Talk:The Remains of the Day

Discussion
I don't see why this was split into two articles. The novel and film are closely related, and a single article would be more useful. Any objections to a remerge? Jihg 01:27, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * My personal feeling is that, as distinct works of art, a book and film deserve separate pages. If they're strongly related, link from one to the other; putting them on the same page would surely cause confusion. I don't see what the benefit might be. Lupin 01:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I doubt readers would be confused by a single article with section headings "Novel" and "Film". Also, its not a question of them deserving their own page, but rather how to best present the information.  A single page would allow readers to browse all the info on this subject, including the shared plot.  Unless article length and clarity is an issue (which it isn't here), surely two pages can only be an inconvenience? Can't find any actual policy on this, but there are many examples of both styles. Jihg 10:50, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I remain unconvinced. The film and book are independent, so should have separate pages. The best way to develop interesting in-depth articles on them is not to pigeonhole them under the same title. Feel free to ignore me, of course :) Lupin 14:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that they should remain on separate pages, unless there is a particular Wikipedia convention to the contrary. But there needs to be a link in the introductory paragraph for both pages, perhaps along the lines "The ROTD is a {date} novel by Ishagaru and a 1993 film by Merchant/Ivory".  Incidentally I have added a sentence to the main page correcting a slightly inaccurate point: the article originally ascribed the decline of the aristocracy in Britain to the Parliament Act 1911, whereas they were hit much harder economically by the death duties imposed by the Atlee government immediately after the war. That was what lead to so many estates being broken up or sold.  User: JRJW 6 December 2005


 * If both the novel and any film/tv version will be described in depth, there should be separate pages. But why not do what was done for Wuthering Heights?  It might suffice to say that the Merchant/Ivory film was made in 1993, nominated for eight Academy Awards, and starred Anthony Hopkins &mdash; wikilinking to the film page, of course. In terms of redundancy, I think the common elements belong to the book, not to the film.  If the film is significantly different from the book or fails to convey the mood of the book, then the specific plot and mood of the film should be described on the film's page.  Of course, I'll be one of the last to act on this "issue", so be bold. --Mgreenbe 16:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is the nature of Steven's disillusionment with his master (ie, the fact that he was a fascist and Nazi-sympathizer akin to Sir Oswald Mosley) undiscussed? 21 May 2006


 * I agree -- this was the biggest issue with the article, in my opinion. The article makes the novel sound like a love story, when it is largely about his problems with his past in relation to inaction and a feeling of responsibility, not an issue of never admitting his feelings to Miss Kenton.  User: Karaseven  7 May, 2007

I'm a bit new to this so reluctant to make changes to the main text without some discussion, but one of the main elements about the book (so far not mentioned) is that it is written in the form of a diary - Stevens records the journey in his diary but his own journey of self-discovery also comes through in his writing - while the above comment is correct (about his disillusionment with his master) it is not correct for the whole book - in the begnnning of the novel he defends his master's actions - his perspective gradually changes to one of disillusionment. Likie 10 October 2006

1. Its not a diary form, its a letter. He uses terms like 'our station' or 'you and I'. 2. I think its debatable if he even undergoes disillusionment, while he does consider what his master did a 'mistake' he does not seem to discredit him for it, he was tricked, but Lord Darlington was still moral and upstanding until the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.173.20 (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes
Thelucius recently added the a "themes and analysis" section, which you can view in the history and which I took out. Most of it seems like analysis, which doesn't belong in the article.

--140.247.177.30 04:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment
"The novel was Ishiguro's first not to be based in Japan (although his first novel, A Pale View of Hills, was told from the point of view of an elderly woman living in Britain recalling back to when she lived in Japan) and also his first not to be told from the point of view of a Japanese person" Ummm, isn't there a little paradox in that sentence? --84.129.201.45 17:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ya, I may have started rambling. I'll fix that up.... Bsd987 14:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

-nobody ever did fix that up. And it's completely unremarkable anyways. He wrote a book that was not set in the same place as one of his other books. Who cares. Every author in the history of the world ever has done this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.24.39.38 (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC) I think the reason people would care is that Ishiguro himself is Japanese-born; a book by a Japanese-British author, having nothing to do with Japan; I think that deserves credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.19.162 (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

cleanup
Is the cleanup tag still necessary and if so why?Zigzig20s 03:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KazuoIshiguro TheRemainsOfTheDay.jpg
Image:KazuoIshiguro TheRemainsOfTheDay.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary
The plot summary contains a great analysis of the novel - but falls short of summarising the plot. I suggest that the majority of this section would be better placed elsewhere - as it does not seem to constitute a plot summary. Furthermore, some of the key elements of the plot have been ignored, especially the political and non-romantic elements. MadBean 21:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A Question: Who might have been the model for Farraday, the US politician who berated the assembled Brits inc Lord Darlington and was rebuked that "...we're all gentlemen." 71.202.180.107 (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Summary too limited
The plot summary says nothing about the political side of the novel (i.e. the German diplomats). Since the commentary keeps referring to it, this ought to be included in the plot.

Calling the lord "pro-Hitler" is rather extreme. The real reason he helps the Germans is that he is gullible and naive, which in turn is due to the fact that his sheltered way of life isolates him from reality.

Something might be said about the "unreliable narrator" device. Stephens in the 1950s admits that sacking the Jewish employees was wrong, but was the employer's "regret" real or part of Stephens' imagination? CharlesTheBold (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm Seeking a similar film?
Sorry to be OT, but I've just spent half the day looking for another Hopkins(?) film about duty/society/repression causing unfulfilled love over decades of time. All dead ends. When I saw this movie on TV last night I thought this film was that one, - until the different ending. Can anybody please help me find that movie?

It was more poignant because there was zero doubt that Hopkins too was in love. It was a burning love. Yet the lovers remained equally distant, silent, unfulfilled. In that film, (as my faulty memory serves;) at the end the now elderly Hopkins(?) (with his adult son?) travels with high hopes for resolution with his long lost love. But in the end he cannot force himself to actually talk with her again, —he just stands in the street sadly —thoughtfully— looking up at her window, tragedy complete. End. --68.127.84.6 (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Doug


 * That wasn't Hopkins, I think - it was Daniel Day-Lewis in The Age of Innocence; (I freakin' cried). 96.37.252.235 (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. The main actresses were, Winona Ryder and Michelle Pfeiffer. 2A02:C7E:262F:AD00:6C15:333C:F3F2:C3CE (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Remains of the Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100327002549/http://www.faber.co.uk/site-media/reading-guides/10015.pdf to http://www.faber.co.uk/site-media/reading-guides/10015.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Themes Section
A lot of the themes section is pretty subjective and is almost written as a personal reflection on the book. Worse, it completely misses the chief point of the book, which is to illustrate how human beings willfully submit to unequal social systems that damage their own interests (an identical theme to Never Let Me Go). I think this section isn't really encyclopedic at the best of times (given the absence of sources) but if it does merit inclusion it should at a minimum tally with how the book has been analysed by literary critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.239.52.7 (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)