James Mustich's 1000 Books to Read Before You Die discussion

First Day

This is a thread created to discuss the first of the three parts of the book. There will be two other threads, each for one of the other days, so I kindly ask you to avoid spoilers. Thank you for you cooperation!

I've started this, and I am really enjoying this so far.

There are a few hints here and there that Mr. Stevens isn't the most reliable narrator--I expect that to be revealed more and more as the story goes forward.

I thought the sudden appearance of the man by the roadside who suggests that Stevens should climb the hill and look at the view was interesting--I almost had the idea that he was a figure out of fairyland...at the least something a little mystical.

Not being from England, I don't have an inherent understanding of the mentality of those who work for these great families. There were a few times where I wondered if Ishiguro was actually lampooning the seriousness with which Stevens took his duties. I think it's interesting that Stevens' new employer is an American, who also doesn't really 'get' it.

All in all, I'm very happy we picked this book--I go along for a while, feeling like I haven't read anything really good in a while, and then something turns up that particularly suits my tastes. This is one of them.

I read this first part a couple of days ago and “overran” into the second day, so although finding Stevens slow going as a narrator using convoluted circumlocutions, the book does have a slow narrative drive.
As Bryan notes, what “remains” to Stevens from this first day of travel to the South West of England is his memory of a chance stop on the border of Berkshire, where an old man suggests that he walks up to a viewpoint over the rolling cultivated fields with sheep in the distance. This leads Stevens on to a meditation on what he considers the “greatness” of the English landscape, its calmness of beauty and sense of restraint. This clearly echoes the calmness and restraint which Stevens wishes to project.
I presume that this is all setting us up for what will be quiet drama as we journey on and meet Miss Kenton.

Bryan, with regards to your query about the mentality of those working for “great families”, I have worked with “great families” since the 1990’s, so a lot later than 1956, or the 1930’s and earlier when butlers were more common. None of the families I worked for had butlers, with families using only a live-in housekeeper (a cook with responsibility for the dailies, but a title formerly used for the most senior female servant, responsible for all the other female servants including the cook), and all other household duties being dealt with by dailies. However most families also had an estate (large farm with let properties and perhaps let farms) going with the “great house” and would have a employ an estate manager, farm workers, a gardener and perhaps a gamekeeper, who all lived in “tied” properties (a house that goes rent free with the job, but only whilst you were an employee).
With this background, I don’t think that Ishiguro is lampooning Stevens’ attitude to duty. He is I think accurately recording that it was considered an honour to work for a “great family” and senior members of staff did consider that they were holding themselves out on behalf of the family. This is intrinsic to the professionalism that Stevens considers part of his job. Although some of the families I worked for had only bought their estates in the 1930’s or later, I worked with families who had owned their estates since the 1500’s, where the approach was one of custodianship, rather than ownership, and where primogeniture meant that as far as possible, the estate should be handed down intact to the eldest son. Historically, the estate manager would be more important than the butler, and would often have trained as a solicitor, farm manager or most often as a land agent.
I worked with estate managers (always male), who very much considered themselves to be acting as representative of the owner and in the long term interests of the family. I would have expected a butler to have a similar mindset, although representing the individual owner on a more personal basis, and only with responsibility for the house.

Carlton wrote: "I read this first part a couple of days ago and “overran” into the second day, so although finding Stevens slow going as a narrator using convoluted circumlocutions, the book does have a slow narra..."

Thank you, Carlton, for giving your experience. I wish I hadn't used the word 'lampooning'--it doesn't come across with the sense that I meant. Though after thinking about it for a bit, I'm not sure I know what I would replace it with. Stevens' seriousness nearly approaches the absurd, yet still seems entirely believable. I don't think Ishiguro was making any sort of statement about butlers in general--I think it is more a specific examination of one man in this kind of position, a position that, taken to its extreme, causes him to repress his humanity.

Hi Jane
I think that you have made a mistake as you should have put these comments in the general feedback section as there are spoilers. Can you cut and paste to the right section?
If you look again, you will see that Mariella set up four threads for this group read and asked that this thread be used to discuss the first of the three parts of the book.
Glad you enjoyed the book:)

I am actually two days in, But will attempt to keep my thoughts from day one. It does help that I have basically read one "day" per day. Ha!

My first thoughts about Stevens was that he puts a lot of stock in "dignity" I can tell that if he does not already consider himself a man of great dignity that it is something that he strives for. His stories of what makes a great butler felt like foreshadowing to me in that he was going to attempt to be similar in nature... as was his father....

Enjoying the style of the book. I do agree with Bryan that an unreliable narrator is being set up here. I think this is due to the style. Steven's is narrating as he goes along. That means that as he re-remembers something, or reconsiders something, he will have to narrate that change as opposed to a finished narrative in which the narrator would just change the text of a "mind error" and fix it before it got into the reader's hands.

It's similar to a epistolary novel. Like a series of journal entries but without expressly saying so.

Carlton wrote: "Hi Jane
I think that you have made a mistake as you should have put these comments in the general feedback section as there are spoilers. Can you cut and paste to the right section?
If you look aga..."

Thanks for catching thatl I deleted it and added it to the general discussion on Remains of the Day.