I will say that I do like this style of writing - developing characters and plot through glimpses at the past. I'm sure there's a technical term for it somewhere. It always makes me think I need to go back and re-read the beginning of the book to see if I "missed" anything on the first pass.
As for the actual storyline, meh. I wasn't that impressed. Boy meets girl, boy looses girl, boy never realizes he ever had the girl because he's so obsessed with the silver being polished correctly.
Stevens seems a perplexing dichotomy or even an oxymoron. He has such deep intellectual thoughts on abstract ideas (dignity, banter, greatness) but lives his whole life, basically, without giving any thought to his interpersonal realtionships or to the greater moral questions that were obviously being discussed all around him by Lord Darlington et al. In my opinion, a very ell developed character who I just don't like very much.
I liked Miss Kenton's character, I think she showed some very human flaws and strengths, along with some realistic social awkwardness.
All in all, the book left me wanting a little more closurebetween Kenton and Stevens. However, Stevens being Stevens, there could be no more closure than what was offered. Well written, well developed characters, just not my favorite plot.
Okay, I finally finished it. Two things about this book stand out in my mind.
1. The recurring role of the ability to banter and offer witticisms on demand. Is this an attempt to illustrate how programmed and inflexible Stevens is? That he has become so premeditated that he is incapable of bantering (without practicing it in advance, at least)?
2. The discussion about the inability of the masses to determine governmental policies or make important decisions. This is still something we talk about a lot in political science. Should we depend on an ill-informed, apathetic public to make decisions for us or should we leave it to the hands of better educated, better informed politicians? It has been shown that dictatorships perform better in economic downturns than democracies because they are able to act decisively and make unpopular decisions for the long run when the elected officials are too afraid of losing votes. What do you think Ishiguro would say about this?
Otherwise, ditto on most of your comments. Stevens- "eh". Miss Kenton seemed a bit eratic to me. I think it would be difficult for anyone to figure her out, let alone someone as dense as Stevens. Overall, probably not a keeper, sorry Angie.
I finally got around to watching the movie, or at least, the first half hour of the movie. It has a very good cast, with Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, Hugh Grant, and other fine British actors/actresses. However, that does not save a dull story line. I just couldn't get into it. So, after a half hour I determined that enough was enough and stopped watching it. Oh well.
5 comments:
on pg 75, initial thoughts:
-hurry up the plot, you damn Brits!
-i should probably read up on some 1920-1940 european history
I will say that I do like this style of writing - developing characters and plot through glimpses at the past. I'm sure there's a technical term for it somewhere. It always makes me think I need to go back and re-read the beginning of the book to see if I "missed" anything on the first pass.
As for the actual storyline, meh. I wasn't that impressed. Boy meets girl, boy looses girl, boy never realizes he ever had the girl because he's so obsessed with the silver being polished correctly.
Stevens seems a perplexing dichotomy or even an oxymoron. He has such deep intellectual thoughts on abstract ideas (dignity, banter, greatness) but lives his whole life, basically, without giving any thought to his interpersonal realtionships or to the greater moral questions that were obviously being discussed all around him by Lord Darlington et al. In my opinion, a very ell developed character who I just don't like very much.
I liked Miss Kenton's character, I think she showed some very human flaws and strengths, along with some realistic social awkwardness.
All in all, the book left me wanting a little more closurebetween Kenton and Stevens. However, Stevens being Stevens, there could be no more closure than what was offered. Well written, well developed characters, just not my favorite plot.
On pg 75, I agree, hurry up the plot!! No wish to have read more european history. However, I remember why I didn't remember reading this book...
Okay, I finally finished it. Two things about this book stand out in my mind.
1. The recurring role of the ability to banter and offer witticisms on demand. Is this an attempt to illustrate how programmed and inflexible Stevens is? That he has become so premeditated that he is incapable of bantering (without practicing it in advance, at least)?
2. The discussion about the inability of the masses to determine governmental policies or make important decisions. This is still something we talk about a lot in political science. Should we depend on an ill-informed, apathetic public to make decisions for us or should we leave it to the hands of better educated, better informed politicians? It has been shown that dictatorships perform better in economic downturns than democracies because they are able to act decisively and make unpopular decisions for the long run when the elected officials are too afraid of losing votes. What do you think Ishiguro would say about this?
Otherwise, ditto on most of your comments. Stevens- "eh". Miss Kenton seemed a bit eratic to me. I think it would be difficult for anyone to figure her out, let alone someone as dense as Stevens. Overall, probably not a keeper, sorry Angie.
I finally got around to watching the movie, or at least, the first half hour of the movie. It has a very good cast, with Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, Hugh Grant, and other fine British actors/actresses. However, that does not save a dull story line. I just couldn't get into it. So, after a half hour I determined that enough was enough and stopped watching it. Oh well.
Post a Comment