I wil merely call hiim "M. Dupont" --to attend the gathering on a very strict "off the record" basis, the date for the conference was set.

Does that help any of you at all? I'll go put the concluding sentence in the heading? It's often difficult to coordinate many editions, I appreciate your asking that, Barbara.

ginny

You mention priests and certainly that's true but I believe that we can say that anyone in a job has to decide how far they will compromise their selfhood to their employer. And we start the training early at home and in schools in obedience, loyalty, duty, compliance, uniformity.

One of the things Native Americans prize is their individuality. They are a part of a group but each person has a duty to themselves and themselves alone and there is no higher authority that controls and proscribes their actions.

I remember a few years ago when studying "The Iliad" in university, how the younger students thought Achilles was at fault for choosing not to fight due to the bruising to his personal honor. They said he had to obey the generals and fight even though the battle was for the benefit of one man only, Menelaus. Yet the Ancient Greeks prized individuality, like Native Americans, and Achilles' honor had primacy over our modern concepts of duty.

I think we lose too much when we stop thinking for ourselves and don't take responsibility for our actions if we act at all. Then we can end up like Stevens not knowing ourselves and not knowing how to find who we are. I agree with BETTY that Stevens is sad but I also think he's funny as an exaggerated caricature of us all. How sad/funny it is to see Stevens' try to relate as a human being and as an individual. He has no "rules" which tell him how to be human and he's lived all his life with someone else's rules. He can't live without rules. Now that is a scary warning to us all.

Remember that old saying "the unexamined life..." etc etc. Stevens hasn't reached that awareness yet and never questioned the morality of the lives/beliefs/actions/words of those he served nor did he question his own; and I think some people never do question or think or feel independently. Although to be honest, the Socratic method of questioning can be painful if morally illuminating

GINNY, I am trying to be general in my response and dealing with the issues of unthinking service and of not questioning what is ethical or moral or right. How easy it is to depend on others for your opinions and to lay blame on others for your actions.

GINNY, I see the first person voice as giving the author a chance to develop an instant connection with the reader and as readers we may forget, for the moment, that there is an author behind the seemingly direct speech of a character. First person gives 'authority' to the speaker Stevens which is funny when you realize how he avoids accepting authority. This is his chance to justify himself and he's having a hard time with it.

1. Seriously, I think his reaction to the enfeeblement of his father rather mirrors his inability to deal with the crumbling of the world he has always known. He is at a loss to deal with it without the "givens." MmeW
   
   A fabulous point, reinforced by the thoughts of many of you about Steven's father's enfeeblement and what it means to him. We need to watch this aspect of Stevens's life carefully?
   
   
2. Stevens is very Japanese --Esme
   
   Esme, why do you say that? How fascinating. We do know the author is of Japanese heritage. Do any of you have any biographical information on the author you'd like to add to what's in the heading or insights here? wonderful point.
   
   
3. ...saw this movie years ago, and when I did I became very angry with Stevens Malryn ...studying "The Iliad" in university, how the younger students thought Achilles.... Marvelle9....
   
   This is another excellent point and echoed by others, the anger felt at Stevens at different points in the text. It will be crucial at the end of the book, to compare feelings then and now, please don't forget any of these points and remind us if we don't recall them at the very last page?
   
   
4. Stevens helps us to see that we must strive to do our very best in whatever we are doing--- HATS
   
   Hats, so you see something positive in Stevens? You feel something laudatory about his stoicism as you called it above? (You all don't need to be hung on your first impressions, but I think they will be interesting, mine included, to look at later on).
   
   
5. perfectionism: Traude.
   
   The issue of Stevens as a "perfectionist," is a good one. IS he? I'll add this to the questions above. What are the characteristics of the perfectionist? Do true perfectionists actually achieve perfection? Interesting point here I'd like to apply it further.
   
   
6. For Stevens it's not what he is, but what he wants to be.- -- Who said this? I had it attributed incorrectly?
   
   That's another interesting point, do you all agree? What's the most important thing to Stevens, what he IS or what he wants to be? Another good one for the heading!
   
   
7. Judy has brought up a very important point: the lack of communication between father and son, ..."for some years, my father and I had tended-for some reason I have never really fathomed-- to converse less and less." (page 64). Why doesn't Stevens understand the reason? Do you?
   
   Stevens addresses his father, wiht only one exception that I can see, not in the second person, "you," but in the third, "Father...."
   
   Has it not struck you as incongruous (and I see that Marvelle and I, posting together, have both raised different issues about a somewhat same point, i.e.: "First person gives 'authority' to the speaker Stevens which is funny when you realize how he avoids accepting authority.") Have you noticed that Stevens has such difficulty expressing himself to others but can tell YOU, the reader, his heartfelt thoughts with ease? Another good question for today in the heading, let me find the exact quote FROM Stevens about the fact that they never had much to say to each other.
   
   

CLICK HERE

It is hard to think of this novel as a comedy of manners initially because Stevens is so very very serious. Eventually the extreme seriousness of Stevens is funny but more funny-sad to me for I feel his regret which tugs at me. The link I posted views the comedy of manners from an actor's eyes but I think Ishiguro meets the link's criteria of the last paragraph of what is required of a good actor in successfully presenting this difficult satire.

I wanted to mention a film -- we could start a whole list of thematically related films -- and that's "Gosford Park" which is ostensibly a murder mystery set in an English manor house via the vision of Robert Altman. It is a ciritcal view of the social class system, like the PBS series Upstairs-Downstairs but with a vengeance.

For a definition of an unreliable narrator CLICK HERE

I found two Ishiguro interviews where he talked about the unreliable narrator. In the first link Ishiguro says: "the traditional unreliable narrator is that sort of narrator through whom you can almost measure the distance between their craziness and the proper world out there....you have to know the distance quite clearly....One of the strengths of novels, I think, over camera-based storytelling is that you are able to get right inside people's heads. You're able to explore people's inner worlds much more thoroughly and with more subtlety...The form (of film) is different. It's a third person exterior form." To read more of this interview see

Kazuo Ishiguro Interview #1

In another interview, Ishiguro says "With a character like Stevens, or any of my earlier first-person narrators, it's very easy for the reader to measure the distance between his version of reality, what he's telling himself happened, and what actually happened out there. You can actually measure how unreliable he is; there's a clear sense in which the writer and the reader collude over the head of the narrator, to some extent."

For that interview see Interview #2

I don't think I've gotten to the point of collusion with the author but I'll try to get there. Hope this answers GINNY's question about the use of first-person narration with Stevens.

In Remains, as in all of Ishiguro's novels, the primary source of interest is not what happens, but what the narrator says and why he says it. Talk is the major event in all of Ishiguro's works.

For even taking into account my employer's generous offer to "foot the bill for the gas," the costs of such a trip might still come to a surprising amount considering such matters as accommodation, meals, and any small snacks I might partake of on my way.

There is so much more to look at in these first 76 pages, am going back now to comment on some of the things you've said, keep in mind we do NOT seek a consensus here?

My opinion about why the first-person narration is used: I initially wrote something to the effect that author's use first-person when

All of this means that you see the outrageous, sad, funny, disseminating Stevens as real and you take note of what he says and are personally invested in the outcome of his quest. You see the world from his eyes where you might normally be reluctant to accept or admit to having that vision. How else could he be presented successfully except as an "I"? It is the best choice I think.

I added the mention of the unreliable narrator because so many times that is the nature of the first-person narrator. Also, I found interviews with Ishiguro where he said that he created Stevens as an unreliable narrator and why he liked to use that type of narration.

The purpose of an unreliable narrator? Since we can't take what he says as reliable, we can't swallow his statements whole either as to what he feels, or what he sees, or what he perceives -- we are left to question what is happening and -- since Ishiguro tells us that Stevens is unreliable as a narrator -- we must also question Stevens. It is a good technique when an author wants the reader to consider the themes and issues of the novel. It requires a good deal of work from the reader to not accept things at face value. Therein lies the impossibility of consensus for we each will consider the themes and issues and pull from our own viewpoints and experiences to reach our individual opinions. I fully expect some of my opinions to change through reading the insights of other posters.

GINNY, you've listed so many interesting questions and there have been outstanding replies. I'm too far behind to mention all the wonderful posts. Will try to become up-to-date in my next message.

HAROLD, your link looks intriguing. I'll have to wait until I go to work tomorrow to be able to read it fully. The screen at work is much easier to read. I do think think the quest is from self-deception to self-knowledge of a kind.

This is my third read of "Remains" and I am still haunted by the sadness inherent in the work -- it's what I call horrifyingly funny because Stevens can be hilarious with his obtuseness yet I like him and feel sad to see his carefully controlled world crumbling about him and he is left feeling out of place. There is an elegiac tone to Stevens' thoughts which I think comes from his gradually admitting mistakes (and failures) in the past.

Stevens' illusion of absence and standing in the shadows just strikes directly at my heart. His goal as butler (as in his life) is to disappear, to be a non-person. I don't consider that greatness but a tragedy or perhaps a tragi-comedy.

Why is Stevens doing this and "why do we put people on pedestals?"

Perhaps because it is easier for us to not try to achieve and to let other people live for us. Perhaps it is easier to passively drift through life by clinging to the detritus of another person's life? How sad it is to hear Stevens consistantly call himself "one" -- a nameless, faceless thing, not even human. How sad to hear him pride himself on the illusion of absence.

TRAUDE wonders if perhaps Stevens did not serve in WWI or WWII because butlers of important personages might have received deferments or dispensation. That sounds likely to me also and it's another sad case of Stevens being at the sidelines of life while his "important personage" tries to sway history but failing miserably. That means he isn't such an important personage? Therefore Stevens fails too since he lives through his employer. And Farraday will not stand on a pedestal so Stevens has no place but within himself if he can find it.

Of course Stevens has trouble with bantering for the whole concept of banter rests on two individuals talking lightly back and forth usually on a personal level. Bantering assumes a type of equality, of at least standing at eye level rather than someone on a pedestal looking down and the other person looking up.

Stevens' predicament is a modern one that Viktor Frankl describes in his book "Man's Search for Meaning"

This is why I feel that Stevens is on a quest for self-knowledge. He needs to live with his past and find a way to live in the present as himself and not through someone else.

I have a general distrust with some types of traditional psychology, MAL, so in that respect we agree. You hear (and see in movies and television) how people go to a psychiatrist and go on and on about their problems. This can go on for years in the same vein. Frankl, however, says 'okay you have real problems. Now how can you make life better and more meaningful to you.' A lot of modern psychology is proactive like that. That is a form of existentialism and that is how I see Stevens trying to cope with the past to live in the present. And Stevens had a mind with hidden crannies and secrets -- like all people -- back then as Virginia Woolf, Jane Austen, Henry James also knew when they were writing about characters 'back then.'

Existentialism at its very basic is a philosophy that places emphasis on individual existence, freedom, and choice. Stevens didn't allow himself to have those attributes consciously before the time of his diary but now he has to deal with them.

Hate to do this to you GINNY but I found interviews that address the existential vacuum and Ishiguro.

where Ishiguro says "...partly what interest me in people (is) that we don't just wish to feed and sleep and reproduce then die like cows or sheep ... We don't seem satisfied unless we can tell ourselves by some criteria that if we have done it well and we haven't wasted it and we've contributed well. So that is one of the things, I think, that distinguishes human beings, as far as I can see."

"My themes have often required a point where all the current values collapse or when everything is up for grabs: the sense of society's values being very fragile and the stability of the world we live in being an illusion."

Compare Ishiguro's themes and views of human nature with Frankl's 'existential vacuum' and you see that they are discussing the same thing -- how to give meaning to your life in a fragile, illusory world. You or I may disagree with Ishiguro's worldview; that is quite possible.

I do disagree that Stevens' choice was limited to butler or miner. What about artist, writer, musician, composer ...? the possibilities are endless by the turn of the 20th Century. Stevens could even have moved to another country if he felt the opportunities were limited in England. But with his cultured background I don't accept that Stevens was limited to a choice between butler or miner. What an idea! (And my father and his father were miners with a totally different background than Stevens.)

Do you think he was deceived or self-deceived?

GINNY, I just realized that one of the quotes I listed is also in the heading. Well, an illuminating quote is worth reapeating and both interviews are quite reflective of Ishiguro's thematic interests.

I think there were at least three turning points in the conference.

Stevens writes: "...if you consider the pressures contingent on me that night, you may not think I delude myself unduly if I go so far as to suggest that I did perhaps display, in the face of everything, at least in some modest degree a 'dignity' worthy of someone like Mr. Marshall -- or come to that, my father....For all its sad associations, whenever I recall that evening today, I find I do so with a large sense of triumph."

Now this is Stevens, the unreliable narrator, writing and he does come to question the triumph at a later point, mostly with hints and allusions.

"I was going to compare a novel to a rose unfolding as we discover deeper and deepe layers, more and more truth, but in a way it's more like a photograph in the developing pan as inchoate shapes emerge then slowly come into focus with edges and distinct details. And I think Ishiguro expects us to work our chemistry on this work, to be part of the development."

Thanks Harold for the links and everyone for the comments. There are some laughable sections in the book and for some reason I found Stevens' tears funny. He couldn't wouldn't didn't express any feelings directly to his father but he cries while serving the conference guests? Did he unconsciously need their recognition of his sacrifice? Does that then make his shortness with his father (the sacrifice) justifiable? Those tears struck me as wrong.

I keep thinking about how Stevens twice avoids answering Senior's statement/question

The coldness and cruelty of not answering! Yet, is Stevens a copy of his father? Senior seems in that second statement/question to answer and judge himself as well as his son and his cold behavior, "I suppose I haven't."

Another judgment about hands by Senior. His hands no longer 'serve' him -- that is he can't perform the duties he once did and he diverts blame onto his hands? For instance the silverware is not properly polished, he drops his dustpan, his hands tremble carrying trays; with his hands he took the stair decoration (the Chinaman) and left it outside the front door; he takes a tumble carrying items about and is reduced to pushing a cart.

In his last moments with Stevens, Senior first asks "Everything in hand downstairs?" and asks irritably again until finally Stevens reassures him (unlike the good father question). In the short conversation that follows Senior keeps looking at his hands with irritation according to Stevens.

His hands in service have failed him and his son fails him by avoiding a personal question. Senior concentrates his irritation on his hands. What do his hands mean to him? Perhaps they represent his identity as a butler/under-butler and his only identity since his last personal contact, his son, is distant. Is it a matter of like father like son? The father at least had a marriage and some sort of personal life unlike Stevens. Yet Senior's life is reduced to hands?

To do otherwise, I feel, would be to let him down."

Irony:

1. a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another, assumed in order to make the other’s false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning---called also Socratic irony,

2. a. the use of words to express something other than and esp., the opposite of the literal meaning.

b. a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony.

c. an ironic expression or utterance.

3. incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result.

---An event or result marked by such incongruity.

---Incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play. --Webster’s 10th

Look here, there’s no need to make a song and dance of it. Just convey the basic facts and be done with it. Simple approach is the best, that’s my advice, Stevens.”

I think that only thing at this point he recognizes is "duty." He knows he has a duty to his role model to be with him at the end, and he has a duty to be downstairs. One has to be left undone--and that's the duty to his father. I think only failing in carrying out a "duty" can bring Stevens to tears at this point in the story.

Those who have the Parkes book have an advantage, I feel, that we who don't have the book do not.

I did mention an exchange among equals in a previous post when talking about the bantering. Stevens isn't comfortable with that and he squirms as Farraday unmercifully banters (tickles, teases?). It is rather cruel of Farraday and funny too. Hilarious to see Stevens heavy-handed attempts at lightness.

I would like to address the conference itself and the important personages who attended including the mysterious duo of Dupont and Lewis. Dupont didn't do a turnaround in his affiliation that we know about because until he spoke at the dinner we didn't know what he was thinking. All we knew was that his major concern was on his blistered feet. Like a country bumpkin he went sightseeing in London and now he regally demands attention be paid to his feet. Isn't he a rather silly little man? Yet Dupont is so important that the conference centers around him? More later...

And why is Dupont so important to eveyone including Lewis? Why does Dupont know an American and not any of the Europeans? It was these conundrums that had me trying to fit the clues together that Ishiguro had given us.

About someone's comment on the disturbing thought that "great decisions of the world" are being conducted in private, great houses. I think the irony here is that the conference is filled with semi-important people and not important personages. I really doubt that great decisions were being made.

TRAUDE mentions that it would be unthinkable for any Frenchman to switch sides (paraphrase) 'especially the highly esteemed M. Dupont, entrusted with diplomatic powers' and it would have been high treason. Again, I wonder if Dupont is an important personage himself -- unless it has something to do with knowing Lewis -- for we don't really know if Dupont has any real influence or power at all. This is one of the important clues that Ishiguro has given us to work on.

TRAUDE also said "do we like the character of Mr. Lewis as it is presented here?" I didn't. He seemed so pushy and out of place. Dupot condemns him as someone who abused Darlington's hospitality by trying to sow discontent and suspicion and he was morally repugnant. That seemed to offend the Gentleman in Dupont. The political dislike were a rather secondary afterthought. So Lewis is not a gentleman? And Lewis doesn't have the political influence he once had? -- this according to Dupont who seems to have a long and deep familitarity with Lewis and his senatorial career. (Lewis is a senator and not a diplomat.) I had reservations about Lewis until I began to question the importance of Dupont and the conference and other attendees, all through clues that Ishiguro provided.

Now I have researched and think I see that Lewis, of all the people at the conference, had a right to be concerned with Dupont and his affiliation although as he said they were amateurs and should leave politics to professionals. A judgment that gentlemen are not inherently politicians? At least these gentlemen?

I found two initial hits on the web in searching for a Dupont. The first one was a Vichy governor of French Somalia and the other was much, much closer to Lewis' home and that could be the cause of Lewis' concern. Dupont (and someone can help with this meaning) relates to BRIDGES in English. THe Dupont hit I found within French territorial islands right off the coast of America that was Vichy ruled in WWII. Dupont is a common name on the island although probably an assumed name by the person who attended the conference. Although I'm quite sure he was not from France, he would not want his political interests to be known prematurely to the French government.

The island territory is a bridge to the Americas -- and here we can gather a rather ominous intent in the conference members to have Dupont and his island on their side -- and the island itself freezes over in the winter and forms an 'ice bridge' where railroads were built to run from island to mainland.

I changed my mind about Lewis and have sympathy for his predicament, though it is an ironic one because of the amateurism of the conference. He had a certain amusement about the proceedings didn't he? Once he saw where Dupont was aligned he left to report to America? Or London? Or both?

Here are the links I found. I know this is speculation but it is based on all the clues given to us as readers. Obviously Ishiguro wanted us to find Dupont out and I may have but I leave it to YOU to see if there is another Dupont. I had my fun in speculating:

Dupont need not be the governor of the islands. He could have been an underling. Or he could have assumed the common and symbolic name Dupont on his clandestine mission. Fun to consider and I ended being amused by the seriousness of the conference attendees who were like little boys playing with some unfamiliar object. Lewis, I've decided, was the only grown up in the bunch.

I have to mention that MmeW gave me another laugh with this image: "Where is our dedicated Stevens when the crucial Dupont arrives? Jumping out of bushes at young Cardinal. Where was his great sense of duty and dignity then?" And this funny image from Jonathan "Stevens seems constantly to be running often into Miss Kenton in that dark corridor." I'm left with the picture of Stevens lurking in the dark and jumping out of bushes. Love it although I do like Stevens I have to giggle sometimes.

an adherent of a philosophical theory of idealism

one guided by ideals; esp: one that places ideals before practical considerations.

I can see Ishiguro double up laughing at us. What is it in this book that makes us Americans plus one lone Canadian climbing up his favorite mountain find so much to speculate and argue about?

BETTY, your comment that Stevens 'didn't have it in him' to respond(?) to Senior is so true and that is unfortunate for both of them.

GINNY, like the thoughtful questions about idealism and also what people have posted about idealism and Stevens' character. Today is busy and I probably cannot answer until I get off work. How I wish I could be posting all day! This is a great discussion.

Even if I manage to find a copy I will not assume that my response is more valid than anyone else's. Everyone's participation in the discussion is valid and we certainly have some wonderful comments already although we've just barely started talking. I'm looking forward to this expanded discussion. This is fun!

those I know who served in the Peace Corps or worked for AID, for example, to better fit my definition of "idealism"...hoping for a much better life for people, but working at the "nitty gritty" level and understanding that the ideal is not always met. Jane,

think all the talk about idealism is just palaver (self-deception) aimed at somehow justifying his life.

Ishiguro: "I was interested in the way people try to face themselves when they look back over their lives. I was interested in the self-deception they would have to go through. the pure human emotion of nostalgia, I think it is very important and a positive one. Because I think it's a kind of emotional equivalent to idealism. -Mme (Susan)

But I like him also because he's a liar, and a consumate juggler of facts in creating his past. Jonathan

Is it possible that Stevens started out as just a loyal and perfectionist employee and that later in life he needed the idealism as his motivation when he began to have second thoughts about many of the choices he had made? Marge,

And then we had one comment on Idealism and its longevity as we age:

the fact that they are no longer young and able to do what they once did, so, yes, idealistic goals must be subdued or put aside. Malryn

Ideals (noun) a conception of something in its perfection; a standard of perfection or excellence, a person or thing concerned in embodying such a conception or conforming to such a standard, and taken as a model of imitation; an ultimate object or aim of endeavor; especially, one of high or noble character; something that exists only in the imagination. Ideal (adj) conceived as constituting a standard of perfection or excellence regarded as perfect of its kind. Ideal (syn) epitome of something considered as a standard to strive toward or something considered worthy of imitation.

Humanitarian having concern for or helping to imprve the welfare of people; of or pertaining to ethical or theological humanitarianism; a person actively engaged in promoting human welfare and social reforms, as a philanthropist; a person who profeses ethical or theological humanitarianism.

I too think of idealism as if it were humanitarianism but it actually isn't. More...

There are many ways someone can pursue their ideals or humanitarian goals. Age or physical limitations doesn't have to end the pursuit, just change the how of the pursuit or move us to another goal. So I think we can still work towards an ideal or humanitarian goal.

Stevens had unlimited choices but, like many of us, he had tunnel vision and saw only what was in front of his eyes. He was emotionally or morally lazy? GINNY's question is intriguing but is limited by asking what Stevens could choose from given his situation, his father's example, and his own parameters.

I think in the end Stevens' didn't recognize choices because of his tunnel vision and his passive acceptance of the status quo. He chose the ideal of the perfect butler, and even chose to stay with Lord Darlington whom he set up as an ideal as well, and Stevens now has to come to terms with himself and his past.

I like Stevens but agree with HATS that he would be uncomfortable to be around. His ideal would not be of my choosing. I like Stevens but I still feel the coldness of his not answering his father -- whether he liked/loved/admired/hated/despised his father is not important. Stevens could respond to "everything is in hand" but not the personal appeal. As an adult you should be able to offer kindness and a sort of peace to others and to put aside your own reservations. The reason I feel Stevens did not reply to the appeal (and why he laughed) is that he is not able to express himself emotionally, not even with Senior or Miss Kenton. In that respect he is emotionally challenged because in his goal for butler perfection he has repressed himself for too long. That is the sad part of Stevens.

What was evil to Darlington was the death of his aristocratic friend and the reparations paid by Germany after WWI which helped create that death. Hitler too blamed the other European countries, and Jews and Communists and that was loudly proclaimed and distributed in his speeches and in pamphlets. Ishiguro wrote the hilarious conference with an understanding of the undercurrent of evil that tainted the humorous pretensions of importance of the attendees.

One of my favorite scenes in the conference is Stevens, ever trying to attain his ideal of dignity, gluing his ear to the door to spy on Lewis and Dupont.

How Stevens hems and haws and circles around (example of digression) the fact he's evesdropping and that he does it frequently and that he makes regular reports to Darlington about what he's heard. It was such a hoot when Stevens tried to justify himself that

"as is my custom (before knocking at a closed door) I paused for a second to listen....it's common practice amongst many professionals....no subterfuge implied....no intention of overhearing to the extent I did....I put my ear to the door."

What does Stevens do but run off to Darlington to report: "it is hard for me now to recall precisely what I overheard, just as, indeed, it was for me later that same evening when I reported to his lordship on the matter." And Darlington questions him; tries to wring out more information but Stevens could not provide all the answers. In addition, Stevens father had collapsed that evening yet Stevens' job of professional gossiping came first?

So the ideal of dignity includes jumping out of bushes, lurking in dark corridors, and gluing your ear to doors? Stevens is funny but...lacking in a moral sense? Or perhaps anything can be done in the name of an ideal like serving your master? The end justifies the means? I begin to feel that Stevens isn't as innocent of life as he would like us to think. His actions aren't above reproach.

It is a question: how do you recognize evil when it first rears its head? Sometimes, in the beginning, it can seem moral, right, good, unless examined closely. There were many people who immediately recognized the evil in the Nazi Party. Perhaps because they questioned' they investigated into the depths of a cause, beneath the veneer of righteousness.

I remember that Ishiguro said that people can be swept up in the moment and follow a path that ends not being good or true and that is one of the themes of this novel. A good warning to us all IMO. We need to go beyond the 6 o'clock news and popular news magazines like "Times" or "Newsweek". We need to seriously question our leaders' actual policies and intentions, what they are really doing, and not be distracted by them verbally waving our national flag.

The dictionary definition was totally different from what I thought and how I'd been using it. I too thought it meant high principles but it referred to "standard" rather than principle. I had personally limited the word ideal to mean morals and principles. That was my personal view of it until I finally checked the dictionary and I quoted the dictionary with all its variants.

Stevens doesn't have my ideals but he does have ideals even though I don't consider them worthy ideals.

The dictionary talks about a conception of something in its perfection; a standard of perfection or excellence; a person or a thing embodying such a conception or conforming to such a standard, and taken as a model.

One could personally add that the "something" is morality or principles but that is an individual choice. Stevens selected another ideal. Therefore, my definition -- which was the dictionary definition -- is not misleading. The commonly held idea of what 'ideal' means is actually misleading when it refers only to morals or principles. I've used the word 'ideal' incorrectly in the past by making it stand as a synonym for principles and I imagine linguists have shuddered at my use of it.

As for quoting people, BETTY is correct that we should be exact. Since I don't have a computer or a printer I have a difficult time trying to switch back to posts to quite exact words. I usually end up losing the post I'm trying to write and have to start over again and again. For this reason I will quote people rarely and only when necessary. However, I don't like the idea of standardizing how we post which is like policing to me. There are enough rules in life don't you think? Politeness is crucial and name-calling out of place but standardizing how we quote? Rules rules rules. Look where following the dictionary has led us when apparaently even they are not standard.

According to Ishiguro, “Kawabata [another author] needs to be read slowly, the atmospheres savoured, the characters’ words pondered for their nuances.”

GINNY, I would say that Stevens has ideals but not worthy ideals IMO and that Ishiguro is making us consider what words, frequently used in a generalized sense, actually mean. I believe Ishiguro is saying that what a word means to Stevens may not agree with what you or I think or the actual definition. It is an attempt, again IMO, to make us consider the words, our use of them, and the concepts that are wrapped up in such words (dignity, duty, honor, ideal and so forth).

BETTY, I included the definition of humanitarian because of a previous example given of the Peace Corps which fits more with humanitarianism than with the definition of ideals. Don't worry about giving me more work or worry for it's useful to question ourselves. According to the definitions I found, an idealist may or may not be a humanitarian. We must agree to disagree since I feel, unworthy as they are, Stevens' does have ideals.

Ishiguro is making us consider what words, frequently used in a generalized sense, actually mean.

Am I idealistic just because my husband is a humanitarian and great teacher and I try to be the best wife I can? I don’t think so. Can I judge my life by what he has done? No. I don’t see it as proactive at all! Proactive is thinking for yourself and acting for yourself.

. I see nothing idealistic about being good at your job, unless your job involves the betterment of others. But then Stevens saw his job as helping his employer make the world better. Oh dear, am I convincing myself? No, Stevens rationalized that his job was helping his employer make the world better.

I believe he denies his Lord three times

I agree with MmeW that Mr. Lewis is a stereotype of the two-faced politician. Is he also representative of an American tendency to want to be a big wheel in political matters in other countries?

. "to do otherwise, I feel, would be to let him down." At first it seems logical to me to assume that he is talking about his just deceased father; but he could very well be talking about his employer, Lord Darlington. For Lord Darlington depends on Stevens for the smooth running of the household at a time when it is extra busy because of all the guests who are there to attend the conference

The ambiguity of Stevens’s syntax—by “him,” does he mean his father, or Lord Darlington, whose conference s in mid-flow?—suggests not only that he had learned his father’s lesson all too well , but also that his experience in Lord Darlington’s employ may have reinforced it, so that the call of professional duty inevitably drowns the sounds of a personal emotional crisis. Ishiguro implies that Stevens has so fully imbibed the values of service, or political servility [interesting, no?} that it is impossible for him to respond to such a crisis.

Ishiguro develops the intricate connections between father-son relations and class relations by hinting that Lord Darlington has displaced Stevens senior from his natural place in his son’s affections—that Lord Darlington has assumed the role, in effect, of a surrogate father. Steven points to this possibility in his repeated expressions of admiration for his employer, which stand in stark contrast to the awkwardness of his relationship with his biological father. This displacement of biological by social or political father is underscored by the respective positions of the characters in the British class system: as lord of the manor, Lord Darlingotn holds an unassailable position of political dominance that makes him a kind of father-figure to his servants. (p.50).

But Lewis bated the Englishmen, saying the French hate the Germans, why

Odd that Lewis would be censured for not being a gentleman and not playing Darlington's game when, we must remember, Darlington's game was pretty nasty. Anti-semitism had a long history in Germany and Hitler was tapping into that hatred already. Anti-semitism was not a new concept and Darlington and the others could not avoid knowing that.

”We have heard in these two days several thorough and intelligent analyses of the present very complex situation in Europe. But none of them, may I say, has fully comprehended the reasons for the attitude France has adopted towards her neighbor. However”—he raised a finger—“this is not the time to enter into such debates.”

Ginny: Stevens notices [Stevens] seems to avoid M. Dupont, too and draws a strange conclusion to me, what did you all think was going on there? No, Stevens notices rather that Lewis is trying to prevent Dupont from having intimate talks with the British:

Mr. Lewis apart, however, the other guests, perhaps through awe, perhaps through a sense of antagonism, kept a wary distance from M. Dupont, a fact that was conspicuous even in that generally guarded atmosphere...

Yes, antisemitism was prevelant in Europe but it was Hitler who tapped into that to his advantage. Would Hitler have risen to power if the 1919 Versailles Treaty had not occurred? It's impossible to say but Hitler started his career before the treaty. For information on the Origins of the Nazi Party CLICK HERE

Here is the 1920 Nazi Program 25 Points

And for a description of Hitler's career see Adolf Hitler We are looking back on a history we know and so we are wise only by chronology. Certainly there were enlightened minds in Europe and England who saw appeasement with Germany as necessary in order to have an ally rather than an enemy and the 1919 treaty as unnecessarily harsh. The firing of the Jewish maids, however, preys on my mind.

I found the above information useful up through the mention of Stevenson and after that the information seemed repetitive.

Another source is Narrative Technique and Perspective

Ishiguro has explained his use of Stevens as an unreliable narrator in the 'Author Interview #2' listed in the heading. In the use of first person tt is quite common, but not always so, to have unreliable narrators. Some of the links I've posted here point out certain authors who are fond of that technique. Some authors who have used unreliable narrators include Nabokov, William Faulkner, Charles Dickens, Joseph Conrad (Heart of Darkness), Toni Morrison (Jazz), Henry Fielding, Robert Louis Stevenson, and of course the famous misdirection of her leading character Poirot with Agatha Christie.

It's a difficult technique to carry off because a reader might overlook the discrepency of the text and assume all that the narrator says is reliable. Ishiguro does a masterful job in planting clues for readers to question what Stevens says has happened and what he sees. Stevens is constantly revising his memory too perhaps to make the past easier to live with and we readers have to follow his changing memory and the accumulating clues.

GINNY, I think the novel is a tragicomedy which points out universal truths about humans. Maybe we can see a little bit of ourselves in Stevens.

HAROLD's link on "Memory and History" that is in the heading is a good background on Stevens as unreliable narrator. The whole purpose of the UN is to have the reader involved in finding the truth, to uncover the past, to reflect on meanings which I believe we've been doing. "Remains" is definitely not a quick surface read.

Some quotes from HAROLD's link which connects memory with history and our knowledge of history:

Yet I hope Stevens is allowed mistakes because it is human to make them. His mistakes are not evi which would be another situation. And if Stevens is allowed mistakes that means we all can be allowed them. Harmful mistakes? We do make those too and the important thing is to try to avoid making such mistakes in the future.

It is even human to deny or elude what is painful to remember. I think Stevens' mistakes are there for us to question ourselves and how we too deny, elude and wear corrective lenses in viewing our past.

Stevens does check himself and revise his memory -- perhaps not constantly or quickly -- but rather gradually I think. He comes to the past in a roundabout way, circling closer and closer to what actually occurred and veering off at when it's too painful. Thus the digressions IMO and again something many of us do.

GINNY, what is it specifically that interests you in the UN technique that you wanted to discuss?

A question to GINNY, DR. PARKES and the DISCUSSION GROUP: Who is Mr. George Ketteridge and why is it important to Stevens to mention him in the context he did? (p114)

Stevens does check himself and revise his memory -- perhaps not constantly or quickly -- but rather gradually I think. He comes to the past in a roundabout way, circling closer and closer to what actually occurred and veering off at when it's too painful

A question to GINNY, DR. PARKES and the DISCUSSION GROUP: Who is Mr. George Ketteridge, and why is it important to Stevens to mention him in the context he did? (p114)

Stevens has had a fall from grace, so to speak, and he's trying to get used to it by saying these rich, untitled dudes are just as important as the old money titled ones are, and working for one of the lesser ones is perfectly okay

I believe, sir, he compared the present parliamentary system to a committee of the mothers’ union attempting to organize a war campaign.

Funny about language but last night I started circling the little bits of vocabulary that Stevens uses when he is avoiding an issue or lying (to himself?)

I mentioned that it was Mr. Spencer who directly humiliated Stevens because I was confused by a previous post (#446) where you said "...in this next section I do note the humiliation at the hands of Sir Leonard." I knew about the Spencer scene but not the Leonard one so combed through the book looking for it. (One could say the humiliation was indirectly at the hands of Sir Leonard?) I was initially confused and I wanted to note it in case anyone else was confused.

The Spencer scene is so intertwined with Stevens musings on Harry Smith's views that it's hard to unwind. It is crucial however and I hope someone takes up the challenge Ishiguro has given us.

I thought I would address GINNY's wondering about the unreliable narrator and how the UN "impacts our understanding of Stevens and if admitting unreliability makes it more valid". To address that concern, first I'll have to point out examples of Stevens unreliability. This is a good section to do that because there are many short examples. More in another post on UN examples.

GINNY, I was amazed too that Stevens could drive. He must have made trips to the local village as butler but to undertake such a long trip makes it almost a heroic quest but is he Odysseus or Don Quixote? We know he is out of his element and he knows it too. Stevens is on a lark for the first time in his life.

"The unreliable narrator can be a child, one with limited knowledge, or limited mental capacity, or with a reason to fool readers or itself. The result is that the readers must look beyond for clues in the narration that let us know what is going on." (Emphasis mine) The clues in the narration are deliberately planted by the author, not the narrator, and the clues contradict what the UN takes as fact.

There are numerous examples of the unreliable narrator technique in Day Three and I've chosen those that I call "The Long Good-Bye" and Stevens calls minor incidents and a peculiar chain of events.

1) Darlington told Stevens to fire the two Jewish maids. Over their cozy evening cocoa, Stevens tells Kenton and "I did so in as concise and businesslike a way as possible." Kenton says she is outraged by his cool demeanor over the firing and threatens to leave but does not.

" 'It's rather funny to remember now, but you know, only this time a year ago, you were still insisting you were going to resign. It rather amused me to think of it," I gave a laugh, but behind me Miss Kenton remained silent.' Kenton admits to cowardice and having nowhere to go. Only then does Stevens tell her about Darlington's change and that "it was all a terrible misunderstanding....I just thought you'd like to know Miss Kenton, since you were as upset as I was." Miss Kenton responds by being upset that Stevens did not divulge his honest feelings to her at the time of the firing.

.
2) Kenton hires as Lisa as a maid over Stevens objections that she is unsuitable. Months later over evening cocoa Stevens says he is pleased Kenton has had "some modest success regarding the girl thus far." Kenton then teases Stevens about his guilty smile whenever Lisa is mentioned: "Ah, but I've noticed it, Mr. Stevens. You do not like pretty girls to be on the staff. Might it be that our Mr. Stevens is flesh and blood after all and cannot fully trust himself?" Stevens protests that it is all nonsense and that he objected to Lisa's employment only because she was unsuitable for the job when she first arrived.

Lisa eventually runs off with the second footman for love and Kenton brings Lisa's farewell note to Stevens to read. He notices that Kenton is upset and keeps looking down at her hands. "In fact -- and this strikes me as curious -- I cannot really recall seeing her more bereft than on that morning."

"So Mr. Stevens, it seems you were right and I was wrong." Stevens replies: "These things happen. There really is little the likes of us can ever do to prevent these things."