Ran out of Fuel: Naomi Ishiguro's "Common Ground" Review

I am back with another book review. Finished the reading right on the 12th of April, a.k.a today. My days have been slow as of late, spent in reading and writing fiction pieces. Also trying to destress and lighten up from the news. So much bad news nowadays, especially when you return to college and have much freer time compared to a job. To my former co-workers who may be reading this: hey, guys!

So, around the same time when Klara and the Sun came out, Kazuo Ishiguro’s daughter published her debut novel: Common Grounds. The book’s blurb offers a story about a long-lost friendship, rekindled. Reviews on the covers are gleaming and shimmering, as they often do. But is it? 

About the author

Naomi Ishiguro, as mentioned, is Kazuo Ishiguro’s daughter. In belief of her father’s prowess in writing, I decided to check her book out. Definitely not a case of mistaken identity when I typed in “Ishiguro” in the OPAC of the national library and thought this book was by Kazuo Ishiguro. Absolutely not what happened.

There is only one previous work before Common Grounds: an anthology titled Escape Routes. Her biography is remarkably shorter. Besides being born in 1992 and having a Master’s in Creative Writing, there isn't much else to go on. 

The story (from the blurb)

It’s a lonely life for Stan, struggling with the loss of his father and with bullies at his new school. One autumn afternoon, his bike breaks down on the local common, and a boy he’s never met before stops to fix it. This is Charlie, a Romany boy who lives on the Traveller site on the outskirts of town. Fearless, clever, and older, Charlie is everything Stan wants to be. But in a world that offers them such different prospects, does their friendship stand a fighting chance?

When the two meet again as adults in London, Stan is revelling in all the city has to offer, while Charlie faces obstacles at every turn. Will Stan be there for the man who once showed him the meaning of loyalty?

The narration

Fine writing. Just fine writing. It did feel so polished at times when the subject matter and the style tend to skew casual, stream-of-consciousness, that it completely swims into the depths of a character’s mind. There is a tone of hope and of going against the current between the words. Let yourself sink, then the writings will take you away, though this effect took hold of me at Part Two. Part One was told mostly through thirteen-year-old Stan’s point of view, and it is a bit too juvenile to sink into. I cannot help but view the events through an adult’s lens. 

The subject matters within the novel are—without being dramatic—important. Persecution and systems failed minorities, and adults and family in our lives did what they thought was best for us in their own way, even if we do not necessarily agree with it. But the major theme is friendship. Yet, those are the subjects where the writing slowly falls apart and fails them. Of course, this is all subjective and my own opinion. 

Subject Matter

There are both major and minor matters brought up in the book. The major matter would be persecution of minorities, namely, Traveller or Romany (or gypsies, which I found out through this book, is not a friendly/neutral term). Second to it is friendship. Then the minor subjects: family and loyalty.

Family

I will talk about the minor subjects first because these were the parts that did not fail as the narration neared its end. There are complicated familial relationships here, where both Charlie and Stan have their own worries and conflicts that hang over their heads like a blade. But thank God that Charlie’s family matters can be more or less sorted out, as he's got a whole persecution against his people going on on top of them. 

In the latter half of the book, an older, married, and responsibility-burdened Charlie grounds the major subject matter through his conflict much better than Stan’s naive gaze does in the first part.. There’s something much more raw with Charlie than with Stan. Yet the contrast between them lies in being in two different worlds and in how they can, in some way, still connect. Imperfect connection: they’re old friends separated by almost a decade, bonded over a few weeks. It's bound to be imperfect.

But while Charlie’s family situation got more or less sorted out, we are still left with Stan’s situation. His situation is painted as hopeless, and that honestly infuriates me; Stan came from a single-mother family, and I came from more or less the same situation, too. There surely can be a way to expand on that? How does it just stay as it is? Stan’s situation was much more black-and-white, and, in its own way, it undermines his whole character. I must give credits where it due still: that Stan is still in his young adult stage and not have the same tools nor experience as Charlie to dealt with what fate handed to him. 

Loyalty

Loyalty in this book is a situation entirely reversed from the family affair. There’s so much betrayal and mended loyalty. But this is heavily due to Stan’s efforts in his friendship with Charlie. Charlie’s loyalty to his family, though? That’s a whole other matter, something that he decided to sweep under the rug. That’s a flaw that felt both raw and real, making Charlie’s point of view in the book much more interesting to get by than Stan’s. His character, because of his flaw, became much more fleshed out.  

Discrimination and Friendship (spoilers)

Now, while being the major subjects that are ever-present in the thematic of the story, it fell short. While it paints a brilliant, realistic picture of what minorities are facing and the justice they receive (none), you know, it’s bleak and has so many loose ends. If this book were to raise awareness, then sure, it has done its job. 

But as a story, it might as well not be made. Charlie and his whole family faced discriminatory laws and aggressive attacks, and it all climaxed to… singing people out of a pub. The narrative clearly states that said people are part of a local group is a "Boy Scouts" group. Does it not, somewhat, laughable? No matter how the fine writing try to spin it.

I’d like to see the positive things about it, but I cannot. There was just a big let-down. Even the friendship subject kinda hangs there, a loose thread not tied, closed, or burned. 

Other Notes

The ending came much too soon after the let-down climax. The pace felt so right until it—I feel—ran out of fuel at the end. There might be someone out there who finds that charming: the anti-climactic climax, the somewhat sudden ending, the loose ends, and the picture of UK judicial laws against minorities. But it also raises some interesting complexities around the characters (mostly Charlie’s), and then the narratives set it aside. Naomi can definitely enrich the story by delving deeper into the minor subjects.

Quoting and customised from the narration: this book lacked some oomph factor that would definitely help the ending to become much more ‘full’. There are common reviews on the book covers that say this is about a beautiful friendship, but to be honest, I have had some beautiful friendships over the years that can rival those of Charlie and Stan. I fancy myself having the authority to say: no, this friendship is just the last soda fizzle after it’s left out too long in the sun.

There is an extra short story in the book that is much more charming. The author left much unsaid and swept much under the rug in the short story titled Such a Bright and Glimmering Thing, and did it well. Much more than the novel’s plot, I fear.

Final Thoughts

Overall, the fine writing style and important subject matters definitely draw you in. But it gave off the feel of both in-depth and shallow research. It might be just the picture of the reality of discriminatory laws against minorities in the UK: bad. So, no happy nor satisfactory endings. The Big Bad Judicial System still defeats them. But if you're in to be awed by some fineshyt writing, go ahead and jumps in! I hope you will have different thoughts than me. 

After reading this, I felt empty in a whole different way than when I read Kazuo Ishiguro’s endings. With much thinking, I concluded that this emptiness came from unfulfillment, while Kazuo Ishiguro’s endings made me fulfilled before ripping it away. 

There’s definitely room to grow for Naomi Ishiguro (though, who the hell am I to say these things?). I will give this book a rating of 2 out of 5. I know, low. The fine writing carried the score. 

That would be all for today, it’s long enough already. See you next time!