I.
I’ve read another of Ishiguro’s works When We Were Orphans and when I did so, not only did I consider it to be my favorite of his work, but that the protagonist in particular was memorable to me with his narration that resembled simply how I speak in my everyday (in English, anyways). That’s thing I enjoy of both When We Were Orphans and Remains of the Day so color me surprised, mildly amused, too, to find the criticism most often levied against these two novels are it’s droll narration (lesser so with Remains of the Day as the style lends well to the characterization of Stevens— but it does so for Banks as well!). I thought— “Is that so?” because then I am doomed, and so is my literary career before it has even begun.
I like about his novels— he likes this theme, clearly, the fallibility of memory, of the retired worker. Aging butler, aging artist, retired detective, a robot finished with her purpose, . Applies less in the case of Klara, who happens still to be young when the novel ends, but the question aways in their epilogues is “Was it worth it? Was my life worthwhile?” Now this part applies to all, is the question; “Have I fulfilled my purpose?” and “Now what?” Artist is a fucking boring book. I can forgive it. It’s an early work. Though Ishiguro wrote Remains of the Day only three years later, so perhaps I’m being too lenient. And all the praise for Klara and the Sun wouldn’t be so perplexing if it were not for such the poor reception of Orphans, written two decades prior to Klara, had received. Klara’s narration and goals seem simply so… simplistic, and I hate to say childish because that’s exactly what I liked about Orphans, but Christopher is delusional! To consider too that Klara is delusional seems unkind, and dismissive of the fact the novel takes place in a world separate from hours.
II.
Remains’ dry and overly formal narration is noted upon in The Art of Fiction, what I’m reading now, and with praise for it’s ability to characterize the protagonist (that’s what I’ve been saying!)— I find it a bit funny this style is actually so noteworthy at all. I had thought when reading it, “Ah, a character that speaks like me!” Orphans was blasted for it’s narrator. But I like Christopher, my favorite Ishiguro protagonist. The library hasn’t every Ishiguro novel but I intend to read every volume that there happens to be.
III.
I thought more on the Buried Giant (that I finished this morning); it’s like allegory; mythology. It does well in aesthetics. It’s characters, I suppose; archetypes. Yet when Ishiguro does not let his narration be representative of character (and in Orphans and Remains, it’s quite endearing), it’s quite dull. This is reasoning for my immense dislike of Artist of the Floating World due to that it does not feel like the narrator’s words but through a veil of translation, even if originally the novel was written in English, it feels like a translation— in that it feels like a whisper. My issue with Klara is a matter of aesthetics. In that regard, The Buried Giant and The Remains are aesthetically complete works— then again, aesthetics are personal to the specific reader. I’d argue even Artist accomplishes aesthetically something quite solid. I have yet to formulate my thoughts on that of Orphan, as the contrast of the Orient and Occident are completely intentional.
So that’s more of my mulling over Ishiguro. Perhaps I’ll remember fondly my third year of junior high school as that in which I thought too much about Ishiguro novels instead of anything actually relevant to my immediate life.