Funny Language in Ishiguro and Roy
In Chow’s essay on comparing international literature, he makes the statement: “Language is the house of being”. A criterion for winning the Booker prize is that the book be written in English; however, some of the winning authors spoke a language other than English first or else are truly bilingual in the sense that they spoke a language in addition to English growing up. Two such authors are Roy and Ishiguro. Can a person who grew up speaking a language other than English truly “write” in English? Some unanswerable questions are, does the author think in a different language, then transcribe the story into English? What gets lost in translation? Both of the novels we read in class by these authors address the issue of language. Mr. Stevens in _The Remains of the Day_ is unable to fully utilize the English language because he cannot “banter”; his language is too perfect. This is symbolic of his inability to access a mode of communication deeper than language. Ishiguro’s novel is hailed as quintessentially British, but is its perfection symptomatic of a lack of something deeper than what is quintessentially British? To the two children in Roy’s novel, English represents the anglophilic problem of their family. The children alone are able to play with and mock the language, and they only can see the permeating nature of their family’s obsession with the English although they are not aware of its repercussions.
-Katie Roberts
I really like the comparison between banter and Roy’s playful use of language. It might be interesting to question whether the ability to use the language fully is quintessentially British – it seems that the opposite it true. The Indian children in Roy’s novel are the ones who can truly manipulate English words, and in Ishiguro’s novel, it is the Americans who have adopted and altered the language to fit their own, more relaxed character. I wonder if these novels are criticizing the British for not knowing the extent of their own resources, for not recognizing that changes made by foreigners can actually be improvements rather than corruptions.
This seems like a really interesting topic. I’m especially interested in how the children in Roy’s novel are the only ones who have the luxury to really play with language. What does this say about adulthood? How do Rahel and Estha converse when they are older–have they lost the fun of language? Another angle that may be interesting to consider is the privilege inherent in the English language. By writing in a language that was not their first, or not the language of the country of their birth (Japanese and Hindi), do Roy and Ishiguro make a political statement? Do they sacrifice some of the power of their countries of birth? How does the use of language fit into ideas about mimicry?
Ishiguro’s work has been commented on as being not quite Japanese when his novels are set in Japan, and when his novels are set in England, “Japanese painting has become the ‘inevitable’ comparison for the novelist’s style.” He and Roy both will both be very interesting writers to write about. The idea of restraint can be understood as being both very British and very Japanese, and it would interesting to explore Ishiguro’s style as a reflection of the theme in The Remains of the Day and what kind of statement – political, cultural, or otherwise – He intended to make if any.
The same can be investigated with Roy. The children’s easy manipulation of English is reflected in Roy’s playful, colorful style. What kind of statement does she intend to make? More importantly, what kind of statement is communicated? Adopting English and customizing it can be seen as both empowering for this former colony and debilitating.
Hey Katie! I love the quote you have from Chow in your abstract and I think it may be pretty relevant to my paper too, but I’m having trouble finding it. Can you let me know what page it is on?
The quote “language is the house of being” is on page 74. It’s kind of a quote of a quote of a quote: Heidegger said it first, then Hassan and Saunders question it, and Chow quotes Hassan and Saunders in his article. I agree that it is an interesting statement.