Violence, Memory, and History: Geoffrey of Monmouth and Kazuo Ishiguro’sThe Buried Giant

Kazuo Ishiguro has suggested that his work of medieval fantasy,The Buried Giant(2015), draws on a “quasi-historical” King Arthur, in contrast to the Arthur of legend. This article reads Ishiguro’s novel against the medieval work that codified the notion of an historical King Arthur, Geoffrey of Monmouth’sHistory of the Kings of Britain(c. 1139). Geoffrey’sHistoryoffered a largely fictive account of the British past that became the most successful historiographical phenomenon of the English Middle Ages.The Buried Giantoffers an interrogation of memory that calls such “useful” constructions of history into question. The novel deploys material deriving from Geoffrey’s work while laying bear its methodology; the two texts speak to each other in ways sometimes complementary, sometimes deconstructive. That Ishiguro’s critique can be applied to Geoffrey’sHistorypoints to recurrent strategies of history-making, past and present, whereby violence serves as a mechanism for the creation of historical form.