Bec's Reviews > When We Were Orphans

My thoughts exactly also!

"Why did these people aid the narrator's belief that he would find his parents still sitting in a house in the middle of war torn China?"
"In the end I just hated the narrator and all the stupid people around him who didn't give him slap him upside the head. "

Totally agree! Was he really so blinded by his desire to see his parents again that he would suddenly become massively illogical and stupid? He's a detective, so I strongly doubt it.

Also, just stumbling his old childhood friend Akira. Did he really believe he would find him like that? (It wasn't Akira, right?)

I'm so with you Bec! It's ludicrous!

I have to agree, although I gave it three stars. I actually like the style of writing (this is my first Ishiguro)and I enjoyed the book, if not the adult Banks character, until Part 4, when he returns to Shanghai. I found his recounting of events wishy-washy and he had an inflated sense of himself; always thinking people were talking about him and assuming all who met him knew his reputation. Anyway, Part 4 was where it all fell apart for me and I made myself get through it; especially the trek through the bombed out area looking for his parents. Really? How could such a self-acknowledged great detective actually think his parents would still be alive and held captive in one house all those years. That whole section seemed useless to me. And Akira? Was it Akira? Was he fooling himself, again? I'll give Ishiguro another try. Perhaps this was the wrong book for an introduction to him.

totally agree with you

The narrator is pretty clearly denying reality for most of the book, and becomes outright delusional in the climax, when he fixates on the idea that a random Japanese soldier is his childhood friend Akira. Other people around him seem to share or at least humour his delusions about finding his parents, but some people seem to mock or pity him. (The guy who keeps asking him about the arrangements for throwing a party "when" he finds his parents is almost certainly mocking him, for example.) This kind of stubborn denial of reality isn't uncommon among people who've lost someone, though it's quite extreme here and it's usually more common in parents who've lost a child than the other way round (keeping the child's room exactly as it was when they were lost, etc.).

I think part of the book's examination of its historical context is that the narrator is able to get away with his delusions because he occupies a privileged position in society, and because of certain kinds of politeness towards people who are famous (he seems to have some degree of celebrity, just probably not to the extent that he likes to think) or "eccentric".

To me it was sub Somerset Maugham. Like Never Let Me Go, nothing going on. I'll stick with Graham Greene any day.

I have written my review and then read yours. So alike!!!! I felt the same way, it just doesn’t make sense.
However, I must admit that this is the first one I read by Ishiguro and it made me want to read more to understand him a bit better.

We discussed in my book club if Christopher had Autism & I honestly think it's the only reasonable explanation.

Clearly the narrator is delusional or insane in some way, or perhaps it's all an opium dream. Horrible ending. I can't really explain why I bothered reading the whole book, except to wonder why this is considered such great literature.

The narrator being delusional is a narrative choice - it was done for effect, which clearly worked given the frustration you felt reading it.

You are using 'retarded' in a disparaging way.

Ik this is an old review but "retarded" is a slur and obviously is an insult in the context you're using it. Girl pls.

Side note but I don't think you understood the unreliable narration aspect of the book.