Early in March a post on favorite fictional characters gave us something of an Alan H. homage to The Master and Margarita. I’m through the first five chapters now, and it seems Mr. H. may be da man. Interestingly, as I read it, I am reminded that I want to go back and reread Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Unconsoled. Remembering that that novel was sort of panned when it came out, I searched for some reviews and found this interpretation, which I thought might interest and/or infuriate Alan (of the school of irreducible allegory).
Posted by Bobby Farouk at April 24, 2005 06:27 AMGlad you are enjoying the book, Bobby.
I haven't read any Ishiguro, but this looks like a good example of what I would consider the "interesting, pleasant, and irrelevant" variety. Anyone whose taste runs to applying philosophy to novels should by all means indulge themselves. I like to sit on my porch and watch the sparrows nesting in my neighbor's trees. It does no harm, least of all to the sparrows.
Posted by: Alan Hogue at April 25, 2005 09:57 AMActually, I'm not convinced The Consoled has anything to do with philosophy. It seemed to me that the Rothfork examination is an example of using biography to interpret art, which I thought was something you detested. Ishiguro may be Japanese by birth and his earliest novels may have elements of eastern philosophy, but it doesn't follow that his later works must be of the same nature. I don't know if Ishiguro bothers to explain his work anywhere, but I'm guessing (really guessing) that Rothfork is applying a construct for this novel that Ishiguro never intended.
I'm intriqued by the "irrelevant" label. What constitutes a relevant novel for you?
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at April 25, 2005 10:24 AMOh, no. I meant to say "this article looks like a good example of what I would consider the "interesting, pleasant, and irrelevant" variety of criticism." Sorry about that!
It seemed to me that the Rothfork examination is an example of using biography to interpret art, which I thought was something you detested.
You know, I'm trying not to let such things get to me so much anymore.
What I meant was that I don't think Rothfork's analysis really matters much. Such interpretations meant to explain literature really just seek to replace the work in question with a tidy scheme. If that scheme were there in the novel in the first place no one would feel the need to write an essay pointing it out.
But ultimately people prefer the novels to the schemes offered by well-meaning critics. So in the end I believe such speculations are mostly harmless. Not that it doesn't annoy me.