Optimus2g

The point was made during our discussion in class tonight that absurdity and surrealism are quite normal in dreams. In this novel by Ishiguro, as was also discussed tonight, the condensation of the mundane and the fantastic are integrated into realism. We see examples of this throughout the novel. Ryder is too preoccupied with himself and his selfish need to have his parents watch him perform, rather than focusing on his wife and son. Boris is always entertaining himself, no matter what! Christoff is a "Has been,” Hoffman is a "Never was," & Brodsky is a "Never will be." Sophie can't find a new house. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda… I think you get the picture here why these characters aren't very endearing. Yet, this characteristic of endearment—or lack thereof, better put, was not the point of the novel. It is his "dream-like" hazy style which is the central focus.

We see the circular nature of dreams echoed in Ishiguro's writing style, just as we discussed tonight with the long 5 page paragraph, starting on page 429, which in essence echoes the formula of a dream, in that it is a single thought. Although not always coherent, Ishiguro established a meandering tone throughout the story. While its climax is not as fulfilling as the majority of people may want (I can understand why—there isn't any closure with the performance), we, in this Dream seminar class, can appreciate how he wrote this novel from a stylistic perspective that echoes the incoherent tone of dreams—that's a "Shout out" to you Mr. Gordon Harvey (inside joke there)!!