals, in fact I'd make the bold claim that they are in single digit percentages.
Darlington is the epitome of an otherwise good person being bad and or making bad decisions. He, much like Stevens', was completely caught up in the ideology of nobility and dignity, which backfired. The idea was that by acting with nobility and goodness, you would be returned the favour. While this in generaly does hold true for a decent amount of your everyday life, it is not true for everything, the world is not that simple, it's a lot more grey. Notice how Darlington only even considered anti-semistic thoughts upon becoming acquainted with a person that was a member of the blackshirts. He was ignorant of what that organisation really stood for but simply because the person was noble and intelligent, Darlington assumed they must be a good person and to trust to not question their opinions. This is how he ended up firing his jewish staff, only to feel extreme regret a year or so later, once he broke contact with this person and realised what the blackshirts stood for.
The irony here is that Darlington criticises one of his peers that democracy is highly outdated, by using Stevens' ignorance on certain political topics. Yet is in fact Darlington's ideology of noble good and dignity that is highly outdated, no more do people act on blind trust or sense of duty. Nor do people fall out of power by failing to do so, politics have become almost a game of chess and Darlington is not playing it. He's still acting in good faith and the benefit of the doubt. He's so tied up in this ideology that he makes this mistake more than once. Although fairly different and for different reasons, Darlington's and Stevens' ideologies are both self-inflamatory behaviours that are masked by a sense of good, that ultimately end up harming the people around them. They are morals that are so good, that they become unrealistic and eventually toxic, hurting not just themselves but also the people around them.
To me Darlington is clearly not a villain, but an example of someone who was unable to change with the coming times, trapped by his own ideologies. The trickiest part of growing as a person is knowing what to let go and what to cling onto. I think the book is explaining how while we may be needed to be scolded for choosing the wrong things to hold close, ultimately judgement does not help at all. If anything it leads the individual to believe they must cling onto said ideology even tighter, in order to retain a sense of identity.
I agree with your take about the comic elements. You don't hear it mentioned too often, but the narrative voice itself is often highly comic because of its pomposity and denial of the glaringly obvious. I love the incident where Miss Kenton points out that Stevens' father has replaced the Chinaman ornaments in the wrong locations. Stevens searches for extra tasks (in the library?) & contemplates his possible alternative escape routes so that he can avoid Miss Kenton (who is waiting for him outside and wishes to get Stevens to acknowledge her point.)
Insightful perspective, your talk is enjoyable and inspirational, thank you! Same as you I would love to read more Ishiguro’s book !
Very well written book indeed. I found it also through a reference in a section of another book about unreliable narrators. Thanks for the review!
Lovely, thank you
Great review!
An absolutely heartbreaking book, I'm not ashamed to admit I cried a few times reading it.
It’s nice to hear it put together like that. I just watched the movie cause the book seemed a bit daunting and it was rlly interesting!
It's weird to say but I wanted Mr. Stevens and miss Kenton to be together
Just finished reading the book. Thank you for this great review! ❤
Nice video.
"The game of butlering" lol. I read this last year, I thought it was really accomplished but I never quite warmed to it or felt sympathetic about what was lost. To your point about democracy, something you didn't mention is that the people the public elect in their stead are still meant to serve their interests. We elect them to accountable to public will, but that social contract is broken whenever there's a corrupt party in power. I think part of the tragedy of Stevens is that he worked so diligently and honestly for corrupt and dishonest people whose "dignified" work enabled the second world war.
Nice
I've recently decided to starts building a personal library. I've bought books online and some of them are cheap paperbacks. Is it worth covering a paperback with laminate plastic covers or should I just pony up and buy hard covers?
I think it depends on how you like to read. I hate the physical experience of reading hardback books so I avoid buying them, even if the paperbacks will fade over time.
Can you introduce about antihero perspective in the remain of the day ❤ 2:26
Stevens did not “sit in” on the conferences which took place. He was there in his position as a butler. And Emma Thompson was not a housemaid, she was the housekeeper. There is a huge difference.
The evening is indeed the best part of the day!
And that’s a subscribe button for you.
It appears you have not watched brilliant movie based on this novel otherwise you would'nt have skipped Miss Kenton beautifully portrayed by Emma Thomson.
Easily the most beautiful teeth I´ve ever seen!
No ceiling compared to before. So all competing - not successful until top
Personal and ancestral community lost
6:48 Must you dislike democracy. Yes it's very flawed but it's better than the alternatives. Politicians aren't more knowledgeable than you or me because they're smarter. They know more bc they have a large civil service to draw information (some of which is not released to the public) to make decision off of and even then politicians have proven to make the wrong decisions or at least bad ones over and over again because they're power hungry individuals who like getting elected not people who genuinely aspire to make better policy
I don't dislike democracy! I was more saying that these days we discard other options primarily because they're not egalitarian, not because they're less effective. And I'm all for non-partisan government advice!
Toxic appeasement of toxic behavior is not forgiveness... it is not “helping”.
Serving toxic strong men leads to an empty, unfulfilled life.
Hmmm… I don’t agree with your aristocracy vs democracy argument. And if I’m honest I think you’ve majorly misread the book.
In fact, its not even aristocracy that is up for debate. IMHO, the book makes it quite clear that autocracy (a more apt word) is not a viable way of governance. It literally chronicles the rise and fall of Nazi Germany, and Lord Darlington’s association and involvement in that doomed movement. We, the reader, with the value of hindsight, know how much of a misplaced and destructive regime that becomes. This HIGHLIGHTS how ignorant Lord Darlington is and disproves the idea that money/wealth should be a facet of governance. He is misinformed and mislead (or he is a Nazi), and the books goes to great lengths to ensure we know this. Ishiguro reminds the reader of the the American diplomat describing men such as Darlington as amateur, which knowing what we know about Nazi Germany, turns out to be a good descriptor of men like Darlington. Rich, entitled, ignorant and out of their depth. It in turn colours our impression of Stevens, as his commitment to his profession has corrupted and stunted his morality. I found the character of Stevens very frustrating, and far from likeable. We aren’t suppose to like him. He literally fires two staff members because of their religion and he is majorly complicit with Darlington’s extreme political stance.