Scan barcode
marc129's review against another edition
3.0
Love, hate and forgetfulness in times of dragons
The not yet 'Nobel' Ishiguro took a very big risk in 2015 by venturing into the fantasy genre, as can be seen from the very divergent opinions on this book. It is a genre I am not familiar with, so my first reaction too was one of shock: he seems to be bringing a fairy tale that is just as much a dystopia, placed in an early medieval British past, but that also refers to the genocides of the twentieth century and other historical conflicts.
I'm not going to explain the story here, that takes away the joy of reading. But when reading you constantly get the feeling of disorientation as is the case in almost all novels of Ishiguro: you are regularly misled, nothing is what it seems, good and evil cannot be separated, everything is shrouded in a mist of darkness. But at the same time you remain fascinated: by the recognizability of the figures, such as the Don Quixote-like knight Gawain, the good and the bad friars, the cunning warrior Wistan, and by the quest that dominates this story. But the plot sometimes makes some weird twists, and the end is rather predictable and a bit too explicitly illuminative.
So as a fantasy, a quest or adventure story, this may not be so successful. But Ishiguro has cleverly interwoven the story with a meta-layer that functions in different directions. That layer revolves around the mist of forgetfulness that pervades the region where this story is developing, and which seems related to the presence of a dragon. It’s this mist that has kept the peace between the Britons and the Saxons for so many years. Ishiguro here refers to the relationship between forgetting the past and breaking the spiral of revenge; perhaps he does so a bit too explicitly, as an underlying political message for today. But the way the story develops he clearly indicates he’s rather pessimistic: humanity does not seem to learn from the mistakes of the past.
But the mist is also related to another plotline. What really charmed me in this book is what is happening between the main characters, the elderly couple Axl and Beatrice. Their behavior is one of endless respect and care for each other, even in the most difficult circumstances. I notice that quite a few readers are annoyed by the exaggeration in this domain, but I'm probably old-fashioned romantic on this one: I was really moved by the delicate interaction between Axl and Beatrice (in the same vain, I’m always driven to tears when I read Ovid's story of Philemon and Baukis).
During the story Axl and Beatrice regularly worry about their relationship once the aforementioned mist of oblivion would be lifted, because all kinds of hidden incidents and frictions would resurface: “Could it be our love would never have grown so strong down the years had the mist not robbed us the way it did? Perhaps it allowed old wounds to heal.” But at the same time they feel that their bond has become so strong that it will survive that shock. This is expressed in the conversation Beatrice has with Father Jonas, one of the most beautiful dialogues ever in world literature:
“Yet are you so certain, good mistress, you wish to be free of this mist? Is it not better some things remain hidden from our minds?"
"It may be for some, father, but not for us. Axl and I wish to have again the happy moments we shared together. To be robbed of them is as if a thief came in the night and took what's most precious from us."
"Yet the mist covers all memories, the bad as well as the good. Isn't that so, mistress?"
"We'll have the bad ones come back too, even if they make us weep or shake with anger. For isn't it the life we've shared?”
“You’ve no fear, then, of bad memories, mistress?”
“What’s to fear, father? What Axl and I feel today in our hearts for each other tells us the path taken here can hold no danger for us, no matter that the mist hides it now. It’s like a tale with a happy end, when even a child knows not to fear the twists and turns before. Axl and I would remember our life together, whatever its shape, for it’s been a thing dear to us.”
The great thing is that Ishiguro doesn’t take away the ambiguity. He does not bring a simple story of "love conquers all", but has an eye for the incredibly subtle complexity of a long love relationship that can’t but include patience, forgiveness, and even forgetting.
The not yet 'Nobel' Ishiguro took a very big risk in 2015 by venturing into the fantasy genre, as can be seen from the very divergent opinions on this book. It is a genre I am not familiar with, so my first reaction too was one of shock: he seems to be bringing a fairy tale that is just as much a dystopia, placed in an early medieval British past, but that also refers to the genocides of the twentieth century and other historical conflicts.
I'm not going to explain the story here, that takes away the joy of reading. But when reading you constantly get the feeling of disorientation as is the case in almost all novels of Ishiguro: you are regularly misled, nothing is what it seems, good and evil cannot be separated, everything is shrouded in a mist of darkness. But at the same time you remain fascinated: by the recognizability of the figures, such as the Don Quixote-like knight Gawain, the good and the bad friars, the cunning warrior Wistan, and by the quest that dominates this story. But the plot sometimes makes some weird twists, and the end is rather predictable and a bit too explicitly illuminative.
So as a fantasy, a quest or adventure story, this may not be so successful. But Ishiguro has cleverly interwoven the story with a meta-layer that functions in different directions. That layer revolves around the mist of forgetfulness that pervades the region where this story is developing, and which seems related to the presence of a dragon. It’s this mist that has kept the peace between the Britons and the Saxons for so many years. Ishiguro here refers to the relationship between forgetting the past and breaking the spiral of revenge; perhaps he does so a bit too explicitly, as an underlying political message for today. But the way the story develops he clearly indicates he’s rather pessimistic: humanity does not seem to learn from the mistakes of the past.
But the mist is also related to another plotline. What really charmed me in this book is what is happening between the main characters, the elderly couple Axl and Beatrice. Their behavior is one of endless respect and care for each other, even in the most difficult circumstances. I notice that quite a few readers are annoyed by the exaggeration in this domain, but I'm probably old-fashioned romantic on this one: I was really moved by the delicate interaction between Axl and Beatrice (in the same vain, I’m always driven to tears when I read Ovid's story of Philemon and Baukis).
During the story Axl and Beatrice regularly worry about their relationship once the aforementioned mist of oblivion would be lifted, because all kinds of hidden incidents and frictions would resurface: “Could it be our love would never have grown so strong down the years had the mist not robbed us the way it did? Perhaps it allowed old wounds to heal.” But at the same time they feel that their bond has become so strong that it will survive that shock. This is expressed in the conversation Beatrice has with Father Jonas, one of the most beautiful dialogues ever in world literature:
“Yet are you so certain, good mistress, you wish to be free of this mist? Is it not better some things remain hidden from our minds?"
"It may be for some, father, but not for us. Axl and I wish to have again the happy moments we shared together. To be robbed of them is as if a thief came in the night and took what's most precious from us."
"Yet the mist covers all memories, the bad as well as the good. Isn't that so, mistress?"
"We'll have the bad ones come back too, even if they make us weep or shake with anger. For isn't it the life we've shared?”
“You’ve no fear, then, of bad memories, mistress?”
“What’s to fear, father? What Axl and I feel today in our hearts for each other tells us the path taken here can hold no danger for us, no matter that the mist hides it now. It’s like a tale with a happy end, when even a child knows not to fear the twists and turns before. Axl and I would remember our life together, whatever its shape, for it’s been a thing dear to us.”
The great thing is that Ishiguro doesn’t take away the ambiguity. He does not bring a simple story of "love conquers all", but has an eye for the incredibly subtle complexity of a long love relationship that can’t but include patience, forgiveness, and even forgetting.
pkfire199x's review against another edition
2.0
It's odd that Ishiguro chose to make this story a fantasy. In an interview from 2015, Ishiguro was asked: "Do you feel that the conversation about genre boundaries, which has been a major focus of the book's reviews and press, has taken away from the questions this book is asking?" Ishiguro replies that the subject of fantasy is "a much broader conversation" than this book. He then questions how we use genres to define a story, and talks a bit about the "ancient tradition" of tropes. But this comes across as somewhat of a non-answer. He all but literally claims that he's written something that transcends the fantasy genre, but I just don't see it. You can claim all the difference in the world, but you still decided to put an ogre in your swamp.
What I do see is that Ishiguro taps into medieval myths for inspiration, such as Le Morte d'Arthur, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and Beowulf, producing a story set within the Dark Ages and told in an antiquated, pensive style. But unlike those other stories, Ishiguro's Dark Age myth eschews key elements of fantasy in favor of a more tragic, allegorical tale with an emphasis on memory. The amnesia-inducing fog that accosts the characters is a neat idea, but in a world where barely anything fantastical happens, the story becomes more of an "anti-fantasy" than a fantasy of veil-shattering strangeness. A good fantasy upends the reader's expectations and immerses them in an incomprehensible world, which I never found myself in here. The world of The Buried Giant is instead quite familiar and rigid in its language and tone, paired with a journey plot that inches its way along a winding, monotonous path.
Like I touched on above, the idea of a fog being this type of natural, indifferent foe is one that I am drawn to. The act of overcoming such a force (if possible) then becomes more heavily a matter of attrition, will, and communal effort. In some ways I was reminded of From Software's game Demon's Souls, which features a similar type of fog enveloping the land and causing strife. In the game, its effects must be fought back against through a diminished but conjoined effort. It's also the culprit of a palpable, miasmic shift in atmosphere. And, like Demon's Souls, The Buried Giant also features a type of collapsed world held captive by the unknown. But due to how Ishiguro's story is absent of otherworldliness or myth-like heroism, it flounders instead of running free. Ishiguro sets up all the pieces for a great world but then turns his back on it, opting for less without giving us more.
Going back to that interview I linked, Ishiguro talks about his setting selection process. For him, he gets "so absorbed with trying to get the thing to work from the inside" that selecting a genre takes a backseat to the way he crafts the core of his stories. He says that he considered both Bosnia in the 90s and Rwanda as settings for this book, but ultimately he chose Europe's Dark Ages due to how its a "void" in history that fits this novel's themes (loss, memory, paranoia, etc). That's why fantasy here seems a questionable choice, as Ishiguro could've gone the full historical fiction route instead and made something a lot more unique without all of this confusion as to what constitutes a fantasy. It's a genre that comes with a myriad of expectations and aspects to be aware of, a vast history that is indeed "a much broader conversation" than Tolkien, Martin, Rowling, or medieval-era heroic myths. While Ishiguro's methods seem to have worked for his other stories, here it does not. The heart of fantasy is a tough thing to replace, and emptiness just won't do.
Neil Gaiman describes the characters here in his review of the novel as being "past all adventure." The exciting things have already happened, as there are "adventures, sword fights, betrayals, armies, cunning stratagems and monsters killed, but these things are told distantly, without the book’s pulse ever beating faster." Similar to the worlds of authors like Martin or Joe Abercrombie, the fantastical is rather dead or very nearly extinguished, and in its place is grayness. This type of dark fantasy works better when done in the vein of From's Souls games, Miura's Berserk, or even Final Fantasy VI with its industrial revolution setting. Gaiman's own American Gods, a dark urban fantasy, is also a great example of how magic can be wondrous, fearsome, untamable, and not at all estranged from its world.
And the characters of this novel themselves, while eventually becoming deconstructions of archetypes, remain kind of cold, their dialogue often stilted and impersonal. It's an effect that's intentional, but it fails to be gripping. There's also the matter of a certain character's excessive use of the word "princess." That'll never get old, right? I was looking forward to reading this especially because it looked like it would put a twist on fairy tales and old myths, but I couldn't have been more wrong.
I agree with Ursula K. Le Guin's somewhat scathing assessment of Ishiguro's hubris. She points out how he "[fears] indentification with" fantasy...and yet decided on a fantasy setting? And in yet another article written on this novel, it's stated that "Mr. Ishiguro says the atmosphere of the book was shaped more by 1950s western movies and the subversive 'anti-Samurai Samurai' films of Masaki Kobayashi, which he grew up watching, than by fantasy literature." Well, now we know why this novel comes across as an anti-fantasy fantasy. But in largely ignoring the history and facets of the fantasy genre, Ishiguro ended up with something weak and underdeveloped.
Like Le Guin touched on in her opinion, I too think Ishiguro deserves at least some credit for attempting clever things here. Some of the beats did hit the mark, and some scenes made me perk back up. I like the ambiguous ending and the whole fog idea. But it all ends up falling short of much better fantasy.
What I do see is that Ishiguro taps into medieval myths for inspiration, such as Le Morte d'Arthur, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and Beowulf, producing a story set within the Dark Ages and told in an antiquated, pensive style. But unlike those other stories, Ishiguro's Dark Age myth eschews key elements of fantasy in favor of a more tragic, allegorical tale with an emphasis on memory. The amnesia-inducing fog that accosts the characters is a neat idea, but in a world where barely anything fantastical happens, the story becomes more of an "anti-fantasy" than a fantasy of veil-shattering strangeness. A good fantasy upends the reader's expectations and immerses them in an incomprehensible world, which I never found myself in here. The world of The Buried Giant is instead quite familiar and rigid in its language and tone, paired with a journey plot that inches its way along a winding, monotonous path.
Like I touched on above, the idea of a fog being this type of natural, indifferent foe is one that I am drawn to. The act of overcoming such a force (if possible) then becomes more heavily a matter of attrition, will, and communal effort. In some ways I was reminded of From Software's game Demon's Souls, which features a similar type of fog enveloping the land and causing strife. In the game, its effects must be fought back against through a diminished but conjoined effort. It's also the culprit of a palpable, miasmic shift in atmosphere. And, like Demon's Souls, The Buried Giant also features a type of collapsed world held captive by the unknown. But due to how Ishiguro's story is absent of otherworldliness or myth-like heroism, it flounders instead of running free. Ishiguro sets up all the pieces for a great world but then turns his back on it, opting for less without giving us more.
Going back to that interview I linked, Ishiguro talks about his setting selection process. For him, he gets "so absorbed with trying to get the thing to work from the inside" that selecting a genre takes a backseat to the way he crafts the core of his stories. He says that he considered both Bosnia in the 90s and Rwanda as settings for this book, but ultimately he chose Europe's Dark Ages due to how its a "void" in history that fits this novel's themes (loss, memory, paranoia, etc). That's why fantasy here seems a questionable choice, as Ishiguro could've gone the full historical fiction route instead and made something a lot more unique without all of this confusion as to what constitutes a fantasy. It's a genre that comes with a myriad of expectations and aspects to be aware of, a vast history that is indeed "a much broader conversation" than Tolkien, Martin, Rowling, or medieval-era heroic myths. While Ishiguro's methods seem to have worked for his other stories, here it does not. The heart of fantasy is a tough thing to replace, and emptiness just won't do.
Neil Gaiman describes the characters here in his review of the novel as being "past all adventure." The exciting things have already happened, as there are "adventures, sword fights, betrayals, armies, cunning stratagems and monsters killed, but these things are told distantly, without the book’s pulse ever beating faster." Similar to the worlds of authors like Martin or Joe Abercrombie, the fantastical is rather dead or very nearly extinguished, and in its place is grayness. This type of dark fantasy works better when done in the vein of From's Souls games, Miura's Berserk, or even Final Fantasy VI with its industrial revolution setting. Gaiman's own American Gods, a dark urban fantasy, is also a great example of how magic can be wondrous, fearsome, untamable, and not at all estranged from its world.
And the characters of this novel themselves, while eventually becoming deconstructions of archetypes, remain kind of cold, their dialogue often stilted and impersonal. It's an effect that's intentional, but it fails to be gripping. There's also the matter of a certain character's excessive use of the word "princess." That'll never get old, right? I was looking forward to reading this especially because it looked like it would put a twist on fairy tales and old myths, but I couldn't have been more wrong.
I agree with Ursula K. Le Guin's somewhat scathing assessment of Ishiguro's hubris. She points out how he "[fears] indentification with" fantasy...and yet decided on a fantasy setting? And in yet another article written on this novel, it's stated that "Mr. Ishiguro says the atmosphere of the book was shaped more by 1950s western movies and the subversive 'anti-Samurai Samurai' films of Masaki Kobayashi, which he grew up watching, than by fantasy literature." Well, now we know why this novel comes across as an anti-fantasy fantasy. But in largely ignoring the history and facets of the fantasy genre, Ishiguro ended up with something weak and underdeveloped.
Like Le Guin touched on in her opinion, I too think Ishiguro deserves at least some credit for attempting clever things here. Some of the beats did hit the mark, and some scenes made me perk back up. I like the ambiguous ending and the whole fog idea. But it all ends up falling short of much better fantasy.
amaliachimera's review against another edition
2.0
Probably not the best book to break my audio-book-virginity.
gregz_newdorkreviewofbooks's review against another edition
4.0
Probably not for every reader, but unquestionably the work of a genius writer. This book is NOT a great book for a plane trip or sunny beach vacation, but it's still a great novel. Ishiguro's imagery, metaphor, and layers of meaning are utterly fascinating here — there's just so much to unpack, it's the kind of novel if you read 15 times, you'd discover something new each time. On the surface, it's a story about a couple, Axl and Beatrice, in medieval England who set off on a quest to find their son. There are dragons, and Sir Gawain, and a mysterious mist that robs people of memory. This novel's an allegory of the highest order — with intimations to our own time about war and its effects (especially on children). It took me awhile to talk myself into reading this, but I'm really I glad I did. Ishiguro is a master.
buchhoar136's review against another edition
2.0
I barely enjoyed this book.
The entire book felt like a slog, all the characters were unlikable except for maybe one, the two main characters were the absolute worse; it was like being in a room with a couple that referred to each other as their pet names every other sentence.
The entire book felt like a slog, all the characters were unlikable except for maybe one, the two main characters were the absolute worse; it was like being in a room with a couple that referred to each other as their pet names every other sentence.
Spoiler
Then the ending was so predictable after their first encounter with the boatman, and it all just felt like a waste of time.kidlightnings's review against another edition
adventurous
emotional
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.5
dia_ls's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
hkethineni's review against another edition
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
hsquatriglia's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.75