Having some old
sentiments for Scandinavia and feeling European I particularly respect the
Nobel Prize awards. The one that commands most of my attention is the
Literature Prize. There is usually some controversy regarded the Nobel
Foundation choices and that how it is this year as well.
It has been only
two or three weeks ago that the Nobel prize was awarded to Kazuo Ishiguro. It
was given to the person
"who, in novels of great emotional
force, has uncovered the abyss beneath our illusory sense of connection with
the world".
Is the author worthy
the honour that was bestowed on him? Apparently, he himself, at first, could
not believe the news about this year’s literary verdict. It may only mean that
he is a modest man. This is what I have assumed and decided to find out by
myself what kind of a writer Ishiguro is. Frankly, this is the time that I
heard his name for the first time. I decided it is the time to catch up and
educate myself. Going through Wikipedia, I relised that I actually know and
like the film based on one of his novels – The Remains of the Day. However, it
did not seem like a Nobel Prize candidate or even the Man Booker Prize winner
the book actually received many years ago. I knew the
story pretty well, but film versions and originals very a lot, so I was happy to
read the book. It is a smooth book, one could say an old-fashioned kind of a book.
It could not be anything else as it is written in the first person and the
narrator is a model English butler. Very
proper language without any colloquialisms and with good vocabulary the
narrator is very proud of. Reading the pages, I almost heard a well measured
voice of a traditionalist. A bit toffee-nosed, but in an endearing way. I like
the language, even if I realise that it may be considered too proper and as
such criticised as not literary enough. I read some critical comments regarding
the form of Ishiguro books not being experimental enough. I am not quite sure
why it has to be.
Yesterday, I heard
that the film The Remains of the Day is a “girls film”. This stirred some
feelings in me I did not like. I typically
respect the judgement of the person who expressed this view, so it was
disturbing. For some reason a girl’s kind of film seems to me to be a put down.
Maybe it is not? Maybe my sensitivity uncovers things I have not been aware of?
Having seen the film
and then reading the book, I consider them both very good. I also consider the
film faithful to the book story. If I remember the film correctly the emphasis
on assessment of Mr. Steven’s life did not come that strongly as it is presented
in the book. For me the book is all about Mr. Stevens retrospection and final realisation
that his earlier values lead him to missing the point of what the life could
have been. Everything else including Miss Kenton is only necessary to make the point.
The story is about a middle age butler who realises that due
to his values and upbringing, he lost the most important thing in life and this
is love of a person he admired. This realisation becomes obvious as we read the
book. The reader knows first what is going on in emotional lives of Mr. Stevens
and Miss Kenton. Miss Kenton also soon knows, but not so Mr. Stevens. When he eventually
understands his emotions it is too late, all he is left only with is continued
service to his American employer. The service may not be that perfect as it
used to be, but the perfection is no longer required. The addition to the
master and his butler relationship is bantering, something Mr. Stevens has
still to learn. For him it is a big challenge but it promises possibility of adding
warm accents to the life of this exceptional butler. This is very little to be
content with at “the remains of the day” of Mr. Stevens. Towards the end of the
book Mr. Stevens knows it as well as we, the readers, do. And this a hard thing
to face up to.
Even if the book is about an English butler and it is a good
story in itself, it is also a metaphor on more than one level. What resonated
with me is the issue of dedication to one’s occupation often extended to blind
loyalty towards the employers. Mr. Stevens dedicated his professional life to
the man whose motives and deeds he never questioned. He even derived the sense
of personal dignity from serving the man who was not worthy his admiration and
obedience. He did not know it at the time (or maybe did not want to know?).
It was one time in my life when it struck me that I may be
wasting my life staying in my job. I was working on my mission statement and I
could not link anything worthwhile to the job I was actually in. I was working
diligently and successfully at a bank. Was my mission to make the successful
bank even richer? Nothing wrong with that, but definitely not enough as a life purpose.
There many people who work in industries that harm societies and they do not
question it as the money is good. Maybe be The Remains of the Day is a good
wake up call for all of us who work diligently for our employers without
questioning what is behind the scenes.
Another issue that made me ponder was the question of
dignity. This is what Mr. Stevens deliberates on from the first pages of the
book. His definition is never too clear and never final. It is adjusted as the
journey of our hero progresses. Reading the book, I have realised that dignity
is important in my life as well and that I am not clear on my definition
either.
There are many definitions of dignity as we look up various
dictionaries. I selected the two:
- Bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self-respect or appreciation of the formality or gravity of an occasion or situation.
- Nobility or elevation of character; worthiness: dignity of sentiments
To me me the second point is the more relevant one, but first of
all courage of living in accordance with one's convictions and values is the basis of dignity for me.
Do I agree with the Nobel Foundation verdict? Not sure yet. I
am reading The Buried Giant and I am struggling with the fantasy form of the book.
Not my cup of tea.
