I have been
reading the book with mixed feelings. The fantasy literature and art in general
are not something I enjoy or even understand. A bit of a shortcoming of mine.
The practical streak in me is very strong and I think I owe it to my great
father. Not that I consider myself great, but this is one thing I must have
picked from him.
At school I
never warmed up to romanticism, I may have understood some of it, but the form
never convinced me or seemed appropriate.
And similarly, I have a problem
with the form of The Buried Giant. The essence of the book is of great interest
to me, though. It is about memory of our past and in particular about memory
preservation.
Kazuo Ishiguro,
as per his own explanation, knows what his future book will be all about before
he decides on the story setting. Sometimes it takes a long time to find a right
setting. In case of The Buried Giant, it took some years and the book was
published nine years after his previous one. He decided to place his story in
King Arthur’s times. It is a fantasy with ogres, demons, dragons and real
people as well. I had a problem with the story setting and this must have
influenced my general impression on the book.
The main
question the book asks of us, the readers, is: are we better off to have memories
of the past events buried or remembered. We all have in our lives passages that
were unfortunate and even harmful or painful. Do we want to live with the memory
of them? Or do we want to forget them.
It we do not look at those painful memories that touched our lives, and they
must have left a mark on us, aren’t we basing our current life on something
phony?
The memory
question can be directed to individuals as well as and nations.
On individual
basis one can ask a question: would our love to other people survive if we
remember all the wrong doings? Is true forgiveness possible if we remember past
hurts? The answer given on the last page of the book is – NO. Looking at my own
life and some of its hurts I would have to, with some chagrin, agree with the
book view. All hurts may be forgiven, some totally and some only to a certain
level. Some of them once forgiven may allow us to go back to the old
relationship but some even if forgiven change the fabric of the relationship
forever and the good emotions cannot be rekindled. This is how I understand the end of the book
and the main character choosing to take the last boat passage without her
husband. She does it with love for him, but she decides to do it on her own.
I think that
Ishiguro writes books with depressing messages. The stories make you think, and
the conclusions ”uncover the
abyss beneath our illusory sense of connection with the world”.
The same question
of preserving memories or not applies to nations. Remembering the old harms
leads to wars or prolonged partisan violence. There are too many examples of it
in the recent years and in more distant history. Often, one would like to put
the end to the remembrance, but in many situations, it seems impossible. So
people hate each other and kill each other.
Ishiguro gives,
in his interviews, example of the French history related to the World War II.
Collaboration with Nazis was a hard memory to cope with. It was difficult after
the war to consider France victorious remembering role of many Frenchmen being
on the wrong side during the occupation of France. It was the deliberate
politics of Charles de Gaulle to create propaganda focusing on heroes of anti-Hitler
underground ignoring the other side of activities of the French population.
This kept the spirit of the country up and helped in rebuilding the country
after the war. I feel uncomfortable to quote this example as collaboration with
Nazis was present in all of the occupied countries. In Poland as well. This is
still being processed and often denied as the burden of such memories is too
high to carry. Does the book offer a solution? No, it does not, but I do not
think there is one. This is the matter of choice, strengths and courage of a
person or a nation. I must admire Germans for their apology to the nations they
hurt so badly. Sure, they did not have very much of an option, but still they
were able to do it convincingly and with dignity.
I am sorry, that
some Poles so strongly deny some events leading to loss of lives during the II
World War. It did happen, but in exceptional situations and only minority of
Poles were involved. Strong denials of
wrong doings make me feel very uncomfortable and ashamed.
I would say that
The Buried Giant is a really good book stirring emotions and posing important
existential questions.
P.S. Writing the post and my comments about France and French resistance in the World War II, I felt uncomfortable even if I was repeating what I had heard. I know that France was criticised by some nations for not participating in the war strongly enough and early enough. But a couple of days ago the world celebrated The Remembrance Day. This made me think that France had a very strong involvement then and paid great price losing too many of their young men. It was perhaps the country that suffered the biggest loses in this war. Some reluctance in starting another tragic chapter in the country history is fully understandable to me.
P.S. Writing the post and my comments about France and French resistance in the World War II, I felt uncomfortable even if I was repeating what I had heard. I know that France was criticised by some nations for not participating in the war strongly enough and early enough. But a couple of days ago the world celebrated The Remembrance Day. This made me think that France had a very strong involvement then and paid great price losing too many of their young men. It was perhaps the country that suffered the biggest loses in this war. Some reluctance in starting another tragic chapter in the country history is fully understandable to me.