Rating: 
Summary: When We Were Orphans
Review: A Finalist for the 2000 Booker Prize. Like Ford Madox Ford and Ferdinand Mount, the author utilizes the unreliable or semi-unreliable narrator to give a first person account of his early life. From pre-World War II Shanghai to England and back again, Kazuo Ishiguro weaves an intriguing plot.
Rating: 
Summary: Not too sure who was deluded
Review: A good read but ultimately disappointing. This book doesn't seem to live up to the writer's very readable narrative style, even if one forgives the writer for personal plagiarism as he uses a technique which is basic to the story that he has employed in other novels. His method is to reveal the deluded characteristics of the protagonist through the eyes of others; a technique he admittedly does very well. Apart from this, either the protagonist is out of touch with reality or is indeed one very admirably fellow who has made it big as a detective in England and English society. Kazuo Ishiguro wants it both ways which doesn't work. He also seems to have slipped up by having another minor character called Grayson equally not part of this world. The protagonist's mental stability is so way out at times that it affects some scenes that take place in prewar Shanghai. These scenes are otherwise compulsive reading but sadly degenerate into sheer farce and loose it.
I found it very difficult to go along with the mother's story which was claimed to be unavoidable by the uncle... I don't want to give anything away, but really? The uncle's actions didn't ring true either. Also, was it that difficult for a high swinger of English society in those days to find the cash for a trip back to the UK from Shanghai?
The premise, if I understood correctly, that orphans suffer and have to make the transition into adult life to live happily ever after; well, all that seems to be stuck on as an extra though at the end of the tale. But never-the-less this novel had me turning pages into the early hours which shows that the author must have got something right.
Rating:
Summary: I do get it but...
Review: I do get what is happening in this novel, but as things are so far from reality it doesn't do for me what I want great literature to do, which is to feel an empathy and bond with the characters in the novel and a reflection on my own and others' lives. This is achieved in "The Remains of the Day" which I just read and which also relies on the unreliable narrator method. But Stevens only suffers from what I think are the normal errors of the mind in reconstructing history, while Banks is crazy.
Rating: 
Summary: Have Patience
Review: I find it difficult to believe that anyone could call this book an "interesting failure" or claim that reading When We Were Orphans amounts to torture- the reviewer who claims simply to give the book time is on the mark. Like all Ishiguro books, this one takes about 50 pages to get one's attention, and, after that point, becomes difficult to put down. Ishiguro is an immensely talented writer who has a knack for crafting complex characters and enjoyable plots, and in When We Were Orphans he outdoes himself: the settings of pre-WWII London and Shanghai are perfectly realized, and Christopher Banks is the most intriguing narrator created by Ishiguro since Stevens in Remains of the Day. Ishiguro manages to write both with the technique of a thouroughly modern writer, and the language of a pre-war British aristocrat; the novel is unmistakably British, but makes liberal use of flashbacks and openly questions Banks's reliability as a narrator. I expected this attempt at the detective story genre to be stale and unexciting, and while the plot as a whole is not without its flaws (Ishiguro creates 200 pages of brilliance only to bring the story to a slightly disappointing climax), the book is enjoyable and quite readable as a whole, and has an outstanding ending. While When We Were Orphans is not the best work Ishiguro has done, it stands out as one of the best novels of 2000, and will reward the reader who simply has the patience to let the plot develop.
Rating:
Summary: A Highly Original Character Study
Review: I have read and loved everything Kazuo Ishiguro has published, but my favorite works still remain THE REMAINS OF THE DAY (which I think is perfect in every way) and THE UNCONSOLED. Even though I didn't like WHEN WE WERE ORPHANS quite as much as the above mentioned two, I still thought it was a masterpiece and a book every lover of great literature should definitely read.WHEN WE WERE ORPHANS explores much of the same territory as do Ishiguro's other works, i.e., memory and the reliability of memory, though in a completely different and totally original way. The narrator of WHEN WE WERE ORPHANS is Christopher Banks, a man who was born in Shanghai and lived there until one day his father, and then his mother simply vanished from his life and he was sent back to England to be raised by his maiden aunt. Set in 1923, Christopher is now a graduate of Cambridge with one abiding obsession: to become the world's greatest detective and solve the riddle of his parents' disappearance. If we believe everything Banks tells us, he has already had a very illustrious career by the time he sets out to find what happened to his parents long ago in Shanghai. But, can Banks be trusted? Are his memories, both recent and those of the more distant past, to be relied upon? Or is he living in a world of his own making, deluding himself and attempting to delude us as well? It's hard to say, for, after all, this isn't Kafka who's writing...it's Kazuo Ishiguro and, to his great credit, Ishiguro is far more nuanced and subtle than Kafka ever was. Christopher Banks is not so much enigmatic as he is infuriating. Just when we think we're able to figure him out, just when we think we know who he is, Ishiguro spins the novel in another direction and we're not sure anymore. The only person who seems sure of just who...and what...Christopher is...is Christopher, and since we can't rely on a thing he says, we're more than a little "at sea." But that is all a part of this book's charm. And then there is Sarah Hemmings. Now there is a character who is truly enigmatic. Christopher does finally travel from England to Shanghai in an attempt to solve the disappearance of his parents. And, in some ways, he does solve it...but in other ways he does not. Or, has he simply been leading us on a merry chase instead? Has he known the answers all along? The answers to these questions are in the book, but it wouldn't be fair to give even a hint of them here. WHEN WE WERE ORPHANS might seem to be something of a mystery or detective novel but it isn't at all. Not in the least. Christopher Banks is more of a mystery than is the kidnapping of his parents. And, as I said above, the theme of this book, like all of Ishiguro's books, is memory and its reliability. It is Christopher's memories that we need to be concerned with, not any clues as to the resolution of the kidnapping that might or might not be strewn throughout this book (and it gives nothing at all away to tell you that they aren't strewn throughout the book...there is no figuring out this one ahead of time). Plot, however, takes a backseat in WHEN WE WERE ORPHANS. The plot is simply a vehicle to showcase the character of Christopher Banks and help us get to know him. I know many people who, even though they liked Ishiguro's other books, do not like WHEN WE WERE ORPHANS. They seem to feel it's too nebulous, too open-ended, too needing of individual interpretation. Those are precisely the reasons why I loved it. It is very, very different from anything else Ishiguro has ever written, with one important distinction. It is filled with Ishiguro's trademark, highly controlled, perfectly nuanced prose. Even if you don't like the story, I think the book is worth reading simply for the prose alone. There are few authors who can write as well as Ishiguro, and I'm not talking about plot right now, I'm speaking of prose. Ishiguro writes prose the way Debussy wrote music and everything is as pitch perfect in WHEN WE WERE ORPHANS as it is in THE REMAINS OF THE DAY. People who need a neat and tidy ending will probably be disappointed with WHEN WE WERE ORPHANS, but those who love a beautifully written character study that is a little offbeat, will find just what they're looking for in this book. Ishiguro doesn't write "beach reads." He writes literature that will endure. To think that his books are going to be "easy" is simply being naive. WHEN WE WERE ORPHANS is a beautiful study of a man affected by a childhood trauma and the lifelong effects of that trauma. Although I preferred other Ishiguro works a little more, I still loved this book and would recommend it highly.
Rating:
Summary: Mixed Feelings - Might Need A Second Read
Review: I love Ishiguro's `The Remains Of the Day' and am fascinated by China and Chinese history, so this book should have been right up my alley. Unfortunately, I just couldn't seem to get into it. This might have been because of my own inability to empathise with Christopher, the central character. Having said that, as you would expect from Ishiguro, the book is beautifully written. The attitudes and expressions of characters come across as historically accurate (contrary to the current trend where historical characters always seem to possess 21st century values). Suspense is maintained throughout as Ishiguro cleverly keeps us from knowing any more than the narrator about what has happened to his parents. There were also interesting parallels in the latter half of the novel to Conrad's `Heart Of Darkness' as the search moves through the war-torn area of Shanghai and Christopher not only has to search physically but also grows in self-awareness. While it didn't grab me at first reading I'm not really surprised that others love it. I'm prepared to give it a second chance at a later date and may well change my rating.
Rating: 
Summary: A disappointing work from a gifted writer
Review: I was very impressed by Kazuo Ishiguro's beautifully crafted "Remains Of the Day" and had high expectations for "When We Were Orphans". Unfortunately, Mr. Ishiguro's attempt at writing a mystery is only a pale shadow of his previous work. The unreliable narrator voice that was so effective in "Remains of the Day" left me confused and frustrated in "Orphans", possibly because the narrator's perceptions are naive, inconsistent, and illogical. How can this possibly be a peek into the mind of a great detective?
At some points, the events of the story became so surreal that I suspected Mr. Ishiguro would eventually explain it all with the revelation that the narrator was actually (a) insane, or (b) a young child, or (c) dreaming. But the story continues to plod along with no major surprises until its preposterous conclusion.
The writing itself is competent and professional: every paragraph, taken individually, is very polished, and the author does an admirable job of presenting the stark contrasts of pre-WWII Shanghai. But the story as a whole is ultimately disappointing. If you're in the mood for suspense, pick up a Ken Follet. If you want a subtle character study, re-read "Remains of the Day". But don't waste your precious reading hours on this.
Rating:
Summary: A disappointing ouevre from a skillful writer
Review: I've found the "Orphans..." to be exceedingly boring. The interesting plot and a few preciously painted details are buried under a rubble of monotonous, dialogue lines replete with seemingly endless repetitions and regurgitations of what has just been said. Victorian pleasantries and polite addresses abound while none of the characters, with the exception of Sarah Hemmings, gets any sort of portrait description. The depiction of romantic feelings and situations in the novel, though told from the 1st person, male perspective, is completely asexual and feels like written by an old, Victorian maid who has never had sex. Another flaw is the accents - for some mysterious reason, most Chinese characters speak fluent, more-or-less grammatical English, while the main character's childhood friend who grew up speaking English in the international settlement, caricature-like lacks most copula verbs and other basic English grammatical forms. Mr. Ishiguro seems to be here in need of a strict editor who'd cut the flabber of his novel and demand a better re-write.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful writing on a clumsy plot
Review: Ishiguro shows his usual peculiar and highly refined style, almost unachievable, and the elegant and skilled language screens any other feature of the novel.
You cannot help noticing how unlike and arbitrary is the sequence of leading events, and how, despite the involvement of the main character as a detective, no investigative work or logical inferring are wrought out in the pages, and all information, supposed to come out from thorough searches, are simply dropped in from out of the context.
So, the unlikelihood of the events fades into apparently delusional states, by which Ishiguro seems to stretch a weak fabric, far more than its breaking limit, in order to connect powerful and meaningful chapters by a pacing thread and to frame them in a historical dimension.
Self-introspection lives out of unaccomplished goals, and when an accomplishment is however forced, the result is a weak structure, which is by no means a fundamental flaw or shortcoming, because, after all, the whole novel, and what it leaves you, is just a memory.
Rating:
Summary: The Nightmare of the Real Life
Review: The new novel of Kazuo Ishiguro is a story of a famous English detective Christopher Banks who tries to solve the mysterious disappearance of his parents which took place when he was only ten years old. But anyone who recognizes this book as a whodunit will be inevitably disappointed: for a real crime story the book is "full of implausible developments, improbable coincidences and loose ends" (as it was written by one of the previous reviewers). The novel is not an objective account of events but rather a subjective perception of them by the protagonist haunted by the tragical experience of his childhood. The author attains genuine perfection in depiction of the inner life of his hero, starting with excellent flashbacks in the first half of the novel (the scenes of Christopher's childhood in colonial Shanghai, his relations with parents and his best friend Akiro), crossing the boundaries of reality somewhere in the middle of the novel, and submerging us in Kafkaesque universe of disturbed mind with psychoanalytical allusions in the last half of the novel (the house that is near but couldn't be reached, everlasting way in ruins, a Japanese soldier who is and simultaneously is not Christopher's former friend Akiro, etc.). Little by little we commence to discern distinctly the main incentive of Christopher's deeds: the one who once was an orphan is desperately trying to save the whole world from impending catastrophe of the new war with the help of his magnifying glass, sacrificing everything even his only love to Sarah. Banks speaks about the fear that torments him only cursorily, but it was verbally expressed by the Japanese soldier/Akiro in distorted English that makes it more universally perceptible: 'When my boy. He discover world is not good. I wish... I wish I with him. To help him. When he discover' (chapter 20). The events of the penultimate chapter, the awful confession give the clue to the mystery reestablishing necessary degree of narrator's impartiality. The last chapter crosses the gap of 20+ years giving the final touches to the story. The protagonist surmount his fears, his life is well-ordered. Sarah is dead. He is lonesome as are both women he takes care of. Now his thoughts are coherent... but trite. The excellent novel, justly shortlisted for the Bookers Prize 2000! (though it doesn't surpass Ishiguro's masterpiece 'The Remains of the Day').
|
