21st Century Literature discussion
2/22 Buried Giant
>
THE BURIED GIANT, SPOILERS ALLOWED
I read this a couple of years ago. I loved it as much as I loved The Remains of the Day although the two novels are so different. I see the setting, characters, and plot in this novel as vehicles to engage us with the theme—a meditation on memory. Rather than reiterate what I said in my review, below is an excerpt:Ishiguro gradually builds meaning as the narrative unfolds. The language is mesmerizing; the world he creates blends history with mythology with fantasy. This is a fable that raises profound questions about the efficacy of personal and collective memories and their role in healing and reconciliation—questions as relevant today as they were in the past.
My full review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I read this in 2015 and liked it quite a bit. I agree with Tamara that the book can be considered "a meditation on memory." While Tamara's review is much better than mine, you can read mine at https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I had to boot up my old laptop to find a review from March 2015. I obviously didn't copy what I wrote then into Goodreads. I recall at the time there was quite a divided audience - many thought this was not as good as earlier novels like 'Remains of the Day' or 'Never Let Me Go'. I enjoyed it, loved the misty plot that made it hard to see, and wondered at the time if there were many more levels that might not emerge at once.
One of the things I noted in my review was that sometimes the voice of the narrator would emerge - he describes a palisade around a village as looking like a row of sharpened pencils - before vanishing and leaving the characters to speak.
Marcus wrote: "One of the things I noted in my review was that sometimes the voice of the narrator would emerge - he describes a palisade around a village as looking like a row of sharpened pencils - before vanishing and leaving the characters to speak."What an interesting observation!
I don't remember a lot of details from the book, but I loved the setting of the book - this magical place with magical creatures, and what if our memories were fuzzy about our past. What would we find if the mist lifted? Would it help, or would it be painful?
Mod
Clarke, I moved this response to your comment from the general discussion to this one, as we may be treading into 'spoiler' territory
I don't really know enough about prose poetry to say exactly what it implies about the meaning of a text. I will observe that many of the negative reviews and opinions from people who didn't like this book frequently refer to it as an "allegory". I don't see it as some kind of allegory but as an exploration of particular ideas, like most novels, which happens to be in a fantasy setting.
I'm not sure why the fantasy setting seems to make people convinced it's used as allegory rather than an interesting and useful milieu; I suspect it's due to the usual genre prejudices (I'm not talking about your question here, but rather people's insistence on "allegory").
I think Ishiguro chose this setting because it allows the exploration of the central ideas of what it means to forget (and rediscover) uncomfortable truths, without the reader being able to bring their own conceits about historical truths to the table. We discover it along with the characters.
Whitney wrote: "I think Ishiguro chose this setting because it allows the exploration of the central ideas of what it means to forget (and rediscover) uncomfortable truths, without the reader being able to bring their own conceits about historical truths to the table. We discover it along with the characters. "I love this.
That's interesting Whitney - it's like people have to force the allegory on it so people don't view it as "just fantasy."
Whitney wrote: "I'm not sure why the fantasy setting seems to make people convinced it's used as allegory rather than an interesting and useful milieu; .."I'm a little confused about this.
An allegory is by definition a story that operates on two different levels. The first level is the actual story which, in this case, happens to be a fantasy. The second level is what the story is really about, i.e. the point it is making about society or human nature.
Whitney wrote: "I don't see it as some kind of allegory but as an exploration of particular ideas, like most novels, which happens to be in a fantasy setting.
But, by definition, isn't that what makes it an allegory? Isn't that what Ishiguro is doing? Not all fantasies are allegorical. But in this case, isn't Ishiguro using fantasy as a vehicle to explore personal and collective memories and their role in healing and reconciliation? Which is another way of saying his "surface" story is allegorical.
Sorry if I misunderstood, but I guess I'm not clear on the distinction you're making.
Tamara wrote: "Whitney wrote: "I'm not sure why the fantasy setting seems to make people convinced it's used as allegory rather than an interesting and useful milieu; .."I'm a little confused about this.
Whitney wrote: "I don't see it as some kind of allegory but as an exploration of particular ideas, like most novels, which happens to be in a fantasy setting.
But, by definition, isn't that what makes it an allegory? Isn't that what Ishiguro is doing?
An a..."
I think we have to clarify the distinctions between allegory and symbolism. An allegory is didactic, like Pilgrim's Progress. There is a one-to-one correspondence between image and meaning, and the meaning is explicit and accepted by the reader. Another example would be "The Birthmark" by Hawthorne. Symbolism is more open-ended. I think that's what we have going on here. I have to run, but I will go into this more in a future post.
One of the things I liked best was the contrast between the young and old and the approaches to what to do with memories of betrayal. The young saxons are pledged to war and to continuing the cycle of betrayals because they remember them - Beatrice and Axl find peace even though what they finally remember when the mist lifts are also betrayals and the death of their son. Theirs is almost a "truth and reconciliation" process, using acknowledgement and apology to blunt the emotional force of anger and uplift that of love. And yet, that is not a strength of youth, there is no history of love to use as counterweight, and so the world continues in war.
Bretnie wrote: "Whitney wrote: "I think Ishiguro chose this setting because it allows the exploration of the central ideas of what it means to forget (and rediscover) uncomfortable truths, without the reader being..."I see this as more similar to speculative fiction than fantasy. He stretches reality and introduces elements that are not part of our world, but they seem to obey physical laws which grounds the story in actual human actions and reactions.
Mod
Mod
No. Not everything that explores ideas is allegory, unless you want to expand the definition to include pretty much every work of art. In which case the term becomes so broad as to be meaningless.
The time setting is an interesting choice. Historians have stopped referring to this period as 'The Dark Ages', using instead Early Middle Ages, but the time from the end of the Roman Empire, which is Britain is given a date of 410, when the Legions were pulled back closer to Rome, was a time when things did indeed go dark - there were no written texts for centuries and much of what we know was either something written much later, or is what we have discovered from digging things out of the ground. There is the obvious parallel with the mist and the 'dark'.The fact that we know so little obviously allowed later generations to make up great stories. One of the reactions to the ruins of Roman cities from the people that lived in these places for the next few hundred years, was that they were built by giants. For people who had spent their whole lives in wooden huts, the massive stone buildings could only have been the work of giants.
I was curious to see this novel described in the fantasy genre. That may be because I have read lots of Arthurian stories, and because I studied early mediaeval history, I have also seen lots of hints towards some real historical events or characters. So for me the basis of the tales were myths, just like Homer and the story of Odysseus.If you look at all of Ishiguro's output there are multiple genres. A couple fall into Sci-fi (Never Let me Go and Klara & the Sun) while When We Were Orphans has a detective theme. Some are historical but fantasy just doesn't work for me here. I think it is simply a means to express a deeper story of age, memory and loss. The same themes are there in The Remains of the Day and An Artist of the Floating World.
Whitney wrote: "No. Not everything that explores ideas is allegory, unless you want to expand the definition to include pretty much every..."I'm not suggesting that everything that explores ideas is an allegory. That would be ridiculous. I am suggesting that it is allegorical because it can be read on two different levels: a primary or surface level (the story of Beatrice and Axl) and a secondary level (an exploration of memory and its role in healing and reconciliation). Another example of an allegory would be Animal Farm.
It’s worth noting that in the interview with KI to which there is a link provided by others in these threads, KI refers to Greek literature 2 or 3 times in the first 15 minutes. (I was unable to listen beyond that.) So I was thinking about this idea of Memory, Mnemosyne. The Greek word conjures up the traditional association between memory and creation or creativity, the muses, etc. This would help in understanding the loss of memory and its recurrence, because then the restoration of memory coincides with the resolution (end) of life itself. Life is the completed act, which, for the artist, is the completed work of art. This suggests also end of struggle, end of seeking, end of search for meaning, and so on. It’s ironic, because death is often associated with loss of memory/awareness, rather than restoration of it; and since we are now clearly dealing with mythical ideas, we remember that Charon, the ferryman, takes us to the Land of the Dead over the river Styx or Acheron. However, the river Lethe (river of forgetfulness) is one of the rivers in Hades, where the dead reside. So how does that fit in with the restoration of memory? Well, let’s not forget the giant. If what we have is a mythic journey of life, with memory blocked out for most of it until the end, that, to me, suggests that the giant is an image of Death, which awaits us at the end of our journey, but that, throughout our journey of life, we do not like to think of him. We forget about him until he is upon us. Is this frightening? Maybe, maybe not. We remember (moving on to allusion to medieval literature, which KI knows we will do) that Beatrice is the name of the beautiful maiden who guides Dante to Paradise, after he has visited Hell and Purgatory. Axl and Bea clearly express their belief or wish that they will soon be reunited. This, in itself, would be a good thing, if true. In its entirety, however, the mood of the novel is dark, foreboding, expectant yet trepidatious, hopeful yet worrisome. Our heroes are old people. This is the anxiety dream of an older person contemplating his/her own approaching death.
However, I would not use the word "allegory" to describe the book, because in an allegory, there is only one meaning. And also (using a definition of allegory that comes from Coleridge and was disagreed with by others later) a symbol is always itself, whereas in an allegory, the image is not itself, but always only the meaning. So, for example, whatever Moby Dick represents, he is first and foremost a whale. But the Slough of Despond in Bunyan is not really a body of water, it's really only man's moral despair. (Melville=symbol; Bunyan=allegory).
Tamara wrote: Another example of an allegory would be Animal Farm.Yes, I think Animal Farm qualifies, but note that in Animal Farm the meanings are singular (not suggestive of more than one meaning) and the animals are not really significant in and of themselves, but are only markers for the meaning. Typical of Beast Fable.
Mod
Animal Farm is an allegory because the animal uprising is specifically an allegory for the Russian Revolution. Snowball = Trotsky. Napoleon = Stalin. Boxer = the proletariat. The hypocrisy of the pigs mirrors the hypocrisy of the Communist Party elite. Etc.
There is no such (intentional) correspondence in The Buried Giant.
Which is pretty much what Clarke already said:
Clarke wrote: whereas in an allegory, the image is not itself, but always only the meaning. So, for example, whatever Moby Dick represents, he is first and foremost a whale. But the Slough of Despond in Bunyan is not really a body of water, it's really only man's moral despair. (Melville=symbol; Bunyan=allegory).
Clark wrote: “However, I would not use the word "allegory" to describe the book, because in an allegory, there is only one meaning.I dusted off my copy of A Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory for clarification. This is how it defines allegory:
As a rule, an allegory is a story in verse or prose with a double meaning; a primary or surface meaning; and a secondary or under-the-surface meaning. It is a story, therefore, that can be read, understood and interpreted at two levels (and in some cases at three or four levels).
I understand that to mean an allegory has one meaning but can be interpreted on more than one level.
Whitney wrote: “Animal Farm is an allegory because the animal uprising is specifically an allegory for the Russian Revolution.
I get what you’re saying, and I think I figured out where we differ. I agree that an allegory has only one meaning, but the fact that it can be interpreted at more than one level says to me there does not always have to be an exact correspondence for it to be an allegory. In other words, while Animal Farm is an allegory about the Russian Revolution, it is not only about the Russian Revolution since it can have more than one interpretation. It can also be an allegory about revolutions in general and about what can happen in any society when former revolutionaries take power. All one has to do is substitute the names of former revolutionaries who became dictators and the allegory will still work. Its meaning remains the same, but the correspondence can differ. I think that is our point of difference. I think you see the necessity for an exact correspondence whereas I don't.
I appreciate both you and Clark taking the time to clarify your understanding of allegory because it has helped me refine my understanding of the term. But perhaps it’s time we got back to the novel.
Some varied thoughts:I had read this a couple of years ago and hadn't planned to contribute since I was not ready for a reread, but I was reminded of one thing that struck me at the time by Tamara's thoughts. Much of what is happening in the novel is allusive of symptoms of dementia. I was curious if that was coincidental or intentional and never followed though with additional study.
While reading the remarks on allegory, I wanted to remind everyone that language is not static and words undergo change in sound and meaning over time and distance as painful as we may find that. I think allegory is in process with the term allegorical frequently used as Tamara did it in common usage.
Klara and the Sun is very similar to Buried Giant in the Ishiguru's use of generic tropes to explore ideas. I think reading the two reinforces the understanding of each.
I'll ask a really basic question - what did you think of Sir Gawain's character? I thought he was an interesting addition to the book and not what I expected.
Sam wrote: I wanted to remind everyone that language is not static and words undergo change in sound and meaning over time and distance as painful as we may find that. I think allegory is in process with the term allegorical frequently used as Tamara did it in common usage.I agree. Also like your point about dementia.
Mod
Hmmm, no, I don't think we're agreeing. An allegory absolutely does not have only have one meaning. Any good work of art, allegorical or not, can have almost infinite meanings and interpretations. It's the one-to-one correspondence that makes an allegory, that doesn't mean just and only.
So, maybe to better understand what you're trying to say, can you name a few examples of novels which are not allegories under your definition?
Bretnie wrote: "I'll ask a really basic question - what did you think of Sir Gawain's character? I thought he was an interesting addition to the book and not what I expected."One thing Gawain does is suggest meta-literature. He is a character from previous literature, so I think we're invited to look for these connections to previous literature, and to make corresponding symbolic/allegorical/representational inferences.
Whitney wrote: "So, maybe to better understand what you're trying to say, can you name a few examples of novels which are not allegories under your definition?.."Whitney, a few examples that come to mind: Stoner, Hamnet, Iza's Ballad. Rather than rattle off a whole list of books, I refer you to my 2021 reading challenge.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/list...
I read 88 books last year. The list is eclectic. I did a quick glance and, with the possibility of maybe 2-3 exceptions, the overwhelming majority are not allegories. We don’t have to agree on what constitutes an allegory, and since we have pretty much exhausted the topic, I suggest we move on.
Clarke wrote: "One thing Gawain does is suggest meta-literature. He is a character from previous literature, so I think we're invited to look for these connections to previous literature, and to make corresponding symbolic/allegorical/representational inferences.."The 14thC poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is the story of Sir Gawain's quest to find the green elf man. It has a magical beheading and a green elf man who is not what he first appears to be. Sir Gawain is humbled as a result of failing the quest.
I'm not quite sure how this fits with the novel. Both have in common a quest, magical creatures, and the element of things are not what they appear to be. But I don't know if we can take it any further.
Well, I mean, for example, what I was doing earlier by using images & characters from earlier literature: Beatrice from Divine Comedy, Charon from Greek literature, and so on.
Clarke wrote: "Well, I mean, for example, what I was doing earlier by using images & characters from earlier literature: Beatrice from Divine Comedy, Charon from Greek literature, and so on."Got it. Also, St. George and the dragon might fit.
and the dragon who hoards the treasure in Beowulf.
Tamara wrote: "and the dragon who hoards the treasure in Beowulf."Sure, a typological allusion is still an allusion, and in this case we think of Grendel (or I did, anyway) because this dragon is also given a name.
Tamara, I wanted to ask you to discuss your idea from your review about the burial of the giant as the suppression of memory. I thought that was interesting.
Mod
As the nephew of King Arthur and the protector of the dragon, I saw Gawain as being the last of the old guard. The ones who still believe that repression of knowledge of the past in favor of an idealized version of it is the best way to maintain the peace. One whose ideals may come more from their identity than from rationalism.
I've mentioned before how this book made me think of the parallels to the racial reckoning currently taking place in the US, even more so since I read it a few years ago. Gawain would be the equivalent of those people currently trying to ban teaching about slavery in schools, ostensibly because it causes discomfort and fuels racial enmity, but more likely because they don't like having their own identities challenged. As the nephew of King Arthur, Gawain is the equivalent of the (overly stereotyped, admittedly) old white guy who feels that his position and identity is threatened by challenges to the status quo and the false narratives that support it.
Looking at the injustices that persevere here, as well as what happens when 'mythical' figures like Tito die and the lies fall apart, count me as Team Wistan. The longer the giant stays buried, the worse the reckoning when it finally stirs.
Tamara, I was thinking of him along the same lines - mythical hero that lets us down. But Whitney, your take is super interesting.
Mod
Are the two takes mutually exclusive, though? I'm not very familiar with Arthurian legends, but if Gawain is a knight who failed his mission, hasn't he done the same again?
Clarke wrote: "Tamara, I wanted to ask you to discuss your idea from your review about the burial of the giant as the suppression of memory. I thought that was interesting...It’s been a couple of years since I last read it, so I may be a bit hazy on the details. But I think Ishiguro is exploring the efficacy of memory on the personal and collective levels.
The buried giant of the collective level is King Arthur’s betrayal/extermination of many Saxon villages. Arthur orders the mist of forgetfulness because he wants to avoid a blood bath of revenge. As long as the memory remains buried, the Saxons won’t be harboring hatred and anger toward their former enemies and/or demanding reparations for past injustices.
The buried giant of the personal level concerns the marital relationship of Beatrice and Axl. They have forgotten (“buried”) past injustices, petty grievances, hurts, resentments, anger, infidelities, etc. etc. As long as their memories remain buried and they live in the present, they are perfectly content.
But what happens if they/we remember? What happens if the giant surfaces? What happens when former dictators who have tortured, murdered, brutalized, and terrorized their own people finally crumble? Will their downfall unleash a circle of violence and revenge? Do the victims of their crimes bury the giant and let bygones be bygones, or do they go on a rampage of revenge? How far will they go if their memories continue to haunt them? Do they hunt down former neighbors who betrayed them?
On a personal level, is it possible to sustain a healthy, loving relationship with a partner when one cannot forget past injustices, grievances, betrayals, etc.? Or does one try to bury the giant in the interest of harmony?
I think Ishiguro is asking at what price do we remember? Does remembering bring up old wounds that are best forgotten? Can healing and reconciliation occur only if we remember past grievances and seek justice? Or can healing and reconciliation occur only if we suppress the memory and bury the giant?
Ishiguro invites us to ponder the questions and arrive at our conclusions.
There are probably other ways of reading it. But that's my take on it. I hope this makes sense and answers your question.
Gosh, great points Whitney, they aren't mutually exclusive! Tamara wrote: "Clarke wrote: "I think Ishiguro is asking at what price do we remember? Does remembering bring up old wounds that are best forgotten? Can healing and reconciliation occur only if we remember past grievances and seek justice? Or can healing and reconciliation occur only if we suppress the memory and bury the giant? "
Well said Tamara! I don't know the answers, but the questions were what I took away from the book (although you formed them in a more cohesive way than I did in my brain)
Bretnie wrote: "Tamara, I was thinking of him along the same lines - mythical hero that lets us down..."Gawain's ostensible mission is to find the green elf man and allow him one strike on his neck. He fulfills that mission. Although he doesn't know it, that's not his real mission, at all. Instead, what he experiences is a test of his Christian faith. He fails that test because he puts his trust in a green girdle that supposedly has magical properties which will save his life. When he is confronted with his actions, he is humbled and gains self-knowledge. So, in that sense, he doesn't fail.
It's a beautiful poem.
Marcus wrote:a deeper story of age, memory and loss. The same themes are there in The Remains of the Day and An Artist of the Floating World.Hadn't thought of this, but you are right as to TROTD (which is the only other novel by KI that I've read). It might be interesting for you, as someone who has read a lot of KI, to explore the contrasts or comparisons in treatment. ?
one of the most interesting moments for me was towrds the end when Axl actually credits the long mist as being part of what gave him time to let go of his anger and forgive, but recovering memory was necessary to really appreciate that - he was ready to make the journey with bea finally, and only when ready could he remember the hurt without being hurt.I don't know that this works in political life however, without an active process to reconcile, just like it wont work the the saxons who are committed to revenge. There are many examples of mixed ethnic communities turning into genocidal blood baths after the collapse of the Soviet union allowed the blood feuds to resurface in memory, not to mention the chaos in the Balkans etc.
Mod
Jenna, given this, why do you think he ultimately decided not to go with her?
I dont think he decided, he was refused. He didnt die and she did, and this is usually what happens, we dont get to die with our loved ones, we are forced to separate at the end, but he gave her the gift of his love in full remembrance and so she was able to go content.
Mod
Good observation, Marcus. The same themes of memory loss and invented narratives are there in "A Pale View of Hills" and "When We Were Orphans" as well. As Rise pointed out in the 'General' discussion, Ishiguro is known for hi unreliable narrators. In his other books, people edit and reinvent their memories to block out past traumas and regrets, while here he's expanded it to an entire society and a more forced forgetting from the powers than be.
I've mentioned before that the book had clear resonances for me with the situation in Spain, and parallel situations in Chile and Argentina, just to use the examples I'm most familiar with. Dictators fell, but there was no reckoning, no prosecution of the people culpable for tortures/disappearances. This did generally allow for a relatively peaceful transition to democracy, but it also means the country is still run by the same people and there has been no historical reckoning, and it is harder to put out the rise of extreme sentiments again (i.e. it is not uncommon to find people making fascist salutes in certain disagreements in Spain, whereas for many years it would have been unthinkable to see the same in Germany). My reading experience could therefore have been a direct allegory!For me the giant was clearly the enormity of past crimes.
I found the expression of this idea in personal terms, with Axl's infidelity as a parallel to the historical events, a little awkward.
Emily wrote: "I've mentioned before that the book had clear resonances for me with the situation in Spain, and parallel situations in Chile and Argentina, just to use the examples I'm most familiar with. Dictato..."Emily, I think you make an excellent point.
In terms of the political/collective realm, the giant of past crimes must be brought to the surface so the perpetrators of crimes against humanity can be held accountable and punished. In addition to the examples you give, you can add a whole slew of current situations where a people are being brutalized by dictators. What's happening in Syria comes immediately to my mind.
When it comes to the personal realm, the situation is not so clear-cut. Two people in a long term relationship can probably list a whole slew of grievances, hurts, betrayals, possible infidelities, etc. etc. that they can bring to the surface against one another. If that is all there is to their relationship, then the relationship is not worth pursuing. But relationships are seldom that clear-cut. There may also be a lot of love, compassion, tenderness, etc. etc. in that relationship. If that's the case and the relationship is worth pursuing, it might be better not to keep prodding the giant to the surface. It might be better to let things go in the interest of harmony and in saving what is worth saving.
Plot outline: Elderly protagonist sets out on journey to re-unite with a lost loved one, but fails.Of course, I am talking about Remains of the Day.
Character description: An aging gentleman who always addresses the woman he loves in a mannerly, somewhat gallant fashion, reminiscent of ancient chivalry, and who, in addressing others, tends to speak in a formal, courtly way, almost to the point of stiffness, at times.
I am speaking here of Axl, but it could also be the old butler in TROTD. What we’ve done is change the setting and the tropes and told a similar story. Instead of an empty gas tank, we have pixies attacking us, hindering completion of the journey in each case, but of course there must be setbacks on the journey.
And what of the theme of suppression? Some will quibble with my referring, in connection to Remains, to a “loved one,” because the old butler would never, ever allow himself to consider that he is desperately in love with Miss Kendall, but the reader knows he is. He suppresses his natural urges out of a Freudian imposition of the superego, the result of ultra-civilization. Whereas, in Buried Giant, the very idea of a loved one is under threat, because the suppression of memory is the suppression of relationship, reason, civilization, meaning, everything. Axl & Beatrice can’t even remember their relationship, and they seek the one thing that unites them, their son. Axl remembers that it was his bitterness at Beatrice’s infidelity that drove their son away before he grew a beard, and the restoration of the son will be like the restoration of the memory, but, as in Remains of the Day, it is too late.
I may not be remembering correctly, but wasn't there a noticeable increase in the strain in the relationship between Beatrice and Axl the more they remembered? I got the sense they embraced their separation at the end--that they were sort of relieved to done with each other because past grievances were too difficult to overcome. I vaguely remember Beatrice being flippant in her goodbye and Axl walking away.Again, maybe I'm not remembering correctly because it's been a while since I read it.
Tamara wrote: "I may not be remembering correctly, but wasn't there a noticeable increase in the strain in the relationship between Beatrice and Axl the more they remembered? I got the sense they embraced their s..."It's also been a while since I read it. I do recall increased strain, but for some reason I thought Beatrice was flippant at their parting because she believes the Boatman's explanation that Axl will be following after?
I got the sense she was relieved to get away from him. Maybe someone who has read it more recently can fill us in.
Clark, interesting parallels with The Remains of the Day!I've totally forgotten the interaction with the Boatman in the end - can someone refresh my memory on how that conversation goes?
Bretnie wrote: "Clark, interesting parallels with The Remains of the Day!I've totally forgotten the interaction with the Boatman in the end - can someone refresh my memory on how that conversation goes?"
In both The Remains of the Day and The Buried Giant, the source of emotion for the reader is the same: it’s the pathos created by the enforced separation from the loved one. In TROTD, the separation is socially and psychologically driven, that is, by the butler’s inhibitions in contrast to the movement of life, which inevitably passes him by, as it would anyone with a psychology like that. In TBG, the separation is two-tiered: first, the separation caused by the breakdown of memory; then the ultimate separation by death, represented by the island. In TBG, the separations are constructs of literature and myth, which ultimately also have their source in civilization, and in that sense they are comparable to the psychological sources of separation in TROTD, but otherwise are dissimilar since psychology is not ipso facto myth. But KI is using different methods to attack the same themes, or the same anxieties.
The question is raised about tensions in the relationship between Axl & Beatrice as the spell is lifted. In this regard, the final chapter (narrated by the Boatman/Ferryman) is interesting. We learn that Axl prevented Beatrice from visiting their son’s grave, being motivated by a desire for vengeance for B’s infidelity. However, in every other way, the relationship is very tender and loving, and Axl comes to see the black moments as part of the strong relationship the old couple has.
The focus in this last chapter is on the Boatman’s gatekeeping function, and his seeming ability to promise and/or dictate the conditions of the couple’s life on the island. Will they be able to be together? Beatrice is very concerned about this, having heard that often inhabitants on the island are isolated, not knowing that others are also present on it. Then, when it’s time to separate, she and Axl question each other about whether the Boatman can be trusted; is the dispensation of togetherness to be trusted, etc.? Axl hesitates, Bea says we can trust him, and we’ll only be parted for a moment. Further, they are to be allowed to visit their son’s grave on the island. All of this is in keeping with the afterlife, the Greek allusion, and with the idea of a spiritual gatekeeper (like a clergyman) promising the conditions of the afterlife. The final image of Axl wading away appears to suggest doubt.
21st Century Literature
Books mentioned in this topic
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (other topics)Stoner (other topics)
Hamnet (other topics)
Iza's Ballad (other topics)
A Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory (other topics)
More...
So, it’s impossible to miss the big allusive symbols, Journey and Ferryman at End of Journey. This is the story of the final separation of a lifelong loving couple at the end of their lives. Beatrice will be the first to go, with Axl to follow soon thereafter. I’ll deal more with the theme of lost and recurring memory in another post. The ostensible purpose of the journey is to reunite with an absent son, but the son is gone, alas. What is the giant? The giant lies beneath us, and awaits the end of our journey, but we will never see his face, nor do I think we would want to. The flaw in the marital relationship (infidelity) was mostly out of mind, due to the memory loss, but it comes back with the death of the dragon and the recurrence of memory, here at the end of life. The allusions to some type of role for Axl among the knights of the Round Table is something I am not sure what to do with. (I was almost afraid that we might learn Axl is really Arthur, with his name corrupted, and that Beatrice was actually Guinivere, but that would have been too genre, too Hollywood. ) KI is obviously trying to keep meaning submerged (like the giant; in which case maybe we would want to see his face a little better). This veiling tendency will be frustrating to some readers. However, I’ve decided to focus on the book more than on my personal assessment of how pleasing or displeasing it is. It’s hard to do, because as we near the end, it almost seems as if specificity is becoming more and more attenuated, or if not specificity, then movement toward closure. Readers like closure, but poems seek to open out [in another post, I will explain this reference], to suggest rather than to dictate. I tend to agree, however, with a former creative writing instructor of mine in college, who said that ambiguity is desirable but obscurity is not. Degrees of vagueness should not exist merely to frustrate but to elicit meaningful responses; that was the idea. What do you think?