The Remains of the Day (part three: third, fourth and sixth days) - November 2020

[Mariella]

Third Day

Here you can discuss the final part of the book. A general thread, for an overall discussion, has been created.

[Carlton]

On Stevens third day, he reflects further on his time at Darlington Hall in the 1930’s.
With mention of Lord Halifax, who was party to Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement to Hitler in the 1930’s, as a house guest at Darlington Hall, we are led to understand the nature of Lord Darlington’s ignominy. As Stevens outlines, Lord Darlington’s initial sympathy with fascist views was not that unusual in the early 1930’s in upper class circles, with an enthusiasm for strong leadership. However, following another accidental stop when Stevens runs out of petrol, he has to stay at a welcoming working class couple’s home for the night in Moscombe, Stevens subsequent reflections voice uncritical acceptance of Lord Darlington’s views regarding democracy being outdated form of government and Stevens seeming acceptance of the benefit of an oligarchic government comes as an unpleasant surprise.
We also learn more of Miss Kenton and the small events that cumulatively and in retrospect come to be viewed by Stevens as “turning points” in his relationship (such as it was) with her.

[Sean]

The insights on day three seem to be mostly about Lord Darlington and why he is now thought of in bad light. I do find it interesting though how unable Steven's is to deal with the townspeople. He was so worried about embarrassing anybody that he let them keep believing in error. I almost wish the doctor had made him feel bad for that rather than making it seem okay.

At the end of the day I was feeling anxious for his meeting with Miss Kenton. My biggest question is, "does she remember everything the same way he does?" and are we about to find out how unreliable our narrator really is?

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees]

To me, the hardest hitting part of the book was Stevens' insight into the difference between him and Lord Darlington. Lord Darlington had done the wrong thing, but he had done it of his own free choosing--he had made his own decisions in life. Stevens' felt that, by the end, he may also have made bad choices, but that he had abdicated his choice by cloaking himself with the dignity of his position.

It's an interesting question--the dignity that Stevens refers to still seems to me to be a positive thing, but perhaps the point here is that even a good thing, when it asks you to make immoral choices, becomes something else. The key choice he had to make on a professional level was letting the Jewish maids go. On a personal level, he could never bring himself to admit the depth of his relationship with Miss Kenton.

What makes Stevens fascinating to me in his unreliable narrator role is that he does the same thing most of us to, to one degree or another, and that is selectively remember things in order to keep our personalities from crumbling. But for Stevens, this trip is where it kind of falls apart for him, due to his examination of what remains of his day.

[Sean]

Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "the dignity that Stevens refers to still seems to me to be a positive thing, but perhaps the point here is that even a good thing, when it asks you to make immoral choices, becomes something else."

You have hit upon an interesting thought here. Do you think it's an accident that there seems to be a parallel to the Nuremburg Trial defense of "I was only following orders"?.... I was only doing my duty... I was only maintaining the dignity of my position...

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees]

I hadn't extrapolated it out that far, but in a sense, maybe yes. On a personal level, one has to wonder if Stevens' found a way to hide from the world in his shell of dignity. He seems to me to at least partially figured that out at the end when he talks about the difference between him and Lord Darlington.

In the scene where Miss Kenton comes into his Butler's Pantry and sees him reading the cheap romance, I had the distinct impression that she was flirting with him, in that very stiff manner that both of them had. I also had the impression that it frightened him to death, and he retreated into the dignity of his position in order to avoid having to deal with the complication. Same with the death of his father. There were personal consequences for that, and I rather pity him for his emotional inability to connect. But when he goes along with firing the Jewish maids, it's a different level. I think he knew all along that what he was doing was wrong--I believe he mentioned that he had to prepare himself for how he would inform Miss Kenton--but if there was any doubt, she, as a kind of exterior consciousness, made the facts pretty plain.

So, I suppose there could be a link to what you are saying. It seems even a little stronger since the book is dealing with the same time period. Whether Ishiguro meant it or not, there is an idea here that even the best people make mistakes in ideology (Lord Darlington), retreat from responsibility from fear of engagement (Stevens), or fail to live up to their best ideas of themselves because they are just not economically in a position to do anything else (Miss Kenton).

[Sean]

Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "In the scene where Miss Kenton comes into his Butler's Pantry and sees him reading the cheap romance, I had the distinct impression that she was flirting with him, in that very stiff manner that both of them had...."

100% agree with this. I got that impression too. I think that she told him about the engagement because she wanted him to get upset and tell her that he wanted her to not get engaged because he had feelings for her... as if!! At one point he even mentioned that the only time a butler can be "not on duty" is when there is absolutely nobody around. Only when he was by himself could he be simply a man.

Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "there is an idea here that even the best people make mistakes in ideology (Lord Darlington)...."

Agree again. But I did toy with the idea that maybe Lord Darlington was not so innocent at all and that he really had those anti-Semitic views, but Stevens refused to see them because he had to be loyal. Even loyal to a fault.

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees]

Sean wrote: "But I did toy with the idea that maybe Lord Darlington was not so innocent at all and that he really had those anti-Semitic views, but Stevens refused to see them because he had to be loyal. Even loyal to a fault. ..."

I can see that. Stevens is so unreliable that it leaves a lot of room for interpretation.