Talk:The Remains of the Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

"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)

Contents

[edit] 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 — 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

[edit] romanticism vs. reality

[edit] 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)

[edit] cleanup

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

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)