21st Century Literature discussion

This thread is for discussing parts 1-2 (chapters 1-9) of the book as well as for first impressions. Please do not give spoilers for any part of the book after chapter 9.

I'm already fairly enthralled by this one; it's an unusual book - the main character is a detective, but so far, there's only passing mentions about any of the murders he solves. Instead, it's about his life and his history, particularly his childhood memories of what happened in Shanghai before his parents disappeared. I've ever read a story with a detective protagonist quite like this.

What does everyone think about it all so far?

Already, I see some typical Ishiguro themes with a fairly complex meditation on memory, both its power and its unreliability. Even some key moments of his childhood are hazy; the narrator is not sure about them - he reveals the memory of an important altercation between his mother and a company inspector, only later to realize that his mother said those words to his father rather than the inspector.

The memories themselves are often strange. I love the fanciful exaggeration in the imagery of the carpet in the gathering at the club:

"The carpet is very think, so that to move about the room, one is obliged to drag one's feet, and all around, greying men in black jackets are doing just this, some even pressing forward their shoulders as if walking into a gale"

I wonder how much of the narrator's story is factually true?

Another thing I like about these first chapters: the relationship between the mother and father is beautifully complex, and much is suggested rather than stated. Clearly, the father cares deeply for her and wants to please her, but both his culture as well as practical concerns constrain him. It seems the mother is probably on the right side morally, but her approach is so uncompromising and exacting, so unwilling to acknowledge obstacles. I find myself feeling sadness for the father, so desperately eager to please her but unsure of how to accomplish it. After all, the company has him trapped. He is not sure how even to get back to England without the company's support.

Who does everyone else sympathize with here, and what do you think about the parents' relationship? What do you make of the narrator's hazy memory of surprising the father in his study, with the father slumped over with a sweaty, contorted face? And why does the narrator handle the question of the racetrack the way he does, relying on his son to prevent it?

Another thing I see in these early chapters are all the cultural influences and clashes inherent in the way the narrator grows up. As "Uncle" Philip puts it, he's a "mongrel", absorbing parts of all the cultures that surround him. For example, as a child, he gets some very Japanese ideas from Akira, his fears of whether he is fulfilling his proper cultural role for the group. Akira gives him his monks' beautiful metaphor, with the blinds held together by twine. Without the twine of the children, the whole construction of the blinds falls apart. It's a perfect expression of collectivist thinking. But what a terrible burden for the narrator, to think not only that he is causing his parents' problems but that it is happening because he is not "English enough!" My heart goes out to him.

This is only one example and one cultural influence though; there are several cultural threads throughout, What do you think about the various cultures and the way they're described, the way they interact?

As Ishiguro himself moved from Japan to England at a young age, I wonder how that informed all of this. He must have experienced some of that same alienation, standing astride two worlds.

And one other thing that struck me: the character of Sarah Hemmings is a curious one. At first, it seemed she was merely a social schemer, but it was interesting in Chapter 3 to hear her own explanation of her actions. I wonder, in a world that provides few opportunities for her, has the greatness of her ambition just been distorted? In any case, she's a very interesting and unusual character.

What does everyone make of her?

Well, this is probably by now way too long a post. But with Ishiguro, I can't seem to help myself.

interesting that his memories are amended after he recalls them, particularly since details are his forte as a detective. Which version is closer to the truth?
Haven't finished pt 1 and just getting to the racetrack scene. A good read.

Gini wrote: "interesting that his memories are amended after he recalls them, particularly since details are his forte as a detective. Which version is closer to the truth?
Haven't finished pt 1 and just gettin..."

That's true Gini, it is an intetrsting thing - detectives are often portrayed as strictly rational, but his memory (perhaps everyone's memories) do not work that way.

It reminds me of the story The Truth of Fact, The Truth of Feeling by Ted Chiang. The way memory operates is not as straightforward as we like to think.

And memories are an important piece with this author it seems. Another minor-ish character steps into the action and without too much warning.

Yes, the memories or looking into the past seem to be a common theme with this author. I feel like we are not really grounded in one time period because we are constantly going back to a memory from Christopher or something he has recalled from his past. Sort of a fragmented perspective. Interesting to try to put all the pieces of this together.

Greg: Wow! As you said earlier, Banks' poor memory is the opposite of what one expects of a detective. Frankly, my feeling about his perception of his childhood trauma is that he's batshit crazy. This is trumpeted in Chapter 1 when he says "However, I cannot imagine l 'mercilessly interrogated' him". The events a friend remembers from years before aren't casual. Likewise, while he is personally sure he was fitting in at school, it's clear he was NOT. His friends gave him that magnifying glass (which he treasures) as a joke, when he was sure he had concealed his interests. He's playacting an English gentleman from chapter one, and everyone knows it.

He seems to have been an effective detective professionally, but as for personal traumas, he's solidly in La La Land.

I too am enthralled by this novel. The pacing to me and how information is revealed seems close to perfect. I wonder if anyone has noticed that time--yesterday, now, etc.--seems disorienting. It's difficult for me to pin down a timeline in these first two parts. I do wonder why he hasn't applied his amazing detective skills to the greatest mystery of his life. I don't believe he is "crazy" just that he is in denial. In chapter 10 he says "I would get from time to time; a feeling that someone or other disapproved of me and was only just managing to conceal it." Also feel like the magnifying glass is almost a cartoonish detective trope especially as he uses it to solve crimes. I am jaded by CSI I suppose.

Mark wrote: "Greg: Wow! As you said earlier, Banks' poor memory is the opposite of what one expects of a detective. Frankly, my feeling about his perception of his childhood trauma is that he's batshit crazy. T..."

I'm with you, Mark. When I first started noting the inconsistencies between Christopher's memory and other's memory of the past, I thought, Oh, interesting - an unreliable narrator. Then it started snowballing . . . and that's a discussion for a later thread!

Mark wrote: "Greg: Wow! As you said earlier, Banks' poor memory is the opposite of what one expects of a detective. Frankly, my feeling about his perception of his childhood trauma is that he's batshit crazy. T..."

I'm with Ellen in that I don't see him as crazy, exactly. He does seem to be in denial as Ellen says. As you say though, I completely agree that his self perceptions seem way off. You cite some great examples of that Mark!

Perhaps he's detached from his own feelings? His reactions to his parents' disappearances are interesting; clearly he cares, given the way he watches over his mother and races home when he suspects something wrong. But when he remembers his boatride away from Shanghai, he says he was not nearly as distressed as the adults around me seemed to suppose. And he's very angry that the colonel remembers him as moody and tearful then. But clearly that would have been the normal thing for a child? Why would that be so bad? If he's remembering wrong, why can't he allow himself to remember the grief he must have felt? Does it feel too vulnerable for him to remember that?

I like that you say he's acting out the part of a gentleman. I do agree. He even talks of how at school he mimicked the other students' mannerisms. I wonder if it dates back to his fears of not being English enough?

Franky wrote: "Yes, the memories or looking into the past seem to be a common theme with this author. I feel like we are not really grounded in one time period because we are constantly going back to a memory fro..."

That's true Franky, the time frames are very fractured; even within the memories themselves the timeframe wanders. It is a lot to piece together!

Ellen wrote: "I too am enthralled by this novel. The pacing to me and how information is revealed seems close to perfect. I wonder if anyone has noticed that time--yesterday, now, etc.--seems disorienting. It's ..."

Ellen, I love the pacing as well, and so far, I haven't been bored for a moment! The mixing of timeframes is definitely there, as Franky pointed out too. It takes some work to put all the pieces together! I often find myself flipping back to be sure I've placed things right.

Mark wrote: "He seems to have been an effective detective professionally, but as for personal traumas, he's solidly in La La Land."

Good point Mark. It is a weird thing, but maybe, he's just much better at comprehending other people's motivations and actions than he is in understanding his own?

A big part of the fun for a reader is teasing out the details that are trustworthy. That phrase "English enough" is one that echoes throughout the story, starting with the second paragraph and his pride in the flat he'd found. His pride in his "detection prowess" also seems to be valid in his professional life. There are a lot of popular sayings about shoemaker's children that validate his inability to turn that skill on his biggest problem.

From the two first chapters, I tend to agree with comments here but wonder if they could be merged? Is it possible that Banks is both erroneous in perception or memory and consciously controlling (for whatever reason) what information he imparts to the reader? I think there is evidence for both but haven't the time to give the novel the deep read it needs.

I wish I had the time to record each incident that prompted from me a question of why Ishiguro mentioned it, as it took place in the novel from beginning to end. I am at the beginning of Part Five and my own memories are beginning to blur on what happened when.

What do you think Ishiguro is saying about race (or ethnicity,religon, or any form of otherness) in the first two chapters?

Sam, I prefer to trust that Banks is reporting his personal truth, not that he's distorting the record for some deeper purpose. When I talked with a psychotic woman, I believe that the voices she told me about in the walls were really there for her, not that she was some "crisis actor" helping to create a psych ward. For the book, this means I have an enjoyable task of teasing out the line between Banks' imagination and the real events. When I read "I distinctly remember reproducing this mannerism on that same first day with sufficient expertise that not a single of my fellows noticed anything odd or thought to make fun," I am sure that the exact opposite effect actually applied to his schoolmates.

BTW, I've also finished the book, and I'm enjoying the process of going back and teasing out where Ishiguro first started laying out the breadcrumbs of the REAL story.

Mark wrote: "Sam, I prefer to trust that Banks is reporting his personal truth, not that he's distorting the record for some deeper purpose. When I talked with a psychotic woman, I believe that the voices she t..."

I have 20% to go and will get to it and finish when I stop piddling around with all these Goodreads topics. I can see where you got your your "batshit crazy," assessment better now and look forward to further comments later

I am not sure if my question was clear enough. "What do you think Ishiguro is saying about race (or ethnicity,religon, or any form of otherness) in the first two chapters?"
I feel Ishiguro implies Banks has an otherness in certain passages he writes which isn't fully supported in the text. There are multiple examples from the first chapters, where Banks is picked on, or called out for his being different. Many of these remarks would seem more fitting if Banks were of a different race, sexual persuasion, religion, or ethnicity. I find this very striking in the early chapters. I don't know if anyone else felt that way.

Greg wrote: "Gini wrote: "interesting that his memories are amended after he recalls them, particularly since details are his forte as a detective. Which version is closer to the truth?
Haven't finished pt 1 an..."

You are correct about that being the way memory works for all of us. Each time we recollect a memory, it is then re-stored by the brain. It is during this re-storing that a memory can be amended. For example, if you are recounting an outing someone may remark that it was a hot day. That then can become part of your ‘memory’. That’s obviously a simplistic example & it can be much more nuanced.
Childhood memories, in particular, are hazy because the hippocampus, which is intrinsic to storing the detail of memories, is not fully formed until adolescence.
I find the whole subject of memory fascinating- how we can have such a strong & clear recollection of something that never happened. Or no recollection of a seismic event. Memory is much more dynamic than static.
I’m interested in the discussion even though I’m not currently rereading the book.

Sam wrote: "I have 20% to go and will get to it and finish when I stop piddling around with all these Goodreads topics. I can see where you got your your "batshit crazy," assessment better now and look forward to further comments later."

Interesting Mark and Sam! I'm only 50% done, but it sounds like I have some stuff to look forward too!

Lesley wrote: "Childhood memories, in particular, are hazy because the hippocampus, which is intrinsic to storing the detail of memories, is not fully formed until adolescence.
I find the whole subject of memory fascinating- how we can have such a strong & clear recollection of something that never happened. Or no recollection of a seismic event. Memory is much more dynamic than static."

Definitely on all these points Lesley! As far as a lot of these recollections in the book being childhood memories, more than once the narrator admits that he isn't sure if he's recounting what happened in a particular instance or what an adult told him later had happened. I can see that with my nieces and nephews - there are memories they don't recall that have been recounted to them by others, and all of those second-hand recollections have formed a sort of second memory of the first one that has been lost.

It's not surprising that the narrator wouldn't remember everything properly as all of the adults that were there in his childhood have pretty much gone out of the picture altogether.

Sam wrote: "I am not sure if my question was clear enough. "What do you think Ishiguro is saying about race (or ethnicity,religon, or any form of otherness) in the first two chapters?"
I feel Ishiguro implies Banks has an otherness in certain passages he writes which isn't fully supported in the text. There are multiple examples from the first chapters, where Banks is picked on, or called out for his being different. Many of these remarks would seem more fitting if Banks were of a different race, sexual persuasion, religion, or ethnicity. I find this very striking in the early chapters. I don't know if anyone else felt that way."

This is an excellent observation Sam, and I think you're right; what's there in the narrator's explanation is very hazy and indistinct. It seems like he himself doesn't understand the reactions he gets; so his response to it is inarticulate.

For one thing, much of this book is set in the 1920s and 1930s, and I think in that era prior to the Internet and other things that collapsed some cultural differences, cultures were a lot more uniform. In the United States for instance, there were huge resentments against other ethnicities we would think of as white today like Poles or Irish people. I didn't live in that era, obviously, but it seems from listening to people's personal stories that gender behavior and cultural roles in general were much more rigid. It didn't take quite as much to be other as it does nowadays. And those unwritten rules can be nebulous and really hard to pin down, especially for someone who comes from outside of the main culture.

But looking at the evidence in the book, there are two incidents I've read so far where he calls out behavior that got an inexplicable reaction. These are in parts 3-4; so I'm going to give some of my take in responding to your question in the next thread.

See you over there! I have to go to a medical appointment, but I'll be back mid-day to respond in parts 3-4.

Getting started late; I just finished Part 1.

I'm enjoying this so far. Ishiguro's prose is a pleasure. I loved English detective fiction as a kid (Conan Doyle, Agatha Christie, John Dickson Carr etc), so this is great fun. And I'm probably distracted from the more subtle things Ishiguro is doing.

One thing that jumped out at me is the constant harping on Evil. Simpler times!

Bill, Yes, this is another element that shows the reader how Banks is performing "as" a child's view of an English detective. Do you see other mannerisms that show this?

Mark wrote: "Do you see other mannerisms that show this?"
Hmm maybe.

I'm well into Part 2, and Banks' unreliable nature is quite clear by this point. For instance, what's with all the u-turns regarding Hemmings? He himself mentioned memory as being unreliable and dynamic, and yet he regales us with small details from his childhood. He seems to have an obsessive need to analyze personal interactions and motivations (consistent with that detective thing, I suppose).

I must admit I'm getting quite annoyed with Banks, and it's influencing my reading of the novel. I've had to engage with people who have similar traits; it can be exhausting.

Right there with you, Bill. What started out as an intriguing case of an unreliable narrator devolved into . . . something else.

Mark wrote: "Bill, Yes, this is another element that shows the reader how Banks is performing "as" a child's view of an English detective. Do you see other mannerisms that show this?"

I noticed this too Mark and Bill. The way he describes his calling as fighting "evil" is very simplistic. It's interesting though that he's still very successful as a detective in solving cases.

Bill, what traits do you recognize in people that you find annoying, the over-analyzing? He definitely is a character who is in his head a lot, but oddly, despite that his self perceptions are drastically off. It's impossible that so many different people are perceiving him wrong, as he keeps running into different people who think things about him that he doesn't think are accurate.

A guy I worked for sometimes reached those levels of self-blindness. At one point, after TWENTY ONE secretaries in a row had declined a job offer or had quit shortly after being hired, commented that they just didn't have the training they needed anymore.

Mark wrote: "A guy I worked for sometimes reached those levels of self-blindness. At one point, after TWENTY ONE secretaries in a row had declined a job offer or had quit shortly after being hired, commented th..."

Ha ha, yes, if everyone has a problem with one particular person, perhaps it is not everyone else who has the problem.

And wow, 21 is incredible!! I feel sorry for those secretaries!

Greg wrote: "Bill, what traits do you recognize in people that you find annoying, the over-analyzing?
That's a part of it. And like Banks, they insist on oversharing their analysis.

He definitely is a character who is in his head a lot, but oddly, despite that his self perceptions are drastically off."
In my experience, this is quite common.

But I'll stop here before I start over-analyzing.

I'm done with Part 2. I'm certainly intrigued with what actually happened with the disappearances, though I have theories. I suppose it's too much to hope that Banks will stop playing up his Incredibly Psychologically Perceptive Child routine and just give us the facts.

Well I’m thoroughly enjoying this. I’m happy to go along with this unreliable narrator and see what he has to tell us--I’m not feeling at all annoyed!

On the contrary, I find the mood/feel luscious. Very Ishiguro, in that the narrator is clearly unaware of things that we are bound to discover as important. Something about telling a story through this lens is tantalizing. Maybe because we can relate. We’re in the midst of our own stories, and similarly will discover things in the future that we are currently ignorant of. I think Ishiguro is very skillful at this approach. We wonder which things the narrator is keeping from himself, and which things he’s keeping from us?

I agree with Greg that he’s detached from his own feelings (but I was predisposed to think this way because of Remains of the Day). And I think his strange manner is possibly the result of his trauma combined with his multi-culture upbringing, and the fact he was raised to be pampered and self-centered.

I agree with Ellen above that the pacing is perfect and time purposely disorienting. I wonder if this is to make a point about memory?

I don’t read detective fiction much, but as Mark said above about shoemaker’s children, I wonder if it’s a trope that a great detective, who understands all kinds of people and clues, is often clueless about himself?

Bill, ha ha! perhaps even "Veddy English Incredibly Psychologically Perceptive Child."

Kathleen wrote: " Very Ishiguro, in that the narrator is clearly unaware of things that we are bound to discover as important. Something about telling a story through this lens is tantalizing. Maybe because we can relate. We’re in the midst of our own stories, and similarly will discover things in the future that we are currently ignorant of."

I like this Kathleen, and I find unreliable narrators interesting as well!

To add to Kathleen’s comment it’s fun to consider how different the mythological China Banks left behind is from the one he will encounter when (and if) he returns. We all get a shock when we travel back to a childhood neighborhood or a place and are forced to confront how different reality is from memory.

Ellen wrote: "To add to Kathleen’s comment it’s fun to consider how different the mythological China Banks left behind is from the one he will encounter when (and if) he returns. We all get a shock when we trave..."

Definitely Ellen! I have experienced that myself, when I went back as an adult to the state where I had been born. But how much more so it would be for Christopher, coming back to an artificially sustained international zone that existed even in his childhood precariously within the whims of the politics of the day!

I’m behind all of you in my reading. I just finished Part 2. I read this book quite a few years ago but don’t remember much. There it is, the unreliable memory!!! I’ve been reading “The Covenant of Water” which has some similar themes; British people in Asia.

I’m also interested in the question of where race, ethnicity, religion, and otherness in general comes into play in the novel. The part of the novel set in Shanghai during Chris’s childhood takes place just after The Opium Wars where the British won the right to bring in as much opium as they wanted to the Chinese. Chris’s mother rails against this practice as the father works for a trading company that does this. British people made a lot of money doing this. But they didn’t ingest opium. In addition, there was discussion about how Chris was not allowed to leave the international area because of the immorality of the Chinese.

Ok, on to Part 3.