The Remains of the Day - Section 3 - Through the End

[Tamara]

Please feel free to discuss the entire book in this post.

[Tamara]

Discussion Questions from LitLovers.com

(view spoiler)[1. What does Stevens care most deeply about? Can you articulate a world view for him?

2. Consider the decisions Stevens makes during time of his father's death, as well as the dismissal of the two Jewish servants. Where do Stevens's ethical responsibilities lie — given his time in history and place in society?

3. Talk about is the social hierarchy to which Stevens is completely loyal—yet which exploits him thoroughly.

4. And, of course, poor Miss Kenton. Would she ever have been happy with Stevens? Or could she have humanized him had she persisted and won him over? Oh...and what about the fact that she never left when she was forced to dismiss the two Jewish maids? Is she as culpable as Stevens in this matter? What would most of us do in her place?

5. This novel is famous for its "unreliable narrator," meaning that Stevens who tells the story colors a great deal in his telling. He seems blind to much that goes on around him, events that we, the readers, see and judge differently than Stevens seems to. Give some examples of Steves's inability to see things as readers see them. What blinds Steven, or gets in his way of understanding, especially when it comes to Lord Darlington.

6. You might also tackle the ending. What happens to Stevens after he leaves Miss Kenton? What does he come to understand, what insights has he gained? Will he change—indeed, is he capable of change? (hide spoiler)]

[Rick]

Borrowing heavily from existential terms, in which an individual makes his choices based on deliberation between what is true to internal directives (himself and his own values) and what is in line with external directives (social constraints, the "norm"), Mr. Stevens appears to be acting in "bad faith"; that is, he seems to have given over his decision-making capabilities to the twin gods of Duty and Dignity. This leads him to make his most objectionable decisions, most obviously that regarding the Jewish housemaids. Obviously, he feels the tension between what he does and what he somehow feels he should do, but he manages, not very completely, to bury these inner objections in his loyalty to Lord Darlington and his almost religious belief in the infallibility of his master's decisions.
Miss Kenton, on the other hand, is much more obviously engaged in the critical tension between what should happen and what does happen. Her escape from this existential crisis is deferred until she rather desperately flees into the safer context of becoming Mrs. Benn. That doesn't make her a more sympathetic character because it seems like a cowardly tactic that arrives too late and with the adverse effect of rendering her unremittingly unhappy. The fact is that Mr. Stevens has no such recourse available to him; short of quitting the service of Lord Darlington entirely and becoming--what? a manager of a golf links? an usher at an opera house?--Stevens has to stay the course and deal with the consequences of others' decisions that he has adopted as his own. In this light, Stevens' actions acquire, paradoxically, a degree of existential good faith.
As Maudie Atkinson says in To Kill A Mockingbird, I'm just ravellin' a thread here.

[Darcy]

Hmmm . . . well, I'm not so sure I agree that Stevens doesn't have other options. He's clearly a good and dedicated butler. He could move into service at another house (although, granted, that was becoming much less of an option by the 1930s). Or, he could leave service altogether. Or, he could register his disagreement in many other ways. He has employers who are not entirely terrible people, even if they do and think terrible things. Lord Darlington is a hack, but he's a hack who cares what those around him think. He apologizes, for instance, to Stevens after the mortifying Q and A scene about taxes. And Darlington's nephew consults Stevens when he believes Darlington needs guidance away from fascism. The book makes clear that Stevens actually does have power--but it is power that he repeatedly refuses to engage with or even to acknowledge. I think to suggest that he has no recourse ends up replicating his own ideological beliefs that there are masters and servants and that some people should make all the decisions and other people should not.

For me, the difference between Kenton and Stevens is that she's willing to grapple with the decisions she made while he is not. Yes, they both adopt morally problematic positions, particularly in relation to the firing of the maids, but Stevens over and over claims ignorance as to how such events unfolded or why he does the things he does. He cannot imagine why he lies about being Lord Darlington's butler, or why the people in the village get the impression he's a gentleman, or why he's crying after his father's death. And Kenton, at least, clearly registers her unhappiness over the firing; Stevens does not--he barely even registers it with the reader, much less with his employer, and repeatedly calls it a "minor incident." For Stevens, the "incident" is much more about an opportunity to pettily torment Kenton by repeatedly reminding her of her proposed resignation than it is about anything the two maids might have suffered or about his own moral lapse. So much for his dignity, I guess.

[Nicqui]

I finally finished this book last night and I have to say, I really did not care for this book and I certainly would not read it again.

Stevens is not likeable at all. In fact, he's spineless. I don't know if this is a reflection of the position of butlers of the time but he had no real opinion on anything. He had no view, or perspective on anything happening around him. He just followed blindly behind Lord Darlington. In the end, I felt pity for him. I feel like his entire life was wasted. He existed, he didn't live. I hope he did better under Mr. Farraday.

I appreciate that Miss Kenton had feelings for Stevens and that they had a weird, twisted sort of relationship but for the life of me I can't understand why she would have feelings for him. She had principles and opinions, what would she want with Stevens?

[Ashley]

I finished this book today. Yay! I did not really like it and would definitely not read it again or recommend it.

Stevens was so robotic. He had no life outside of being a butler which is kind of sad. I also did not understand Miss Kenton's feelings for Stevens. I think he would have been a person I would not want to be around or spend any time with.

[Nicqui]

Ashley wrote: "I finished this book today. Yay! I did not really like it and would definitely not read it again or recommend it.

Stevens was so robotic. He had no life outside of being a butler which is kind of ..."

Exactly my feeling. Especially in regards to Kenton. What did she see in him. She must have x-ray vision to see that deep down, because he had no substance.

[Laurie]

I can see why some of you see Stevens in a negative light. I don't, at least not entirely - I see him as a tragic figure, a man who is capable of love (for his father and Miss Kenton), but incapable of letting down his guard to express it. A man who feels grief, but who can not even acknowledge it to himself - the three times we see him visibly upset, we know this only because someone else asks him if he is all right.

He is devoted to being as "great" a butler as he can be, achieving dignity in his role, and to him that means never letting down the facade unless he is completely alone. I believe this is a way of honoring his father. Whatever the reason, in order to prop up his self-image of dignity, he comes to suppress all threats to his equanimity. These include his own emotions, and his doubts about Lord Darlington. As his trip progresses, he has time for introspection, and we see the cracks in his own denial getting just a bit wider and wider, until they are broken apart by Mrs Benn's statement that she imagined a future with him. He is forced suddenly to confront all that he has denied himself, and the fact that he has given his best to a man who did not have the moral strength that he wanted him to have.

I found the subtle, gradual unwrapping of this story devastating, and I have tremendous compassion for Stevens, despite his faults. I must say, even though most of you seem not to feel the way I do about this book, I am very grateful that this group gave me the push to re-read it. I love it even more than the first time I read it. Just brilliant, to me.

[Nicqui]

I suppose it's one of those books that requires a second or maybe third read to fully understand and appreciate the complexity of the character and all he represents rather than just see the story at face value.

Laurie, you give some very excellent insight. I appreciate your POV, especially as it comes from a second read. In retrospect, I can see where Stevens was a man striving for something, that for all intents and purposes was unattainable, and failing because the definition is so subjective. I can see where he came to terms with his failures and short comings over the course of his trip and how he was making small steps to change towards the end.

I can see the benefits of a re-read, I'm just not sure I could physically make it through a second reading.

[Laurie]

Nicqui, if you are ever in the mood to explore this book further, you could watch the movie instead of committing to re-reading it. It was a Merchant Ivory production starring Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson and it was very good, nominated for multiple Oscars.

I appreciate you responding to my comment - having differing opinions makes for an interesting discussion. I am looking forward to the Bridge of San Luis Rey and reading at the same time as the group. I have already read the God of Small Things and, while I liked it, don't feel like re-reading it.

[Nicqui]

I didn't know there was a movie. I think I will try to source that for this weekend. Thanks for the suggestion. That might be a better route than rereading the book.

[Tamara]

I just finished this book about an hour ago and have read all your comments and some reviews here on goodreads.

I liked this book. And though I didn't like Stevens as a character, I appreciated him. We will not like all characters we read but coming into contact with them will help us understand ourselves and other people better.

What I mostly took away from this book is to not be defined by circumstances. Stevens let himself be defined by his job and the person he worked for. He could not disassociate his person and personal thoughts and feelings with those of his employers and the demands of his career. Even today, we see so many people who are nothing but their jobs and it is so sad to see, at least for me anyway. I enjoyed reading Stevens' recollections and reflections on his life, and the change he seemed to make toward the end that it was OK to have a human connection. I was particularly struck by the passage, " Perhaps it is indeed time I began to look at this whole matter of bantering more enthusiastically. After all, when one thinks about it, it is not such a foolish thing to indulge in - particularly if it is the case that in bantering lies the key to human warmth." I was glad that Stevens ultimately decided to embrace human interaction on a personal level.

I thought the book well written, as always with Ishiguro. I am happy to have read this one and plan on watching the movie, though definitely not rereading the book.

[Nicqui]

Yes. I didn't like him but I could appreciate his reflections on his life thus far. I also liked that there seemed to be growth taking place within him, even if it was just the simple matter of bantering. That passage was brilliant in highlighting his growth.

It is sad when people can't dissociate their being from their profession.

[HyL]

You've all probably moved on in your reading, but I just wanted to say how much I appreciated Laurie's review. Also, what struck me most about this book, beyond the protagonist's existential dilemmas, was that it is a searing indictment on the British peerage & class system. I read it as almost ethnographic in Ishiguro's exposé of the internal workings of that strata of society (service), that is usually overlooked, but is actually essential to the maintenance of all that is romanticised and remembered about the peerage. If I was to seek a North American parallel for a Stevens-type character, I'd look to the representations and expectations of soldiers, whose internal feelings about what their job requires are irrelevant, and who are praised for, Indeed find honour and self-esteem in, duty, loyalty, and obedience.

[Nicqui]

Interesting comparison. I'd never considered it from that point of view but that is true. Much like Stevens, who doesn't agree with the beliefs of his employer but goes along with his actions because of the requirements of the post to which he is appointed, military persons undertake wars that are rooted in misguided reasons. You make an excellent point, HyL. Thanks for that.

[Laurie]

HyL wrote: "You've all probably moved on in your reading, but I just wanted to say how much I appreciated Laurie's review. Also, what struck me most about this book, beyond the protagonist's existential dilemm..."

Thanks, HyL. I find your comparison to soldiers interesting as well, and I agree that there are a lot of similarities. The difference, I suspect, is that the soldiers would feel free to complain "below-stairs" - Stevens would not permit it in his household, that's for sure!