Talk:Kazuo Ishiguro/Archive 1

Archive 1

Almost Unique

If his literary characteristics are "almost unique", then there must a very small number of other writers, perhaps as few as 1, who share these characteristics. Who are these writers? JackofOz 02:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

This question was outrageously hijacked with stuff about hiragana/katagana, completely irrelevant to the topic. I've now separated these extraneous matters into their own topic.

Now, can anyone answer my question from almost 6 years ago? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think, reading between the lines, the answer to your question of almost eight years ago is "I agree with you, it is ridiculous to describe his literary characteristics as 'almost unique', and that is probably why the article hasn't done so for a long time". 123.2.132.137 (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hiragana/katagana

Also, Kazuo Ishiguro is a native born Japanese name and should be written in hiragana. You have it written in Katakana which is only for foreign names or items. There are three ways to write japanese and his name should be written in hiragana. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.71.129.210 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

For people of Japanese origin who are not 'nationalistically' Japanese, they tend to have their names written in Western order and in katakana. -Rikoshi 23:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hiragana? Very few names are written in hiragana these days (some older women have names in hiragana or katakana), most names are (like Kazuo) in kanji. Ishiguro is of course in kanji, that goes without saying.

No, Rikoshi (above) is correct. People brought up in Japan would not write Kazuo Ishiguro (or for that matter, Yoko Ono or David Suzuki) in kanji because these people do not - or no longer - identify as Japanese (or more correctly, are seen to identify as Japanese). Thus the names are written in katakana, as you will see if you look at the photographs of Ishiguro's book covers on Amazon.jp (eg A Pale View of Hills: http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/images/415120010X/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=465392&s=books ). As for "Ishiguro is of course in kanji, that goes without saying" - it goes without saying because it is without basis. 80.4.202.8 (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I also wondered whether the name should be written in katakana as it is a Japanese name, I should point out that I am not en expert but my understanding was that foreign names (or the names of foreigners, as is Ishiguro) were transcribed in katakana. Angryafghan (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In Japan, his name is written in katakana, not hiragana or kanji - see his Japanese Wikipedia page. The same is also true for Yoko Ono - people who are associated with foreign countries very often have their names written in katakana, even if they're Japanese and have kanji names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.135.185.7 (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

By his own admission, Ishiguro does not read or write in Japanese. When he visited Japan, he needed a translator. I have never seen him write his own name in Japanese characters of any kind—so why are they on this page? WP doesn't give the Katakana or Hiragana characters for, say, Hillary Clinton or David Sedaris, but both of them have spent more time in Japan than Ishiguro. Mashapiro —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

He was born in Japan. Hilary Clinton was not. Span (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That is neither necessary nor sufficient as an answer. Sueo Serisawa lived in Japan longer than Ishiguro but is allowed to have just an English name on WP—which is perfectly logical, as he was an American who participated in the American arts scene. Minoru Yamasaki was born in Seattle and lived and worked his whole career in the U. S. but still has a name given in non-English characters. What is the standard here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashapiro (talk • contribs) 21:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like I misunderstand the basic WP standard, which is to give spellings of folks' names in as many languages as could conceivably pertain. I assume Salman Rushdie isn't signing any books with a Kashmiri autograph but the assumption seems to be that it's still worth giving the spelling. Mashapiro (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Toolshed" ?!?

What the hell is "The Toolshed"? There is no citation, and I can find no reference to this work anywhere else on the internet (except of course for pages which cite Wikipedia). I've removed it from the page until someone comes up with a source. Nigel Napalm 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

The article gives his nationality as British, but he was obviously a Japanese citizen at birth. Can anyone confirm if he has taken UK citizenship? Indisciplined 13:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In a Japanese magazine interview, Ishiguro said he choose and took UK citizenship for a practical reason. Because Japan does not allow double nationality. The magazine is 文学界/Bungakukai Aug.2006 issue. According to jp.wiki , it was 1983 Ishiguro took his UK citizenship.--Oda Mari 16:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The article says "British subject", but as far as I know, this term is not correct today anymore. One says "British citizen". Please read British subject and decide whether we should correct and write Ishiguro is a British citizen. Thank you. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.180.148 (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

British citizen is correct, "subject" is now obsolete, very few people retain a passport containing the words "British subject" Angryafghan (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Japanese titles

I reverted an edit that included the titles of some Japanese editions of Ishiguro's work -- it seems curious and inconsistent with general Wikipedia practice to give the titles of foreign-language editions of works that were written and first published in English. Ishiguro is an English-language, not a Japanese-language, author. I think this is particularly important because of the (perhaps understandable, given the setting of his earlier novels) public confusion alluded to in the article about Ishiguro's nationality and identity, and the way in which he has chosen to resolve those (becoming an English subject, admitting that Japanese literature has not generally been a strong influence on his work). It also implies that the Japanese editions are "authoritative" and that the English editions are merely translations, when the opposite is in fact the case. I'm a fan of Ishiguro and don't mean to cause trouble; I'll let the community settle this as it will. Thanks & cheers, Mote (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

reasons for cleanup and todo

some bits of the section are problematic.

1. the tone is inappropriate, eg; "quality of the research is superlative", "...is represented with skill rarely approached in historical fiction", at the very least these need to be quoted from sources and identified as positive criticism.
2. use of incorrect or confusing terms and constructs. "mixed chronology of the plot", "within a large country home of an aristocratic lord" [italics mine, showing problem constructs], "In the process of writing, Ishiguro makes full use of historical context, usually semi-fictionally."

perhaps replace with a broader section on works, covering style (first-person,), subject matter (individual choices, the ties b/w individuals and historical events), critical reading (explicitly sourced) and maybe plot outlines.

Doldrums 20:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"named runner-up"?

I didn't think the Bookers named runners-up, just a winner and finalists. What happened, I believe, is that a leaked account of the judging committee's meeting reveals that the committee at one point had reduced the competitors for the win to NLMG and John Banville's "The Sea," before chosing the latter. But this really isn't the same as being named runner-up, a designation the Bookers do not give out.

Yeah, you are right. Originally I believe I wrote "cited as the runner-up." He never actually was named the runner-up. This should never have been changed.... Bsd987 03:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the page to fully reflect this considerably more nuanced series of events, which seems most appropriate; I was misled by the language that the page carried. If you can provide a citation, I'd appreciate it! Mote (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)