From the acclaimed author of The Remains of the Day and When We Were Orphans, a moving new novel that subtly reimagines our world and time in a haunting story of friendship and love.
As a child, Kathy—now thirty-one years old—lived at Hailsham, a private school in the scenic English countryside where the children were sheltered from the outside world, brought up...moreFrom the acclaimed author of The Remains of the Day and When We Were Orphans, a moving new novel that subtly reimagines our world and time in a haunting story of friendship and love.
As a child, Kathy—now thirty-one years old—lived at Hailsham, a private school in the scenic English countryside where the children were sheltered from the outside world, brought up to believe that they were special and that their well-being was crucial not only for themselves but for the society they would eventually enter. Kathy had long ago put this idyllic past behind her, but when two of her Hailsham friends come back into her life, she stops resisting the pull of memory.
And so, as her friendship with Ruth is rekindled, and as the feelings that long ago fueled her adolescent crush on Tommy begin to deepen into love, Kathy recalls their years at Hailsham. She describes happy scenes of boys and girls growing up together, unperturbed—even comforted—by their isolation. But she describes other scenes as well: of discord and misunderstanding that hint at a dark secret behind Hailsham's nurturing facade. With the dawning clarity of hindsight, the three friends are compelled to face the truth about their childhood—and about their lives now.
A tale of deceptive simplicity, Never Let Me Go slowly reveals an extraordinary emotional depth and resonance—and takes its place among Kazuo Ishiguro's finest work.(less)
Paperback, 288 pages
Published
August 31st 2010
by Vintage Books
(first published January 1st 2005)
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.I had previously avoided this book, having heard it referred to as British science fiction. And when I hear "British science fiction," I think of Dr. Who. Then I think about all those childhood snuff film fantasies where Captain Kirk zaps him. (Phasers set to kill, dammit! Inter-dimensional traveling dandies in phone booths are the exception to Federation regulations. What is it about the British, anyway? A phone booth? That's Superman's bag, baby. Superhero envy much? The sun may have...moreI had previously avoided this book, having heard it referred to as British science fiction. And when I hear "British science fiction," I think of Dr. Who. Then I think about all those childhood snuff film fantasies where Captain Kirk zaps him. (Phasers set to kill, dammit! Inter-dimensional traveling dandies in phone booths are the exception to Federation regulations. What is it about the British, anyway? A phone booth? That's Superman's bag, baby. Superhero envy much? The sun may have never set on the British Empire, but we Yankees have a guy who can fly faster than the speed of light.) But then I found myself alone in a big bookstore in a big city trying to divine what the angelic face on the book's cover was looking askance at (itself manipulated, no doubt, like the fictional clones whose story it was fashioned to sell) and thinking of Kurosawa's definition of art being about the ability to look at humanity in its entirety without flinching.
Mulligan. I flinched.
But Kazuo Ishiguro hasn't. And he doesn't think much of me. Or you. And he's probably correct in that judgment.
Imagine the most genteel, tea-sipping people gathered around fine china in a flowery patterned drawing room somewhere in the English countryside. A shaft of midday sun shines through drawn curtains as they politely discuss the day's happenings. Then imagine Leatherface, Jack the Ripper, Lex Luther, Sarah Palin and Michael Jackson's dad ransacking everything around them, starting at the furthest perimeters of the house, slowly working their way toward our happy people and ultimately cannibalizing them. Then imagine both groups acting as if this is completely normal. Nary a word of protest or questioning, mind you.
That's what this book is like to me.
It was very difficult to read, in the psychological sense of "read." The pathos was too overwhelming. I had to take a break from it, about two-thirds of the way through. I tried to tell myself that it was because I had read the bulk of it as I was hidden away in some claustrophobic hotel room, or that I found the prose tedious at times. In truth, though, it succeeds in shining a light on human nature, and I just couldn’t bear to look.
The story made me uncomfortable, and I hated myself for returning to it after having put it aside. I was irked by the characters, my inner-Kirk screaming, "SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING!" The lethargic creepiness made me realize that no, not only was nobody going to do anything, but that neither I, nor you, nor any of us, are all that different from the people who harvest these poor souls for their organs. After all, I'm a fat and happy first-worlder who less and less has a care or thought for all those who are exploited to make my life possible.
We homo sapiens adapt to anything, and hang our hats on the most contorted and worn rationalizations.
I would grind my teeth and ask, "Where is their Marx? Their Malcolm X?" Fuck, I'd have settled for Stalin or Benedict Arnold. But maybe the revolutionary gene had been isolated and bred out of their clone bodies -- a distinct possibility, owing to the imperfect knowledge of the first-person narrator. What's worse is that whereas science may have manipulated them to be docile, we, all of us, have been likewise manipulated by the inertia of history.
As I have written, I grew tired with what I saw as tedious prose, the catalog of details about everyday life cited by the narrator. But then it dawned on me that this cataloging is exactly the sort of thing a dying person would do. Life would take on more urgency. What you and I may take for granted is pregnant with wonder to the condemned. In fact, happy serendipity, this view is supported by a study cited in the November 2009 issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin -- researchers have found that those who profess to be in love are more analytical. And what is someone condemned to die other than someone in love with life?
I winced at Ishiguro's condemnation of liberal half-measures in the face of social norms. The narrator and her group of friends are raised in an almost "humane" manner -- educated, encouraged to cultivate personal friendships with one another, encouraged to pursue art. And while they represent the exception, an experiment to demonstrate that clones have souls, they are condemned nonetheless. All the petty jealousies and transcendent friendships that framed their short, beautiful lives, are consumed by larger society. And while there is never a mention of God, the closest they come is looking up a former instructor who is only mildly repulsed by them and who bids them to eat from the Tree of Complete Knowledge.
It is a pity that people are told this is a science fiction book before they read it. I feel the least interesting thing about it is that it is science fiction. I mean this in much the same way that the least interesting thing one could say about 1984 is that it is science fiction. As a piece of literature I enjoyed it much more than Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake and even more than Huxley's Brave New World.
The themes that make this book most interesting are to do with the socia...moreIt is a pity that people are told this is a science fiction book before they read it. I feel the least interesting thing about it is that it is science fiction. I mean this in much the same way that the least interesting thing one could say about 1984 is that it is science fiction. As a piece of literature I enjoyed it much more than Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake and even more than Huxley's Brave New World.
The themes that make this book most interesting are to do with the social alienation of groups of people on the basis of inherited genetic characteristics. In fact, as a critique of racism this book is utterly brilliant. Those being racially alienated are genetically identical (they are in fact clones) to those attacking them.
Plato believed those 'in the know' should tell lies to those 'who do not know' so as to protect them from the all too horrible truths about life. I have always hated this aspect of Plato, always finding it grotesque and frightening in its implications. Those implications are drawn out in all their disturbing horror here.
This book has much to say about the nature of 'illness' and how those inflicted with an 'illness' use the scars of that illness as the badges of truly belonging to the group. So that those 'less advanced' in the ravages of the illness don't really know or really belong to the group. As a portrait of victims adopting to being victims it says much about us as humans - thoughtful readers may find it says far too much. I write this on World Aids Day.
Ishiguro writes the most nightmarish novels I've ever read. In others, such as The Unconsoled or When We Were Orphans the nightmare feeling is due to the dreamlike oddity of the interconnection of events in the story. One reads these books in much the same way that one wakes from a disturbing dream, with feelings of disorientation and anxiety. Even though this is the most literal 'nightmare book' of his I have read - the world he creates being literally a nightmare, and made all the worse by being set in the recent past - it is a book totally lacking in that strange dreamlike quality so characteristic of these other novels. In this sense it seemed less of a nightmare than these others. If you struggled with these, you will not struggle with this in quite the same way.
He also has fascinating and quite painful things to say about the nature of love and how love has a proper time, a time that may be lost or missed. As someone who has loved, lost and missed I found this particularly challenging. The relationship between sex and love and illness is perhaps something people may find simply too much - not because this is handled in any way that is too explicit, but because I do believe we like to think that sex, as a manifestation of love, has curative and redemptive powers. A book that questions this, questions something we hold very dear and some readers may find this too much to ask.
This is also a book about betrayal. The betrayals we commit against those we love the most and yet that we barely can understand or explain after we have committed them - these are constant throughout the book. He is a writer all too aware of the human condition. The scene which gives the book its title is a wonderful example of the near impossibility of our being understood by others and yet our endless desire for just such an understanding.
There is nothing easy about reading this book - although it is written in the simplest of prose. It has an honesty of feeling that brands one's soul.
I loved this book and have thought about it a lot since I finished reading it and will think about it more. There is much more I would like to say, but there is no space. May we all be good carers before we complete.
(less)
Prof. Richard Ian KepplerHello Trevor, you say "Plato believed those 'in the know' should tell lies to those 'who do not know' so as to protect them from the all too horr...moreHello Trevor, you say "Plato believed those 'in the know' should tell lies to those 'who do not know' so as to protect them from the all too horrible truths about life. I have always hated this aspect of Plato, always finding it grotesque and frightening in its implications. Those implications are drawn out in all their disturbing horror here."
Could anyone point me towards which book by Plato this features in? I don't remember it in the Republic and am very interested in exploring this concept.(less)
Jul 13, 2011 01:35pm
At the end of Book 2 while Socrates is discussing the poets he makes it clear that he considers their sto...moreHi Laurence, it is in the Republic.
At the end of Book 2 while Socrates is discussing the poets he makes it clear that he considers their stories of the gods to be what he calls ‘lies’ – but interestingly, what he means by a lie is that, even if these stories are literally true, the fact that they will have a bad effect on the young means these stories should not be told. Essentially Plato’s argument is that since the higher truth is that the gods are perfect (and it is impossible to conceive the perfect lying in any way – changing shape, disagreeing over ends, etc) and the stories about the gods make them appear to be less than perfect, then we must not tell these stories about the gods.
In book 3 he states, “Then if any one at all is to have the privilege of lying, the rulers of the State should be the persons; and they, in their dealings either with enemies or with their own citizens, may be allowed to lie for the public good.” And then proposes that the ideal state would be one in which citizens are lied to about the nature of their births saying that citizens are all brothers and sisters, but that some have gold in their souls, some silver and some bronze. These are designed to convince everyone of two necessary ideas - their fundamental identity with the state and why there are necessary differences in rank.
Most fiction that recalls the Republic to me does so on this point – that there is a fundamental truth that rulers need to sustain (a well ordered society) and this forgives them lying generally about the true nature of the world. The whole philosopher king idea is essentially based on such a ruler lying to the rest of the citizens – although, lying may seem strong, given Plato doesn’t believe the hoi polloi can cope with the truth in its purest forms anyway, and so lies of omission are both necessary and good.
Was there ever a ruler (take Rupert Murdoch as a current day example – a man who, it seemed, had to anoint even Obama before he could become President) who did not believe that their lies were necessitated by the limits that the lesser around them had in their ability to fully appreciate the truth? This view of our betters knowing what is best for us and protecting us from the full nature of this truth is the true horror of Plato’s vision, to me at least.(less)
Jul 13, 2011 03:00pm
I can see Never Let Me Go being great for book clubs because it will generate a lot of discussion.
That being said, I didn't care for the book, for a couple of different reasons. The writing style is very conversational -- very much like you're having a discussion with the protagonist. The thing that annoyed me the most about this was the fact that the things that happened (so bob and I went walking to the store and we had a fight about the tree at school) and then the writer would...moreI can see Never Let Me Go being great for book clubs because it will generate a lot of discussion.
That being said, I didn't care for the book, for a couple of different reasons. The writing style is very conversational -- very much like you're having a discussion with the protagonist. The thing that annoyed me the most about this was the fact that the things that happened (so bob and I went walking to the store and we had a fight about the tree at school) and then the writer would tell you about the tree and why it was significant, then tell you about the fight. This sort of device is interesting the first few times you see it, but it started to annoy me over time. Maybe because I talk like that, and get off into tangents and anecdotes.
Also, at the heart of the store is the purpose/fate of the main characters. I get the impression that the author wanted to drop clues about it, and then reveal it so that it is a shocking twist (who's Kaiser Soeze? ;) The thing is, the references really aren't that subtle, so by the time the twist is reavealed, it's not all that exciting. Not only that, but I had so many questions at the end. Like -- these people know their fate, but they never think to question it, and, in fact, seem to be glad for it.
This was supposed to be a coming of age story. Generally "coming of age" involves people growing up and moving forward with their lives; often they need to overcome some obstacle to reveal their potential. However, the characters seem to be stagnate the whole way through; their fate doesn't change. The blurb on the back of the book mentions that the characters, Kathy, Ruth and Tommy, all have a shared background that's special, and implies that they're lucky. When two of the charaters confront someone to see if they can defer their fate (they don't even bother trying to change it), we find out a little bit of what makes their shared background special, but we aren't given anything to compare it to (we're just told that similar people have horrible existences, but not how). And they find out that they can't defer their fate, but they don't really seem to care; they don't even seem to be particularly glad that they tried.
I've seen a couple of reviews compare this to book to Aldous Huxley's classic "Brave New World" and Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale". Not even close. In both of these books we're exposed to an alternate reality, and we see how the main characters deal with their situations. Kazuo Ishiguro tries to sneak the alternate reality into the story, to take us by surprise.
I could go on, but I won't. Let's just say that I didn't care for this book and leave it at that.(less)
Publisher: Hey, K, we need another novel and we need it quick.
K: I know, I know.
Publisher: Another “Remains of the Day”. Something Hollywood can turn into a hit.
K: I’m working on it.
Publisher: Any ideas?
K: Well, I’ve been reading some Jonathan Swift.
Publisher: Who?
K: You know, “Gulliver’s Travels”.
Publisher: Oh, yeah, Jack Black. It's in pre-productio...moreImagine a restaurant, London, mid-2003.
Publisher: Hey, K, we need another novel and we need it quick.
K: I know, I know.
Publisher: Another “Remains of the Day”. Something Hollywood can turn into a hit.
K: I’m working on it.
Publisher: Any ideas?
K: Well, I’ve been reading some Jonathan Swift.
Publisher: Who?
K: You know, “Gulliver’s Travels”.
Publisher: Oh, yeah, Jack Black. It's in pre-production.
K: Well, he had a modest proposal about how to stop the children of the poor being a burden…
Publisher: I’m with you, yep, delinquents, sounds good.
K: …he wanted to stop them being a burden to their parents…
Publisher: Yep, with you.
K: … and the Country.
Publisher: Yep, a Thatcherite angle, I think it’s Maggie’s time again.
K: Anyway, he had this idea that you could kill two birds with one stone…you could end the kids’ misery and the poverty of their parents at the same time…
Publisher: Let me guess, you could eat them, ha ha.
K: He goes into that… stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled…
Publisher: Yuck.
K: He even talks about making them into a fricassee or a ragout.
Publisher: It’s a bit out there, K.
K: I was thinking of updating it a bit.
Publisher: How would you do that?
K: I was thinking I could tell the story from the point of view of a midwife who…
Publisher: Someone who has to care for the kids?
K: Yeah, until they turn 12 months or something...
Publisher: Let me guess, then she hands them over to a child butcher or something?
K: Yeah.
Publisher: Look, I can see where you’re going with this, but it all sounds a bit grotesque.
K: That’s the whole point. It’s an allegory for our times.
Publisher: I just don’t know whether it’s got legs.
K: Legs? You’re kidding me…it’s got every damned limb and organ you can think of.
Publisher: I don’t want to think of it, I can just imagine the reviews. They’ll call it “The Remains of the Meat Tray”.
K: Ha, I hadn’t thought of that, I was going to call it “The Remains of the Creche”.
Publisher: It gets worse.
K: No, honestly, I was thinking of “Never Let Me Grow”.
Publisher: You mean, like…never let me grow up?
K: Yeah.
Publisher: Do you think you could turn the people into pigs or something, you know, like “Animal Farm”?
K: I was sort of hooked on the idea of using people and narrating the story in a really dead pan voice…
Publisher: I don’t know about dead pan, it sounds more frying pan to me.
K: …If it’s dead pan, people won’t be able to tell whether it’s set in the future or the present. They won’t know how close to reality it is.
Publisher: I just don’t know what I think about this eating babies stuff.
K: But it’s like sci-fi, you can do anything in sci-fi.
Publisher: Look, if we let you do this, they won’t be calling it sci-fi, they’ll be calling it sci-fry.
K: If you let me do it, I guarantee we’ll be able to get Helen Mirren to play the midwife.
Publisher: Who?
K: Helen Mirren, you know, the Queen.
Publisher: No, no. Look, if you can tweak it, you know, think about my idea for a second, set it on Animal Farm, make it about cloning pigs, so they can grow body parts for other pigs or something…
K: I know, put some wizard animals in it and call it “Hogparts”?
Publisher: Come on take me seriously, K, just clone it up and tone it down.
K: I’ll think about it.
Publisher: I’ll see if I can get Keira Knightley to voice one of the pigs.
K: She’s hot.
Publisher: You could call it “Never Let Me Go”.
K: What does that mean?
Publisher: It’s a song my mother used to play. Jane Monheit sang it.
K: I could get used to it. Don’t know what I think about the name Monheit though.
Publisher: It does sound a bit German, doesn't it?
K: What would you think if I called her something more English in the book.
Publisher: Like Judy Bridgewater?
K: Who’s Judy Bridgewater?
Publisher: It’s my mother’s maiden name.
K: Sounds good to me.
Publisher: Look, I normally like to respect an artist’s integrity, but hey, you’re the artist, so I guess that makes it OK.
K: Do you think I could get to meet Keira Knightley?
Publisher: I think so… look I’ve been thinking about it, maybe it’s not such a good idea to turn Keira Knightley into a pig.
K: Sometimes you can’t really see the depth of your own characters, until you can imagine who’s going to play them.
Publisher: So, no pigs?
K: No pigs. I don’t mind the cloning bit though.
Original Review: April 16, 2011
Some More Serious Thoughts
I wrote the above dialogue before I even finished the book.
I wanted to read the book before seeing the film, which I will probably do in the next week or so during the holidays.
When I wrote the dialogue, I probably had about 50 pages to finish, but the dialogue had taken shape in my head, and I didn't want to risk losing it.
There might have been a chance that it would be superseded by my final thoughts on the novel itself.
I had high expectations that I would finally get to appreciate the novel more when I had finished it and absorbed the denouement.
Unfortunately, it left me feeling dissatisfied.
Narrative Style
I didn't find the narrative style appropriate or convincing.
It is told in the first person, by way of recollection of three different periods of Kathy's life.
The periods are discussed chronologically, although during each period, there are occasional allusions to each other period.
There is a lot of internal detail about each period, what was going on in Kathy's head.
Dialogue between the characters is infrequent and sparse.
The novel is overwhelmingly an interior monologue.
Occasionally, there are lapses or flaws in Kathy's memory that she self-consciously draws attention to.
Part of me wanted to say to the author, "It's your story, just get it right, you can remember anything you like, because you're making it up anyway."
But then I guess we have to differentiate between Ishiguro and Kathy.
We have to expect some flaws in the glass, rather than a word and memory perfect narrative.
Still I was never really confident who Kathy was talking to, it wasn't just an interior monologue, there were occasional mentions of a "you", a second person to whom she was talking.
If you had sat down to tell this story to someone else, I think you could or would have told the story far more succinctly and selectively.
The detail and the repetition of environment, atmosphere and mood bulk up the painting, but they don't add to the depth.
Each new layer of paint is superimposed on the previous layer, so that while there might be a lot of paint on the canvas, it is physically, rather then metaphorically, deep.
The Geometry of Love
SPOILER ALERT
While Kathy, Ruth and Tommy live in an horrific environment (perhaps a metaphorical equivalent to a concentration camp), the novel deals with the quality of their humanity under these circumstances.
The guardians might have been trying to work out (incidentally) whether they had souls, but ultimately what we learn is that the positive aspects of human nature can survive or prevail despite the circumstances.
It's interesting that the characters' quest for love initially seemed to be motivated by a belief that it would postpone their donations and prolong their lives.
While this belief turns out to be mistaken, Kathy discovers that love is worth seeking in its own right, regardless of any consequences or notions of cause and effect.
Ruth promoted the belief in the life prolonging effect of love.
In effect, Kathy acquiesced in it and never deliberately interfered in or disrupted the relationship between Ruth and Tommy.
However, when she comes to the end of the story, perhaps she realises that she should have been less acquiescent and let herself express her love for Tommy.
So ultimately, "Never Let Me Go" is a love story, a triangular one at that.
Life is short, you just have to get on with it, you have to take your (true?) love wherever you can find it, even if someone else gets hurt in the process.
When we pair up in love, there is always a chance that someone will miss out or get hurt.
Three into two won't go.
Perhaps, this is actually calculus rather than geometry, but you know what I mean.
I did not like this book, in fact I think I could say I hated it, I am sorry to say I even read the whole thing (except for all the pages I skimmed over because they were boring). The premise sounded interesting, intriguing... So I kept reading wondering when the author would drop the bomb, this is why I kept reading. Well it never came. For the most part he gave you bits and pieces the whole time but nothing really surprising. Maybe that is his style and his point but I didn't care for it. A...moreI did not like this book, in fact I think I could say I hated it, I am sorry to say I even read the whole thing (except for all the pages I skimmed over because they were boring). The premise sounded interesting, intriguing... So I kept reading wondering when the author would drop the bomb, this is why I kept reading. Well it never came. For the most part he gave you bits and pieces the whole time but nothing really surprising. Maybe that is his style and his point but I didn't care for it. After a while I started skipping pages. It could have been a really good story. It was like a piece of chocolate cake that you buy at the store. It looks good, you know you like chocolate cake. So you take a bite.. not so great as homemade, so you take another and another thinking it will get better. It isn't going to get better! This book doesn't get better.
For me reading is like opening the door to another world or someone else's reality. The thing I have to remember is that sometimes other people's realities are not something I would like to know about. We all see the world through different eyes. I don't like the eye's this book was written through. Strange and a bit bland. Where is the passion where are the feelings....(less)
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.Here's one interpretation of this novel: Ishiguro crafts an alternate reality in which human cloning is embraced in order to construct a pathos-laden metaphor about obligatory military service, dissecting the way that soldiers are dehumanized via representation as death stats, numbers...faceless nuts and bolts in the gears of democracy whose emotions, fears, loves, importance to others' lives and hearts, potential as valid contributors to the intellectual and artistic continuum, and whose overal...moreHere's one interpretation of this novel: Ishiguro crafts an alternate reality in which human cloning is embraced in order to construct a pathos-laden metaphor about obligatory military service, dissecting the way that soldiers are dehumanized via representation as death stats, numbers...faceless nuts and bolts in the gears of democracy whose emotions, fears, loves, importance to others' lives and hearts, potential as valid contributors to the intellectual and artistic continuum, and whose overall selves are cast aside in the interest of the greater good for society (power, control, etc). By peering into the interpersonal relationships of three sheltered, misinformed, and tragically hopeful organ donor clones, Ishiguro critiques the way that heavily militarized countries deceive their people into thinking that the throwing around of human lives is acceptable, even brave (of not just the soldiers, but also their dispatchers), wrapping a ribbon around death and setting it at your door as if from a secret admirer. A lovely gift to the soldier, which he then passes on to his country through his untimely (albeit anticipated) demise.
Huh.
Unfortunately, this novel could be interpreted in all the following ways, as well: a Pro-Life tear-jerker for Christian housewives, anti-stemcell propaganda focusing on "the moral questions raised by scientific advancement," yet another half-assed attempt at critiquing the depersonalizing nature of the modern, industrialized world, a sappy rip-off of that ridiculous McGregor/Johansson movie The Island, a shoddy attempt at an Orwellian/Huxleyan rendition of The Secret Garden with the same ominous adults but where the main, youthful characters are anonymous, oppressed, and misunderstood mutations resulting from an evil, voracious culture (pure souls whose spirits are unconquerable regardless of their hostile, toxic environment, blubblubblub)...the list really goes on. I was incapable of properly anchoring the novel's themes to any discernibly solid message. The Sci-fi element seemed an afterthought, or rather, a flimsy framework to garner broader interest in what is otherwise just another sad tale of failed romance, confusion, and growin' up.
This is what I see: a coming-of-age tale of the love triangle between three young adults, which briefly touches upon each one coming to terms with inevitable death (this is mostly used, however, as salt and pepper pizzazz to mix it up in the aforementioned love triangle). The writing is dry, to boot. This is not what one would call a "quotable book," since it is basically one girl who is roughly 26 years old, recounting--in borderline "Dear Diary" fashion--a few all-too-familiar memories from her boarding school years, i.e. the kid got picked on because he was different but I couldn't help but understand him and was begrudgingly nice as a result so one day we fell in lurrrve, a favorite teacher got emotional with the class once and abruptly decided to "tell it like it is" and we all grew up a little on that afternoon, I started having crushes on *heee heee* boyeeeees and when Tommy played football it made my pelvis tingle in this new and totally exciting way...you know, shit like that.
...and yet it is still an absorbing tale of misunderstood and stifled passions with some keen observations about the intricate ways that people wiggle through the awkward years of getting to actually know themselves, and how the staggered and staggering transition into selfhood can leave children feeling obliged to deceive one another about what they know, what they have seen, where they have been, and (in short) who they are. Ishiguro addresses the complexities involved in lifelong friendships, such as competition for friends, lovers, influence, and favor, the ebb and flow of similarities in things like interests, habits, locations, and social circles, and the times of fretful clutching to before turning away from one another which seem to follow their own natural rhythms with people you can just never seem to really let go of. Oh, shit...I basically just said the title without meaning to. You win this one, Ishiguro-san.
Anyway, it's alright. I'm sure that Oprah loves it. I'll probably watch the movie someday.(less)
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.On September 15, 2010, a movie adaptation of this book will be shown, distributed by Fox Pictures, in the US. It stars Keira Knightley (Ruth), Sally Hawkins (Miss Lucy), Andrew Garfield (Tommy), and Carey Mulligan (Kathy). Two of my GR-TFG friends are currently reading this and a number of them have either marked this to read or added this to their wish lists. However, three of my GR American friends have read this and rated this 5 or 4 stars. Thus, for my Filipino friends, I have activated the ...moreOn September 15, 2010, a movie adaptation of this book will be shown, distributed by Fox Pictures, in the US. It stars Keira Knightley (Ruth), Sally Hawkins (Miss Lucy), Andrew Garfield (Tommy), and Carey Mulligan (Kathy). Two of my GR-TFG friends are currently reading this and a number of them have either marked this to read or added this to their wish lists. However, three of my GR American friends have read this and rated this 5 or 4 stars. Thus, for my Filipino friends, I have activated the ***SPOILER ALERT***.
Never Let Me Go is my 2nd book by Japanese-born British author Kazuo Ishiguro (1954-). Like his 1989 Man Booker winner Remains of the Day, the writing is superb. It does not use big words and does not dish out deep profound ideas but when you are done reading till the last page, you always have the urge to go back and read again from the start. You think that you just breezed through the first part until in the end you realized that you made a mistake of just breezing through that part.
I almost did not give this a 5-star because early this year, I read and liked Neal Shusterman's Unwind (published 2007). Kazuo Ishiguro published his Never Let Me Go in 2005 so you know who inspired who. Both are dystopian novels although Shusterman made his book intended for young adult (YA) while Ishiguro's writing is, I think, intended for everyone. No wonder that this book is included in TIME Magazine's Best 100 Novels.
Both books are about young people being used as organ donors. In Unwind, they are those normal people who are not achievers. In Never Let Me Go, however, they are cloned from models. They are part of the government experiment to supply the organs of sick people and unlike in Unwind where the donor's organs are harvested one time, in this book, the harvesting is done one organ at a time until the donor is "completed" or dead.
It's that kind of novel that is ideal for a horror Stephen King movie. However, with Ishiguro's astute plot development and bewildering narrative, this will more likely put a tear in your eyes rather that scare the hell out of you.
There are many scenes that I was able to relate to. Kathy's hesitancy to buy the music tape was like that movie I saw with my father when he was still alive. For many years, I looked for that movie. Then in 2008, I saw a copy in Ohio (during my US trip) but I did not buy it. I felt, while holding the DVD copy, that the memories of sitting beside my father is enough and I did not need to see the movie to once again feel how happy I was munching popcorn while watching the soldiers and the Indians falling off the ravine.
As a child, Kathy H. attended Hailsham, an elite boarding school where children were raised to be both healthy and artistic and taught to believe that both their health and creativity were essential to themselves and to the world they would one day enter. Now an adult, Kathy reflects back on her life. She charts the very slow progression of her growth, her friendships with fellow students Tommy and Ruth, and her knowledge, as she herself gradually began to learn about her role in the outside wor...moreAs a child, Kathy H. attended Hailsham, an elite boarding school where children were raised to be both healthy and artistic and taught to believe that both their health and creativity were essential to themselves and to the world they would one day enter. Now an adult, Kathy reflects back on her life. She charts the very slow progression of her growth, her friendships with fellow students Tommy and Ruth, and her knowledge, as she herself gradually began to learn about her role in the outside world—and what this role dictates about her identity. A combination of heavy introspection and soft-scifi, Never Let Me Go has a thought-provoking premise and is brilliantly written, but fails to reach its potential, spending all its time in excruciatingly slow buildup and none of it in impact, theory, or debate. Enjoyable, but somewhat empty, and so moderately recommended.
This book's greatest strength is its writing style, but it is also one of the most irritating aspects. Kathy, the narrator, is intensely thoughtful and analytical, breaking down her personal history into eras, important moments, and developing themes. She walks the reader through the story of her life much in the way she lived it, slowly, very slowly, bringing to light her final realizations. In other words, there is a lot hidden in this book, and it takes the book's entire length—literally until the last fifteen pages—to reveal it all. In between are circuitous examples, where Kathy starts to talk about one event, goes back a bit to explain why the event was relevant, explains the event itself, and then goes on without having drawn a major conclusion—instead, she's just mapped another point on her gradual arc or argument. The resulting pace is excruciating, both artful, brilliantly thought-out and executed, and simply painful as the reader is lead along, disappointed, and lead along again. The book's pace bring the characters to life (although both Ruth and Tommy lack some dimension) and, with it, the life that they lived, through Hailsham and beyond. As such, it is the highlight of the book, worked like an artform, but it is also intensely irritating and makes the book (which actually reads quite quickly) seem longer than it is.
There are a near-infinite number of issues, from the ethical to philosophical, that could be brought to question and debate in this book. The very premise almost begs them—both the science of the base culture and the purpose of Hailsham itself. Unfortunately, however, none of these topics are brought to issue in the text. Instead, the book is consumed by the very slow progression of the story, the creep towards the "twist" revelations of who the children are and what purpose they serve. When finally revealed, these revelations are not all that big—not because they lack the potential to be, but because they pale in comparison to the immense buildup that leads to them. The characters just barely exceed the gradual revelation of the book's premise and are largely just passive carriers of the story, and so the other various issues, the possible debates, never enter into the text. So when other reviewers talk about the questions this book raises, what they're really talking about is the potential for questions—and that is not the same thing. The burden of meaning for this book, everything that the reader could take away and continue to think about, rests entirely on the reader, who must pull out the themes and ask the questions himself, carry on the debates himself. The author shirks his responsibility, and the book suffers for it, failing to live up to its potential.
My final complaint with this book is that the underlying concept seems, blandly, unrealistic. **SPOILERS** follow, so be warned: The fact that in the book's contemporary culture the clones are considered non-human despite looking, acting, and living like humans seems entirely impossible. Consider: Humans never viewed the first cloned animals as different than their original counterparts; indeed, we were amazed and drew attention to the fact that they were identical, that they were clones. So why would cloned humans be any different (especially that these clones pass in human society as normal and indistinguishable)? Outside of the huge wastefulness of cloning entire humans just to harvest their organs, the fact that the cloned humans were not considered humans seems unreal to me, no matter who the gene donors were, no matter what brief attempts Ishiguro (though Ms. Emily) makes to justify it. **END SPOILERS** This is the underlying basis of the book's conflict and plot, and so problems with this concept create problems throughout the book. They weaken the foundations, making it difficult to accept the book and, as a result, even more difficult to take on the work of finding and analyzing themes, which the author fails too do. In the end, Never Let Me Go has a thoughtful premise with heavy potential for thought, theory, and debate, and it is skillfully, even artfully written, but the book fails to live up to its potential: the author does not tackle his own themes, and no matter how interesting the premise, it is an unreasonable one. I wanted to enjoy this book, and I did, but I felt cheated at the end: the final product was surprisingly empty, with the burden of meaning placed entirely and unfairly upon the reader alone.(less)
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.Set in a late 1990s England, Ishiguro places us in an uncomfortably realistic, sci-fi scenario where cloning is normative and routine. We follow the lives of Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy, students at Hailsham, a picturesque boarding school. Only about halfway into the novel is the nature of this society completely revealed, when we find that the students are clones, living as normal humans until their organs are needed.
Fortunately, the story never directly questions societal ethics of ...moreSet in a late 1990s England, Ishiguro places us in an uncomfortably realistic, sci-fi scenario where cloning is normative and routine. We follow the lives of Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy, students at Hailsham, a picturesque boarding school. Only about halfway into the novel is the nature of this society completely revealed, when we find that the students are clones, living as normal humans until their organs are needed.
Fortunately, the story never directly questions societal ethics of cloning. Doing so, even slightly, would have changed the tone to a political bent, shredding the tender story. And although he doesn't question cloning, he does, however, lead the reader to an underlying answer while maintaining a tight reign over the actual storyline.
Ishiguro broaches many topics, such as societal detachment and the struggle of a minority class, but its his focus on the aching to belong, an experience that, I venture to guess, most people feel or have felt at some point, that gives us real emotions filtered, only mildly, through prose.
Kathy is one of few students raised at Hailsham, where the caretakers focus on creative outlets; we discover later that the art is being preserved as possible evidence of students' humanity. Oddly enough, the caretakers miss the student's self awareness and emotional maturations, arguably the most human of all traits.
Through Kathy H., we see that the students are capable of ranging emotions, from sadness and forgiveness to lust and curiosity. She excels as a "carer" because she interacts with the dying on a personal level, interprets their moods, and calms them. As a human-like force, she doesn't embrace the horrific outcome of her life and list towards death like many of her peers, she focuses on her friends, repairing old mistakes and forming stronger bonds.
In spite of the sci-fi setting, the unique traits of Ishiguro's narratives, such as a languorous flow and inherent subtlety, allow him to slip rather significant items into the story without any grandiose epiphanies. You feel as though you're like sitting with a friend, listening to recalled events, some familiar and some new.
After reading the last chapter, I honestly didn't know how to feel. Tapped out emotionally, I just desperately needed a hug. It's a rare occasion that instead of reading a novel, I experience it; a testament to Ishiguro's skill in crafting a story, not just words.
(less)
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.Hm. Let's see. It's by the guy who wrote Remains of the Day, so it has a bit of a "modern literature, good-for-you, subtly subtle investigation of people and their motivations, with people going into rooms and going, 'Oh! I, oh, well, oh. I didn't know you were in here.' 'Yes, Sebastian, what is it? I am moving books slightly to the left.' 'Oh. Well. I guess I'd better leave.' 'Yes, I guess you'd better had.'" sort of thing going on, which I find interesting when well-done (which I fin...moreHm. Let's see. It's by the guy who wrote Remains of the Day, so it has a bit of a "modern literature, good-for-you, subtly subtle investigation of people and their motivations, with people going into rooms and going, 'Oh! I, oh, well, oh. I didn't know you were in here.' 'Yes, Sebastian, what is it? I am moving books slightly to the left.' 'Oh. Well. I guess I'd better leave.' 'Yes, I guess you'd better had.'" sort of thing going on, which I find interesting when well-done (which I find very rare). So much of it is just ordinary description of people going about their days, but the subtle
subtleness is nice, in that it really *does* convey more going on than merely moving books slightly to the left.
Plus, much of it revolves around a boarding school. What can I say - I have a weakness. There is absolutely no way boarding schools are half as interesting as I was convinced they were at age eight, but it's v. hard for me to let go of that inner eight-year-old fascination. In some ways, this book reminded me of so many of the British Boarding School Novels I read at age eight, except nobody turns into a cat or a long-lost wizard or a hidden princess or anything. It's just, you know. People. Kids. Being cruel and kind as kids can be.
The narrator falls victim to the same fault of so many of these sorts of books, in that she's far less noticeable than some of the other characters, but for once I really do believe that she is a decent person, more decent than some of the other characters. She does things and has little kindnesses that some of the other characters don't that make her a better person than some of them, not by default (hey, at least she's not as cruel as some of the other kids!), but because of some of her own actions. But again - subtle subtleness that is both subtle yet subtle. Or something.
More detailed plot and character spoilers follow.
Like, big spoilers. Seriously. If you want to preserve the conceit of this book, at least a little bit at first (I found it fairly easy to figure out what was going on but found the unfolding of The Secret to be interesting and well-handled), skip this.
So, yeah. The kids in the boarding school? The grown-up kids resolving all their weird relationship issues? Clones. Created for organ harvesting. And their entire lives are shaped around their future "donations," after which they "complete." It's like The Island, only with far fewer explosions, and ultimately nobody escapes.
Maybe that's depressing, but I kind of like the story where the Big Secret - which is never really a secret to the characters, just is referenced obliquely to the reader, because there's nothing Secret or Weird about it to the characters - is revealed and is pretty much horrible and nothing changes. The characters are interesting and valuable because of who they are, not because they are, like, the Liberators Of The Clones or because they beat the system.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's depressing, but I like it nonetheless.
I imagine reading this was like what reading 1984 or Brave New World is/was like when no one really knew what they were about. When their plots weren't already revealed before anyone had ever seen the inside cover of the book. The point is the people, not the science fiction plot idea behind them. (Okay, there is a talky section at the very end, where one of the characters dons Captain Exposition
pants and gives backstory beyond what the narrator could know, but it was intriguing and I am willing to forgive its mild hokiness.)
I like that the teachers were revolted by the "students," the
clones, because I can imagine that happening. I can imagine people working for the betterment of the students because of the ideal they represent, even as they are horrified by their actuality. I like the way the narrator and her fellow students are clearly established as human beings in the eyes of the readers before the notes of dissonance and oddness are fully established as being Other (and not just a really weird boarding school practice).
I like how art and creativity are deemed "necessary" to prove that the students have souls. I like how creepy that is. I like how creepy the doubt of humanity is, how the students are treated halfway like people, halfway like, well, I don't know what. Less than human. Locked into the endless cycle of caring and donation and completion. I like how depressing it is that the one school to actually educate the students is shut down for lack of support.
(Although I would have loved to see that fleshed out more.) I like how even the people educating the students see it as educating them purely for the sake of education, not because they fully see them as human or to give them a chance at a better life (as which education is always trumped). I like how the Hailsham students are a product both of thinking that their education is for something more and good and of thinking about how their lives are already laid out and how questioning their ultimate donation and completion is not even in their frame of reference at this point, only requesting a "delay." I like how the word die is only used once, maybe twice, in the whole book.
Even as all that's going on, I was intrigued by how, hm, typical some of the characters and their interactions are. The best friend is charming yet cruel, and I for the life of me couldn't figure out why people were her friend. Yet isn't that the way it can be in school? The narrator was a little more introspective, a little more caring, a little more something than most of the people around her, but ultimately she wasn't particularly memorable. The boy is friends with the narrator but dates the cruel friend, even as he's in love with the narrator. And what makes it compelling in a way it wouldn't otherwise be is how it plays out over the backdrop of the fact that they're clones and being raised solely to donate their organs and ultimately their entire bodies. It just kicks everything into high relief and makes something that would be interesting but not particularly intriguing into complex and deeply intriguing. At least
to me.(less)
In "Never Let Me Go," a fictional story focusing on three classmates from a unique boarding school, author Kazuo Ishiguro deals with questions of loss and mortality that each of must eventually confront. As we get older, as we lose our friends and family, as the environment around us changes and things once familiar to us disappear or become unfamiliar, as we cling to our memories of how things used to be, how do we come to accept the fact that our lives are finite and attach some mea...moreIn "Never Let Me Go," a fictional story focusing on three classmates from a unique boarding school, author Kazuo Ishiguro deals with questions of loss and mortality that each of must eventually confront. As we get older, as we lose our friends and family, as the environment around us changes and things once familiar to us disappear or become unfamiliar, as we cling to our memories of how things used to be, how do we come to accept the fact that our lives are finite and attach some meaning to our limited existence? These are questions that the narrator of "Never Let Me Go," Kathy H. copes with as she recounts the disjointed memories that comprise her life. Sorting through these memories, she finds comfort in her friends and her career, eventually coming to terms with the meaning of her life and her ultimate fate.
Reflecting upon her life, Kathy devotes most of her time to thinking about her friends from Hailsham, a secluded boarding school where she grew up. Because contact with outsiders at Hailsham is limited, one of the school’s big events is the quarterly Exchange, where students are given tokens they can use to buy other students’ artwork. As this is the students’ only way of accumulating material possessions, they grow dependent on each other for their "personal treasures" and learn to value others’ work, forging unique bonds with one another. Kathy’s two best friends are Ruth, an extroverted leader at the school, and Tommy, a shy introvert who gets bullied due to his lack of creativity and inability to produce substantial work. While they depend on each other throughout their time at Hailsham, like a lot of friends they drift apart after leaving the school. Looking back at the petty argument that led to the group’s break, Kathy comments, "It never occurred to me that our lives, until then so closely interwoven, could unravel and separate over a thing like that." Kathy regrets the loss of her friends, but doesn’t do anything about it until she hears that Hailsham is closing: "[I]t started to dawn on me, I suppose, that a lot of things I’d always assumed I’d plenty of time to get around to doing, I might now have to act on pretty soon or else let them go forever." Realizing that her time is limited, Kathy decides what is important to her – what she doesn’t want to let go of – and reconnects with her old friends, Ruth and Tommy.
In addition to her friends, Kathy’s career has a special meaning in her life. Kathy begins the book by identifying herself as a "carer." Although a lot of carers "are just going through the motions waiting for the day they’re told to stop," Kathy enjoys her work, the long drives and the solitude, and she knows she is good at what she does. As a carer, she helps look after patients, assisting as they recover from "donations" and keeping them calm. She knows that she is a good carer, which is important to her: "[I]t means a lot to me, being able to do my work well." However, when she becomes Tommy’s carer, he questions the meaning of her work, asking her if she really considers her job to be important since all of her patients are going to "complete," or die, anyway. Kathy responds, "Of course, it’s important. A good carer makes a big difference." When reflecting upon her life, Kathy decides not only that her friends are important to her, but she also considers her job important, believing she makes a difference by helping others.
However, as the book begins, Kathy only has eight months left as a carer, and then she will begin the last phase of her life. Initially, Kathy does not accept this fate, hoping to get a "deferral." When the headmaster of Hailsham tells her a deferral is not possible – Kathy cannot escape her ultimate fate any more than the rest of us can – Kathy wonders what the purpose of her life has been: "Why did we do all of that work in the first place? Why train us, encourage us, make us produce all of that? If we’re just going to give donations anyway, then die, why all those lessons? Why all those books and discussions?" In fact, one of the Hailsham teachers, Miss Lucy, had made this same argument when they were children, believing it was more important that they know their ultimate fate than worry about creating artwork and developing their sense of culture: "If you’re to have decent lives, you have to know who you are and what lies ahead of you." But this is not true, the Hailsham headmaster counters, addressing Kathy and Tommy: "Look at you both now! I’m so proud to see you both. You built your lives on what we gave you. You wouldn’t be who you are today if we’d not protected you." Ultimately, Kathy comes to agree with the Hailsham approach. When she meets a patient who did not go to Hailsham, but wants to hear all about her time there so that he can replace his own memories with Kathy’s, Kathy realizes "just how lucky we’d been." Without being warned what lay ahead – as Miss Lucy had wanted – Kathy had been free to live her own life; even if it was messy, it was hers. As the novel concludes, Kathy drives to Norfolk, where she had shared her happiest memories with Tommy: "I imagined this was the spot where everything I’d ever lost since my childhood had washed up, and I was standing in front of it." Instead of hanging on to those things and people she has lost, Kathy realizes that this is as far as her fantasy can go: "I just waited a bit, then turned back to the car, and drove off to wherever it was I was supposed to be." Like most of us, Kathy knows her life is limited, and the best we can do is go about our everyday lives, doing what we are supposed to do. She will never let go of her memories of what she has lost, but she has accepted her fate.
Though her life hasn’t been perfect, Kathy, reflecting upon her memories, finds that her life has been meaningful – having had close friends, an important job, and an idyllic childhood, she considers herself "lucky." But has she, in fact, led a decent life? Has her life been purposeful and meaningful? These are universal questions we may all ask of ourselves – how to accept our own mortality and assign purpose to the limited life we have been given. However, these big questions of how to deal with loss and mortality also become a source of frustration and disappointment for readers because, while "Never Let Me Go" builds these questions up, it never seems to fully resolve or answer them. Fortunately, though, it does provide some clues. One of the recurring items of the book relates to a song Kathy plays as a child called "Never Let Me Go." What makes the song special for Kathy is that she assigns her own meaning to the lyrics; instead of listening to the actual words, she imagines her own version of the song: "Even at the time, I realized this couldn’t be right, that this interpretation didn’t fit with the rest of the lyrics. But that wasn’t an issue with me. The song was about what I said." At one point, when Kathy is dancing to the song in her mind, Madame, a Hailsham leader, catches her and starts sobbing. Later Madame confesses that, when she saw Kathy that day, she imagined Kathy was holding onto the old world, a "kind world," which was being replaced by a "harsh, cruel world," but now Madame realizes her interpretation was wrong: "It wasn’t really you, what you were doing." Soon after Madame catches her playing the tape, the tape is lost, her friend Ruth tries to replace it, and later, with Tommy’s help, Kathy finds another copy of the tape. The symbolic implications are clear: just as she assigns her own meaning to the song, Kathy assigns her own meaning to life. Sometimes she may be lost, sometimes others like Tommy may help her, and sometimes others like Madame may assign a different meaning to her life than she does, but Kathy is the final author of her life. While others may deem her life meaningless, she herself is content, if not happy. "Never Let Me Go" may not provide a universal answer for some of the big questions it poses about loss and mortality, but the ultimate message seems to be one of hope: as the authors of our own lives, it is up to each of us to take what we are given and make the most of it.
(less)
In short (maybe I find the time to elaborate later, maybe not): Right now I feel like I've got a wyvern in my guts - shredding tissue like mad. Not because of particularly graphic horrbile scenes, not at all, but because of the narrator's complete complacency and serenety while relating the - to us - nightmarish story of her life. All the while making it perfectly clear that to her no alternative life plan would have been thinkable.
Street Corner Bookers’ Pile Reduction Challenge 2011...moreIn short (maybe I find the time to elaborate later, maybe not): Right now I feel like I've got a wyvern in my guts - shredding tissue like mad. Not because of particularly graphic horrbile scenes, not at all, but because of the narrator's complete complacency and serenety while relating the - to us - nightmarish story of her life. All the while making it perfectly clear that to her no alternative life plan would have been thinkable.
Street Corner Bookers’ Pile Reduction Challenge 2011, #21 (challenger: Morgan)(less)
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.The book was written in 2005, and opens in Britain, late-1990s. It starts out in a co-ed boarding school following the story of Kathy, a young student. At this point she and her close friends are essentially early high school age. It is a very closed school, where liberties are very sparse and minimal contact with the outside world. The students are often reminded how special they are, and how important it is that they take care of their bodies. Their lives revolve around their classmates and th...moreThe book was written in 2005, and opens in Britain, late-1990s. It starts out in a co-ed boarding school following the story of Kathy, a young student. At this point she and her close friends are essentially early high school age. It is a very closed school, where liberties are very sparse and minimal contact with the outside world. The students are often reminded how special they are, and how important it is that they take care of their bodies. Their lives revolve around their classmates and the staff, whom they know as guardians. Another of the centers of their lives are the donations, where the students can put up things they have created for exchange for tokens. The highest praise comes from art works that are selected for the Gallary by the Madame.
The book takes Kathy and their friends through school, then to the next stage of their lives, the Cottages. From here is you find out they are preparing for the real world, and to be carers then donors. And as the book goes on, through little hints throughout the book, it dawns on the reader that these children are all clones (not of each other, but of someone on the outside), and they were bred to be organ donors. From the cottages, they are sent out to organ donor centers throughout the countryside. During the time they are donors (usually three, sometimes four times before they are 'completed'. After the fourth time, with that many organs removed, they are kept under, and any other organs possible are also removed) they are under the watch of 'carers' who provide personal care, usually friendship and companionship much like counseling. Carers tend to be other clones, who spend time as carers before becoming donors themselves.
The school was part of a grand debate. And it was this, were the clones really human? These clones were created to give healing to people with otherwise incurable diseases, cancer, heart disease, neurological diseases; through their organs. And it was easier to forget that these organs came from someone. And easier to think that these sources were not really human. While some of the clone centers were much like factories a la The Matrix or Brave New World, this school was set with the premise that these clones could have real childhoods. And the Gallery was that, works of art that could be shown to people of influence, to demonstrate these children had souls. Not to determine if the children were in love, but to show they were human, even if their end was to be sources of human organs. But as Kathy and her friends were growing up, there was a scandal, and the battle was lost, and her school and others like it closed, with only the more factory-like places left to raise future generations of clones. And Kathy finds the Madame and one of the other guardians, lonely and defeated in this battle, with society deciding that the clone children were not truly human, that the clones were only incubators for their organs. They (Kathy and friends) hear the story, and Kathy and her friends go on their way. Kathy's friend goes in for his fourth donation, and is 'completed.' And at the end Kathy is thinking of all the friends who have gone, and the school. And a life that in the end, has no future.
It is a completely different perspective on the question of what it means to be human, of the hopes and fears of the cloning debate, and medical ethics in general. Not from an abstract philosophical perspective, but a life of one who is grows up thinking that this is proper and right future, to be harvested for her organs and nothing more. Fascinating reading even as it is disturbing. (less)
(You may consider this review spoilery, if you read all of it. I state something explicitly that is below the surface of the book, at any rate.)
This book is a bit like having a one-sided conversation with the narrator. In consequence, it kinda feels like it rambles a bit -- they digress to talk about something else and then a couple of pages later, wrench it back to the original point. In some ways that makes it feel very natural, like someone talking, but to read it, it gets irritat...more(You may consider this review spoilery, if you read all of it. I state something explicitly that is below the surface of the book, at any rate.)
This book is a bit like having a one-sided conversation with the narrator. In consequence, it kinda feels like it rambles a bit -- they digress to talk about something else and then a couple of pages later, wrench it back to the original point. In some ways that makes it feel very natural, like someone talking, but to read it, it gets irritating.
There's a difficult tone to it... Very resigned, unemotional, and somewhat, I don't know, superficial. The narrator skims the surface of the truths revealed. It's natural to do that, in some ways, for a real person, but in a character, it's hard to engage. The characters of Ruth and Tommy were much more vivid for me than Kathy: Ruth and her needing to be in the know, needing to be superior; Tommy and his anger issues and his struggle to be creative. Ruth felt especially real to me: I knew a girl who was very much like her, and I was pretty much the Kathy in our interactions, too.
The way it engages with the issues -- with the idea of clones -- without dragging out all the backstory is interesting, dealt with it in this way. Like it's a fact of life, like what you're reading is all very matter of fact. And you go along with it a little, and then you stop, and you think about it... It actually reminds me of the way Kathy describes being taught about what her life will be: somehow it builds up so you've known it all along, but you never have this big moment of revelation. Unfortunately, that deadens the sharper shocks, I think.
I enjoyed it, and it was very easy to just settle down and read it. It's not racing action or anything, pretty leisurely, and not compelling in the sense that I couldn't put it down. But I wanted to know -- even suspecting what the end would be like, I wanted to get there and see.(less)
Let me start by saying that my review might contain some plot spoilers. However I personally don't think that knowing the plot in advance will in any way diminish the enjoyment of this story. The beauty of this book is not in the plot, but in its execution.
Another friendly warning: Never Let Me Go is for some reason often classified as science fiction. This is why so many readers end up disappointed I think. This novel is literary fiction at its finest. So if you look down on literar...moreLet me start by saying that my review might contain some plot spoilers. However I personally don't think that knowing the plot in advance will in any way diminish the enjoyment of this story. The beauty of this book is not in the plot, but in its execution.
Another friendly warning: Never Let Me Go is for some reason often classified as science fiction. This is why so many readers end up disappointed I think. This novel is literary fiction at its finest. So if you look down on literary fiction and consider books written by authors like Ian McEwan, Margaret Atwood, and Jose Saramago pretentious, this is not a story for you.
Now to the novel itself. Kathy, now 31, is a former student of an English boarding school Hailsham. Hailsham is a school for kids with special purpose. All education in this school is geared towards conditioning its student to accept their "special" destiny as a given. As Kathy is getting ready to make her first donation while being a carer for other donors, she recounts her life in Hailsham and on her own, mostly in a form of anecdotes about herself and her best friends Ruth and Tommy, their rivalries, jealousies, and affection for each other. There is nothing particularly shocking, gruesome, or intense about Kathy's story, and yet it leaves you with a sense of being a part of a nightmare.
After reading quite a few reviews of the book, I can say that I loved the aspects of it that many abhorred. What other readers say about Kathy - her detachment, her lack of fire and rebellion, about broke my heart. What can be more heartbreaking than witnessing human lives wasted? Let me tell you - witnessing lives taken away from people who do not even realize what is being taken away from them, people who do not understand the value of their existence, people who do not know they have a right for more.
There is of course, much more to the story. The novel explores the futility of human life, its un-bargainable eventual "completion" and how we all choose to deal with the inevitable end. But for me personally the pain of Kathy's quiet resignation to her fate was what stood out and touched me the most.
In many ways Never Let Me Go reminded me of The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. Only Kathy is a step further from Offred. If Offred knows what horrors she is subjected to, but has no strength or will to change her circumstances, Kathy doesn't even know that her life "purpose," her destiny is inhumane. This work is also, to me, very reminiscent of Ian McEwan's Atonement. McEwan is a master of subtle build-up to an almost unbearable, life-shattering moment, but Ishiguro is a master of subtle telling without telling, foreshadowing, and emphasizing the gravity of the unsaid.
What else can I say about this novel? Never Let Me Go is a masterfully written work of fiction which raises questions of what it is to be human, what you choose to do in the face of an impending death and what happens when science is not accompanied by ethics. Subtle, eerie, chilling, and poignant. One of the best books I have read this year.(less)
Tanu Das In many ways Never Let Me Go reminded me of The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood.
I was rather reminded of Oryx and Crake by Margaret A...more In many ways Never Let Me Go reminded me of The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood.
I was rather reminded of Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood. In fact, I had to consciously stop myself from comparing the two and dampening my reading experience. I get what you mean about Offred though.
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.A major disappointment. Ishiguro starts with an interesting premise but makes very little out of it, and ends up with a limp, unsatisfying story.
Some of the positive reviews about this book seem a little strained -- we're supposed to reflect on the similarity of our own "doomed" lives to those of the clones. But it doesn't really wash. There's never a sense that any of the characters are struggling with the dead-serious issues that make life worth living; they're herded fr...moreA major disappointment. Ishiguro starts with an interesting premise but makes very little out of it, and ends up with a limp, unsatisfying story.
Some of the positive reviews about this book seem a little strained -- we're supposed to reflect on the similarity of our own "doomed" lives to those of the clones. But it doesn't really wash. There's never a sense that any of the characters are struggling with the dead-serious issues that make life worth living; they're herded from stage to stage like cattle, mooing articulately and chewing their cuds with a vague sense of malaise, but never actually taking their lives in hand. Their own impending fates don't seem to mobilize them into action, or concentrate their minds at all.
So it's a frustrating read. Ishiguro's deliberately sketched this story in a low key way (which is cool to read), but there are way too many holes in the story and the drama just leaks out steadily. With few genuinely provocative ideas and a wispy narrative line, you hope for a climax that's going to pull it ll together. But when it arrives, it's a drippy and embarrassing affair, with much preaching and obviousness. Any impact the story might have had gets instantly diluted.
Hate to sound harsh. But by the time the book ambled to a close, I felt like the characters might as well be carved up for their innards -- they didn't seem to be willing to take the risks necessary to have an actual life.
This book certainly made me think, but perhaps not quite as I was intended to. I like my fiction in line with Philip Pullman's view of things:
"...If I'm reading something I happen to know and gets it wrong, I just don't trust the book any more. What I ask of a novel I'm reading is that it should know a fraction more about the things I know than I do. When I'm writing...I ask myself: would I be convinced by this if I read it? If I knocked against this bit of scenery, would it fee...moreThis book certainly made me think, but perhaps not quite as I was intended to. I like my fiction in line with Philip Pullman's view of things:
"...If I'm reading something I happen to know and gets it wrong, I just don't trust the book any more. What I ask of a novel I'm reading is that it should know a fraction more about the things I know than I do. When I'm writing...I ask myself: would I be convinced by this if I read it? If I knocked against this bit of scenery, would it feel solid?"
Unfortunately, "Never Let Me Go" failed me on this front. For example, what were the four organs they were capable of donating? Why didn't they stick everyone on life support after the fourth donation so they could keep on harvesting? Why did they clone random lowlifes to get the organ donors, rather than considering tissue types (for example, cloning from people with the most common tissue types)? Why did the organ donation follow a fixed pattern? - For example, if someone needed the heart of a particular clone, did they have to wait until the clone had been through the previous rounds of donations? (It didn't seem like they could have an absolutely essential organ taken at the first few donations, because they always seemed a bit surprised when donors completed before their 4th time). Why didn't they maximise use of the clones by taking other bits, like using them as blood donors? Why did they think art was the only thing that could show the clones had souls? (I'd have thought it would be much more effective to, say, get clones to talk to people). Why did they list diseases that could be cured thanks to having clones, such as motor neurone disease and cancer, which I really can't see organ transplants curing?
I know that some find Kathy's obsession with mulling over the smallest detail at great length to be meaningful and a beautifully drawn consideration of the details of social interactions. For me, though, that was just boring, and the writing style was far too self-consciously "a girl relating her story as if to another person", as a result of too many uses of "as I say", "I don't know how it was where you were", and similar phrases.
However, I did like the ruthless contrast between Kathy's minute dissection of the smallest social interaction and her complete lack of introspection about her life and her fate. The characters' acceptance of what lies in store for them is chilling, and in some way both hard and all too easy to imagine. I would just have liked it if a little more thought had been given to believably fleshing out the world the clones lived in.(less)
MelThey make the point that no one really knows what happens after the fourth donation, that it's possible that they are stuck on life support in a coma ...moreThey make the point that no one really knows what happens after the fourth donation, that it's possible that they are stuck on life support in a coma state for future harvesting. Tommy and Kathy talk about this very thing at the end. And we don't know that they clone random low-lifes -- that's just one character's theory.(less)
Oct 17, 2010 11:30pm
RoseYeah, I still don't think it makes all that much sense, though. (And I meant put on life support after donation #4 if they hadn't already given some r...moreYeah, I still don't think it makes all that much sense, though. (And I meant put on life support after donation #4 if they hadn't already given some rather vital organs, not for everybody.)
If I was in charge of the donor program, they would all have been donating blood, bone marrow, and skin on a regular basis before their organs were even messed with.
And they could definitely have managed more than 4 donations without needing life support if they had no complications and didn't lose any vital organs, so I don't think they were very economical about it. Unless all the people who did donate 4 times and were still walking about reasonably healthily were then locked up in a secret building just to make it seem like they had died.
I feel a bit sorry for the non-clone children in this world, because they never seemed to kill any of the child clones. Tough luck if you are 6 months old and need a heart lung transplant. Or did they secretly remove children from the school and harvest their organs without ever mentioning it in the book?
I read it too long ago to remember exactly what they said about the low-lifes, so I will take your word for it.(less)
Oct 18, 2010 04:00am
Nicole Rose wrote: "Yeah, I still don't think it makes all that much sense, though. (And I meant put on life support after donation #4 if they hadn't al...moreRose wrote: "Yeah, I still don't think it makes all that much sense, though. (And I meant put on life support after donation #4 if they hadn't already given some rather vital organs, not for everybody.)
If I w..."
Ruth makes a comment about how they are cloned from drug addicts and prostitutes, and Kathie is later on looking at porn magazines looking for her "possible". So more than one character confirms or rather holds the notion that they are cloned from lowlifes, although this too could have been a rumor just like the rumor about the deferrals. My problem with this book is that it was just too boring and I didn't care for it enough to have gone out of my way to think about it's message.(less)
Nov 05, 2010 11:18pm
It's very important, if you're intending to read this book, that you don't read any reviews or listen to any talk about it first. I had no idea what this book was about before I read it - and the blurb gives you a very different impression, actually - and so I slipped easily into a story that was as engrossing as it was revealing.
If you know something about what to expect, though, I don't think you'll enjoy it nearly as much. It's a bit like an art installation that requires audience...moreIt's very important, if you're intending to read this book, that you don't read any reviews or listen to any talk about it first. I had no idea what this book was about before I read it - and the blurb gives you a very different impression, actually - and so I slipped easily into a story that was as engrossing as it was revealing.
If you know something about what to expect, though, I don't think you'll enjoy it nearly as much. It's a bit like an art installation that requires audience participation: you have to do your bit, too, to make it work, so it makes sense, so it tells the story it was meant to tell. Keep yourself in the dark, that's my advice. Because of this, there's no point in writing an actual review.(less)
Linda I agree - good advice. Unfortunately I looked at a review before getting into the book and learned what the purpose for the kids was before it was rev...moreI agree - good advice. Unfortunately I looked at a review before getting into the book and learned what the purpose for the kids was before it was revealed in the book. Kinda ruined it for me I think.(less)
Feb 18, 2011 03:49pm
ShannonLinda wrote: "I agree - good advice. Unfortunately I looked at a review before getting into the book and learned what the purpose for the kids w...moreLinda wrote: "I agree - good advice. Unfortunately I looked at a review before getting into the book and learned what the purpose for the kids was before it was revealed in the book. Kinda ruined it for me I think."
That's a real shame. There are other books I wish I'd known more about before starting - we can never know until we've read it and then it's too late isn't it?! It really can make or break a novel sometimes.(less)
Feb 19, 2011 09:04am
This resplendent novel was set around three lives. Three that are everlasting together; through friendship. Made on the soul purpose of someday giving their whole lives away. They didn't know it from the start, but they figure it out soon enough. Doesn't it make you think that we all do not have this fear. We are afraid of death, because it's distant, it's close, it's the only way out, the only way we can say, this person lived a life. They lived it the way they chose to. it's the passing of our...moreThis resplendent novel was set around three lives. Three that are everlasting together; through friendship. Made on the soul purpose of someday giving their whole lives away. They didn't know it from the start, but they figure it out soon enough. Doesn't it make you think that we all do not have this fear. We are afraid of death, because it's distant, it's close, it's the only way out, the only way we can say, this person lived a life. They lived it the way they chose to. it's the passing of our bodies, the physical protection that carries our souls. made of skin, organs, bacteria, oxygen, chemicals, bones. All that good substance. Everything that keeps the heart, our internal life support. We come to find that, our bodies do not only hold our life. People do. People effect us, make us want to not find out the truth about death. To think that we have no control of our lives, which at one point was ever so true. As human beings, we control others. We are manipulative and utterly disgusting to have come from a past of controlling people. To this day, people still have a control over others, because they have in their mind that they can. But really, if you think about it, we aren't in this dystopian that Ishiguro made. He shows lives of annihilation, the students at Hailsham are sheltered. Aren't we all though? But their sheltering is seen as; you will live the life you were created for. Being someone elses, organs. Being their miracle, their cure. Not even figurativey, that is the real reason they were brought to life, made, that they exist. This may just be a book, a bundle of words; but it shows a real answer. We all become conscious of the fact that; we want to stay alive. We do not want to die young, die a life that just began. We want wrinkles, we want grandchildren, great grandchildren, we want life stories, experiences. We want to die in a way that we are thoroughly used up. Every ounce of us accounted for.(less)
AmandaWell yes I see the whole point, I won't go against that. Sorry for the inconvience, even from what I wrote you should still read the book if you h...moreWell yes I see the whole point, I won't go against that. Sorry for the inconvience, even from what I wrote you should still read the book if you haven't. There is much more to it, I just wrote ideas. What you get from it could be completely different.(less)
Aug 01, 2011 10:52am
Lucie MckennaI thought your ideas were interesting - and I like reading people's ideas about the books beforehand to get a feel for the book. It was only knowing t...moreI thought your ideas were interesting - and I like reading people's ideas about the books beforehand to get a feel for the book. It was only knowing the premise (of being organ donors) that bothered me. I'm just not sure whether my interest will be sustained in the book if I know what happens. But perhaps I should give it a whirl anyway. Thanks for understanding, and sorry again about my fit of pique!(less)
Aug 02, 2011 04:17am
Ishiguro's novel is totally different from everything else I've read before. It's quite handy to call it science fiction or dystopia, but somehow it's just not right. I could use adjectives like peculiar, interesting, delicate, disturbing a.s.o. but I wouldn't say reading it was an enjoyable experience.
The story is told from Kathy's perspective, when she's 31, in late '90s England. She's a carer and her two best friends are called donors. What puzzles and annoys the reader is that i...moreIshiguro's novel is totally different from everything else I've read before. It's quite handy to call it science fiction or dystopia, but somehow it's just not right. I could use adjectives like peculiar, interesting, delicate, disturbing a.s.o. but I wouldn't say reading it was an enjoyable experience.
The story is told from Kathy's perspective, when she's 31, in late '90s England. She's a carer and her two best friends are called donors. What puzzles and annoys the reader is that it takes about two thirds of the novel to fully get what carers and donors are. Because after serving this piece of info, the author chooses to lead us back into the friends' childhood in Hailsham, where they were brought in some sort of odd boarding school, isolated from the outside world, being constantly encouraged to be as creative as possible, as though their entire future depended on that. Soon after Hailsham, they start living in "the cottages", growing into confused adults preparing for a life of organ donors while their role as clones becomes clearer, especially in contrast with the real world, as we know it.
The last third of the novel is what makes it worth reading. As one critic puts it, "readers may find themselves full of an energy they don't understand and aren't quite sure how to deploy. Never Let Me Go makes you want to have sex, take drugs, run a marathon, dance - anything to convince yourself that you're more alive, more determined, more conscious, more dangerous than any of these characters."
Thank goodness I didn't abandon it, as I was actually planning to.(less)
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.The question that underlies the premise and the action of this book has always seemed to me a stupid and irrelevant one: If we were to clone human beings, would the clones have souls? My thinking isn't ecclesiastical, but Ishiguro bases his story on the assumption that most people's thinking is, and thus that if there were cloned human beings, that would be a matter of debate. Because the backbone of the story is made out of jelly, at least for me, it made reading this book much less enjoyable t...moreThe question that underlies the premise and the action of this book has always seemed to me a stupid and irrelevant one: If we were to clone human beings, would the clones have souls? My thinking isn't ecclesiastical, but Ishiguro bases his story on the assumption that most people's thinking is, and thus that if there were cloned human beings, that would be a matter of debate. Because the backbone of the story is made out of jelly, at least for me, it made reading this book much less enjoyable than I'd hoped.
The narrative style is simple and casual. The first-person narrator's entire education has been an artistic one with a heavy emphasis on "being creative," but she seems to have no pretenses of a literary "style," which I find interesting, and though not entirely unwelcome, at times the struggle of the author, his desire not to be weighty in his style, is perceptible and becomes wearying. (I found the narrator a bit too much like Offred of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale at first, too.)
The naïveté of the characters is at times painful; having grown up outside of society, they earnestly pursue something that the reader, more sophisticated and jaded, perceives as obviously untrue. Throughout the book, under the curiosity and hopes, there is a kind of resignation that I found off-putting. I suppose I have a brash, American point of view, wanting people to struggle harder against what others have deemed their destinies. I'm ashamed of that because it means that I prefer the treatment of this premise in Michael Bay's film "The Island" (though not the execution of that premise) to Kazuo Ishiguro's, but, there, I've said it. I find it interesting that in "The Island," which is set in the U.S., getting organs from a clone is a matter of privilege, while in Never Let Me Go it seems to be part of their national health care program. This difference in the way I think as an American and the very British treatment of the subject matter was apparent to me throughout.
That said, as a contemplative rather than active work, this book is mildly enjoyable.(less)
All that’s left is a third book and my holy trinity of slow-and-steady-as they go (but very deep and meaningful) reads will be complete. A third, and I’ll be worshiping at their altar. To the left of my trinity is The Giver. Front and center: Never Let Me Go. And to the right, is I don’t know yet (I rub my hands in anticipation for the book hunt that is about to ensue… suggestions anyone!) Once done, I will relegate my copies of Chaos to the second rung of my shelf and elevate my Trinity to the ...moreAll that’s left is a third book and my holy trinity of slow-and-steady-as they go (but very deep and meaningful) reads will be complete. A third, and I’ll be worshiping at their altar. To the left of my trinity is The Giver. Front and center: Never Let Me Go. And to the right, is I don’t know yet (I rub my hands in anticipation for the book hunt that is about to ensue… suggestions anyone!) Once done, I will relegate my copies of Chaos to the second rung of my shelf and elevate my Trinity to the top. There I shall worship and wipe the dust every so often from their digital pages (… I totally need copies of these books.)
Never Let Me Go is EXACTLY what’s been missing in some of the books I’ve been reading lately. It’s EXACTLY what I’ve been looking for. There’s Kathy H. reminiscing about her life in Hailsham, about her life with Tommy D and Ruth. The way everything is laid out; the way she tells their story: It’s as if one is expected to know what’s going on. It’s so matter of fact. And when one actually know what’s going there’s the inevitable shock.
It’s a slow build up but by the time you get to the end, you understand the rages that Tommy D. has/had because you want to join in and rage along with him.
Of all the major awards given to novelists, I find the Man Booker Prize to be the most inconsistent indicator of a good read. I admit that I speak from a position of relative youth and inexperience, and I have certainly read fewer than a dozen Booker Prize winners, but perhaps I can get away with suggesting that Booker Prize winners tend to have a very strong voice.
When the reader can tune in to that voice, the Booker Prize winner is fantastic. For example, I thought that Arundhati R...moreOf all the major awards given to novelists, I find the Man Booker Prize to be the most inconsistent indicator of a good read. I admit that I speak from a position of relative youth and inexperience, and I have certainly read fewer than a dozen Booker Prize winners, but perhaps I can get away with suggesting that Booker Prize winners tend to have a very strong voice.
When the reader can tune in to that voice, the Booker Prize winner is fantastic. For example, I thought that Arundhati Roy's The God of Small Things was fantastic. On the other hand, I sometimes find the voice overwhelmingly irritating, which is why I didn't finish Anne Enright's The Gathering. In fact, that book nearly ended a book club I was in at the time as only one of us managed to finish the novel.
Kazuo Ishiguro is the first Booker author I've found inconsistent, rather than the prize itself. The Remains of the Day is a very tense novel, but only if you can tune in to the narrator's, Stevens, frequency. I was able to.
So when I learned that Ishiguro had written a novel about clones, I was understandably excited to check it out. In many ways, Never Let Me Go seemed like a home run. I enjoy books that are set in private schools, I enjoy books that are nostalgic, and, of course, who can resist clones?
Unfortunately, I was never able to get to the point that I enjoyed these characters. However trite it may sound, I even found their names -- which are perfectly normal names like Kathy, Tommy, and Ruth -- off. It may be that this was intentional, given that so much of Never Let Me Go is about uncertainty, but I found that it took me out of the novel.* By the time that the clones had left Hailsham, I was already counting the pages left until finish.
In a situation like this, we have to ask whether it's us or them.
Many critics thought Never Let Me Go was excellent when it was first released, and surely not just for the fickle reason that Ishiguro had already won the coveted Man Booker Prize. As in The Remains of the Day, there is an underlying tension that runs throughout Never Let Me Go. Perhaps it was my own fault that I didn't respond more powerfully to it.
However, I will say that in my goodreads network, the ratings for Never Let Me Go are rather -- how would Stevens put this... -- varied.
*Ironically, I think Ishiguro has an unusual talent for giving aristocratic names to buildings and organizations.(less)
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.I thought that I'd surely love a book about cloning and British boarding schools, but after finishing Never Let Me Go , I'm left with a feeling of appreciation but not affection. I feel about this book what I feel about classics of literature that aren't quite my favorites: I enjoyed it, I recommend you read it, and I found it to be artfully done - but it wasn't really for me and I'm not in love.
My biggest beef with the book, which centers around the lives of three young people whos...moreI thought that I'd surely love a book about cloning and British boarding schools, but after finishing Never Let Me Go , I'm left with a feeling of appreciation but not affection. I feel about this book what I feel about classics of literature that aren't quite my favorites: I enjoyed it, I recommend you read it, and I found it to be artfully done - but it wasn't really for me and I'm not in love.
My biggest beef with the book, which centers around the lives of three young people whose bodies will soon be used for donor organs, is simply the structure and sentence-level storytelling. While I haven't read any other books by Kazuo Ishiguro, I can't help but feel that the first two parts of the book were simply hundreds of pages of set-up and backstory for what was a truly intriguing, touching and moving third section. In the first two parts, I was left feeling like I was being told a very long, disconnected, and somewhat boring set of anecdotes by an old person. Many sections or chapters would end with stuff like, "and this event reminds me of another thing that happened to me, which I will now tell you about." The third part of the book picks up a surprising amount of speed, action, revelation, and meaningfulness while using none of the trite storytelling techniques seen in the first two-thirds of the book - probably because the story is simply much stronger and can stand on its own. As for whether we needed the boring first two parts to create the exciting third part... I'm not sure.
My second and only other beef with this book has to do with a few large plot problems. While I'm certainly not one to latch on to plot holes, especially when reading speculative fiction that consciously avoids scientific detail, there was a plot hole so large in this story that it was extremely distracting and often took me out of the emotional world of the book. Throughout the entire last half of the book, i just didn't understand why none of the clones, who now had access to the real world, hadn't picked up a newspaper or history book to find out about what exactly was going on. Also, what organs are they removing from these clones that allows them to live through four donations? I mean, you can do a kidney... but then what?
My two beefs aside, it is important to reiterate that I did enjoy the read. The final third section of the book was a true page-turner, and I bashfully admit to tearing up as I read the last few pages, in which Ishiguro evokes an absolutely haunting image that expertly pulls together many of the themes of the book in just a few simple paragraphs. In addition, I absolutely loved that the author is able to give readers information about the book's world - in which humans are cloned for spare parts - in exactly the way that the characters were given the information as they were growing up. Any good book should be constantly revelatory - and this book is very special in that the reader and the characters often learn new information at the same time or in the same way. Often, this means that both the readers and the characters feel they know something without remembering how or when they were told. Very cool.
Finally, putting aside writing style and storytelling, this book achieves another rare feat, especially for what is essentially science fiction: it successfully conveys a number of very moving, non-cliched thoughts and ideas about Life. In the book, the clones are forced to live their entire lives in a fraction of the time that "normals" receive, and different clones cope with their inevitable fate in different ways. It's difficult to read the book without thinking about how we will learn to accept our own end, though it might be further off and though it (hopefully) won't involve the systematic removal of our vital organs in a converted hotel somewhere in the English countryside. (less)
How would you feel if someone came up to you and very calmly started reminiscing about the time when, he/she had her fingers chopped off by this other person? There is no misery or fury or even regret in this person’s voice. He/she might as well be telling you about how someone spilled coke. I think that is what would make this person’s words more scary.
Kathy is exactly that kind of a narrator; she is excruciatingly calm and m...more4.25 stars
There may be spoilers!
How would you feel if someone came up to you and very calmly started reminiscing about the time when, he/she had her fingers chopped off by this other person? There is no misery or fury or even regret in this person’s voice. He/she might as well be telling you about how someone spilled coke. I think that is what would make this person’s words more scary.
Kathy is exactly that kind of a narrator; she is excruciatingly calm and maddeningly passive. Perhaps that is why, especially after turning the last page, I feel the need to go back and read this novel all over again. That might be why I feel so shocked and sad.
Never Let Me Go starts with Kathy remembering about her time at Hailsham, especially the relationship that develops between her, Ruth and Tommy. Ruth is the extrovert, dominating girl, while Tommy is the sensitive one with a bad temper and even from her childhood, Kathy is the resigned one, the observer. There are heart breaks, betrayals, friendship, loyalty, and amidst it all the omnipresent dread among the characters that, at the end of the day none of that will matter.
The language is simple and the overall tone lucid. Still, Ishiguro manages to covey such hard hitting emotion and paints such a vivid image of Hailsham, its fields, the sales, the guardians. Many times his language made me forget that organ harvesting was fictional and I got all worked up about it. I felt like how Miss Lucy must have felt: helpless and furious.
The novel’s climax, especially Kathy’s acceptance of her fate is very very depressing. How can such subtle language and a narrator like Kathy move a person so much? Frankly I have no idea. I am still in shock. Maybe I will read the last 2 chapters again.
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.Never Let Me Go is one of those books that is really hard for me to review. It’s quiet, understated, and I loved it but I find it difficult to say exactly why I did.
All I had known about the book prior to reading it was “students are trapped in an English boarding school and they’re never allowed to leave”. I thought this was going to be the most devastating part of it - a story about denial of freedom, but there was so much more to it than that, which I wasn’t expecting. The story s...moreNever Let Me Go is one of those books that is really hard for me to review. It’s quiet, understated, and I loved it but I find it difficult to say exactly why I did.
All I had known about the book prior to reading it was “students are trapped in an English boarding school and they’re never allowed to leave”. I thought this was going to be the most devastating part of it - a story about denial of freedom, but there was so much more to it than that, which I wasn’t expecting. The story switches between Kathy’s present and her storytelling of the past (actually, extremely reminiscent of Oryx and Crake...) and focuses on the relationship between her and her friends - Ruth and Tommy. You slowly begin to realise that they’re not exactly normal humans - they are cloned in order to provide organ donations and then they “complete”. I felt was a much more tragic than saying they “died”. It really highlights that their donations were really their only purpose. They had no careers except for being carers (before becoming donors), were unable to have children (and of course, did not have families). They “completed” so very young and essentially did not have the chance to live their lives.
A lot of focus was also placed on the relationship between Tommy and Kathy (and their love for each other) but this part of the story did not interest me as much as I did not find in particularly believable and therefore less heartbreaking than I expected it to be.
Overall, while I did not find the story as upsetting (i.e. I didn’t cry!) as much as other reviewers, it was still very tragic. I would have liked more information regarding the donations (e.g. who were they going to, what was the fourth donation, why was no one else doing anything to stop it) and why it never crossed the characters’ minds to rebel (something most reviewers will agree was hard to fathom) aside from various hints (like mentioning the electric fence, and the anger in Ruth’s outburst) because I found this to be much more interesting than the “love story”.
I’m looking forward to seeing how the story is portrayed in the movie version. (less)
Somtimes sad is ok. If you are looking for something "Ok sad", might I recommend Sad Keanu.
See it is sad, but kind of funny and people can have fun and have had fun for quite sometime.
Sad Keanu in a boat
Sad Keanu watching football
and my personal favourite Sad Keanu with panda.
With "Never Let Me Go" there is no fun to be had here,none. Not only is it sad and depressing...moreSomtimes sad is ok. If you are looking for something "Ok sad", might I recommend Sad Keanu.
See it is sad, but kind of funny and people can have fun and have had fun for quite sometime.
Sad Keanu in a boat
Sad Keanu watching football
and my personal favourite Sad Keanu with panda.
With "Never Let Me Go" there is no fun to be had here,none. Not only is it sad and depressing as shit, it is also cold. It is set in England which goes without saying...damp(the worst kind of cold). The teachers are cold, Ruth is cold, the doctors, the nurses, us as a society,COLD.Like the friggen North Pole. This is a really well written book, I added an extra star because I am acknowledging the writing, its the suicidal thoughts afterwards that are killing the star rating here and I was not looking for rainbows and unicorns, but when I finished this I just thought "God Damn I am so sad now" So I want to be very clear I found this DE-PRESS-ING.
I enjoyed this book very much. I loved how pieces of information were slowly revealed as the narrator tried to piece together memories from her past. I loved how the book, in it’s own understated way, made me think about big things--like how the way someone is brought up can affect what they accept or don’t accept about themselves and their future and like the morality and issues of cloning and the human-ness of the clones. I loved how the book didn’t seem to make its own statements, but let the...moreI enjoyed this book very much. I loved how pieces of information were slowly revealed as the narrator tried to piece together memories from her past. I loved how the book, in it’s own understated way, made me think about big things--like how the way someone is brought up can affect what they accept or don’t accept about themselves and their future and like the morality and issues of cloning and the human-ness of the clones. I loved how the book didn’t seem to make its own statements, but let the reader form his/her own ideas. I loved how the author often described the look on people’s faces. Usually my mental image of characters when I am reading is very fuzzy, but so often in this book I could picture the look on someone’s face so well. And I loved how that look was sometimes the only indication of what a character was feeling. Not too much dramatics here! I loved how the author often described the awkwardness between characters when something was hanging in the air between them. I loved how references were made of things that were considered off limits for discussion when the characters were growing up and how it shows that humans sometimes purposely bury their heads in the sand. I have seen other people describe this book as boring, but it’s the subtlety that I loved.(less)
I was really looking forward to this novel when it was recommended to me by a coworker who so far has had pretty a practically flawless record of recommendations concerning books, plays, music, wine, restaurants, or train schedule times and routes but The New York Times ruined Never Let Me Go for me. While someone in the Arts section was attempting to review the book 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die (why would you review that? its only one and a half steps up the officiality ladder from...moreI was really looking forward to this novel when it was recommended to me by a coworker who so far has had pretty a practically flawless record of recommendations concerning books, plays, music, wine, restaurants, or train schedule times and routes but The New York Times ruined Never Let Me Go for me. While someone in the Arts section was attempting to review the book 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die (why would you review that? its only one and a half steps up the officiality ladder from a random blog) they mentioned Never Let Me Go and in doing so blabbed the whole twist ending which I quickly learned Ishiguro's novel completly relied upon, despite the irresponsible journalist ensuring me that despite spoiling the ending, the language and the prose will yadda yadda yadda melt your heart/make you want to live a more energetic, passionate life something or other. Of course I was only 20 pages into it, but everytime I tried to take interest in the prose and the characters I lost it because the tension was all taken out and my precience was overwhelming. Thanks NY Times... You fucking Suck!
ps--don't pretend you didn't receive my email last fall when you kept incorrectly referring to a picture of Mos Def as Talib Kwali during one of your 'highly insightful' Hip Hop Record Reviews. Not even an acknowledgment of the error in the following day or week's issue? Aight, I see how it is.
PPs--If I've spoiled an ending or two in my book reviews I sincerely apologize. I will use that Good Reads spoiler alert option. I never realized how much it sucks to have the ending ruined, but now I'm learning.
PPSS--Spoiler Alert!! We're all gonna die and go to the heaven of our minds deepest belief. it will probably be just like life now except without all the fear, pettiness and anxiety.(less)
Recommends it for: People with plane and cab/bus rides in their future
A quick read, but one I never felt very enthusiastic towards. I remembered reading "The Remains of the Day" in high school, and thought another of Ichiguro's books would be equally gripping. Not quite so with "Never".
One great thing about "Never" is that, like it or not, it's over quickly. There are just enough hooks thrown in to keep the pages going, and Ichiguro's style is straightforward and rarely makes you double back on a line. Outside of a few British p...moreA quick read, but one I never felt very enthusiastic towards. I remembered reading "The Remains of the Day" in high school, and thought another of Ichiguro's books would be equally gripping. Not quite so with "Never".
One great thing about "Never" is that, like it or not, it's over quickly. There are just enough hooks thrown in to keep the pages going, and Ichiguro's style is straightforward and rarely makes you double back on a line. Outside of a few British phrases you get it, you go, you move on with things. Not much really gives you pause... and therein starts to lie the heart of my issues with the book.
For a book that's chiefly character-driven, I didn't feel pulled in by them. And even though you're not supposed to care about the characters because of what they are (not to give anything away), how does that help get you through the book? I didn't dislike the characters because I failed to buy into the theme, I disliked them because they seemed flat. There is a lack of engrossing exposition or dialog among and between the characters. They're individuals, they have personalities, by the textbook definition, but I didn't cling to anyone. So many of the things- like Ruth's antics or Tommy's imbecility, felt forced. I cringed more than I put the book down to think, "How am I the same or different from that person?" The ONE thing they may have more than any other creature on the planet is hopelessness, and when a character is overwhelmed by it is only a passing ancillary person. A complete meltdown as hope died would have been heartrending, but everyone keeps their stiff upper lip (the muddy tantrum didn't cut it. They're socialized, they grew up together, they know how to express themselves in a way that ought to touch us.)
There are moments, like their search for a "possible" as a way to give meaning to their lives, that give the characters depth. That tugged at the heartstrings some. Unfortunately none of the characters seem capable of bearing a heavy emotional load. They're children through most of the story, but children can handle and delve into weighty subjects too. Their uniquely innocent perspective often makes it punishing to read them grappling with things. I looked hard for that in "Never", but I guess it was hiding in a dusty bin somewhere in Norfolk. Kathy H. is the center of the book, but not the narrator. As an adult looking back she could have had endlessly amazing reflections on things. I would love to have really plumbed the depths of her introspection. How many horrible things did she witness and help people patiently sit through, and yet, that's all we get from her? Wow. Sure, they are emotionally and mentally deprived in a special environment for specific reasons, but they are exposed to art and knowledge from ALL times and places. And then they are allowed to roam free, buuuutttt nothing *ever* snaps, in any of them? Come on now. Revolutions, wars, genocide, massacres, and other fun and exciting pastimes of humanity have been sparked with the mere spread of an idea. Are we to believe the characters hold THAT steadfastly to their functions and personalities? I kept waiting for one to go absolutely bonkers. That would have been entertaining and heartening to read, and revived my suspension of disbelief.
I think in this case you have an idea that throws open a veritable Pandora's box of philosophical, sociological, medical, interpersonal, and psychological issues packaged in a novel that's a quick and light read with forcefully stunted characters. The two may be irreconcilable. Psh- may? At least, that was the impression "Never" left in my mind. There are some symbols and themes, but like the issue of sex, many times I saw them as sort of thrown out there and somewhat indelicately handled. I wanted to love "Never"- really. Rather than going on anymore about it, I'm letting this book go.(less)
NoelExcellent review - I felt much the same way. I kept expecting them to push the boundaries a bit, or even try to run and fit in as a human. Perhaps it...moreExcellent review - I felt much the same way. I kept expecting them to push the boundaries a bit, or even try to run and fit in as a human. Perhaps it's in their 'programming' not to, but I thought it wasn't that much of a stretch from the idea of a 'deferral,' and it could have made for a more exciting story. I guess that just what my human self would do!(less)
May 28, 2010 01:52pm
BradOne of the strangest, unfathomable things about the book is that at no point do the characters question
the ethics of what they are asked to do....moreOne of the strangest, unfathomable things about the book is that at no point do the characters question
the ethics of what they are asked to do. Wilst I don't agree that this would happen it is explained and it is intentional- Ruth says at one point (of being a "doner") "its what we're made for", and throughout the book you get this sense, their existance is what it is, they do not attempt to change it. You can interpret this many ways, a sign that they are not human, a mistake on the part of the author, or an observation on human nature; in truth their are many people who do not question their role in society and,reading from a Marxist or feminist perspective,it makes a lot of sense that they wouldn't.There also the religious reading of the book, humnas are effectivly gods to these people who are made by them, to refuse their role would be to disobay their God, their creator. This is another point of the book, when donors complete on their second donation it is seen as a tragedy whereas after the fourth donation it is seen as a success story, a completion of their role. Another point, less profound but no less important, is that the most surprising thing about the book is none of them rebelled, if they had it would be what the reader expected to a certain degree, it would be almost formulaic.(less)
Aug 08, 2010 04:56pm
Kazuo Ishiguro (Japanese: カズオ・イシグロ (Kazuo Ishiguro) or 石黒 一雄 (Ishiguro Kazuo)) is a British novelist. His family moved to England in 1960. Ishiguro obtained his Bachelor's degree from University of Kent in 1978 and his Master's from the University of East Anglia's creative writing course in 1980. He became a British citizen in 1982. He now lives in London.
Ishiguro received the 1989 Ma...moreKazuo Ishiguro (Japanese: カズオ・イシグロ (Kazuo Ishiguro) or 石黒 一雄 (Ishiguro Kazuo)) is a British novelist. His family moved to England in 1960. Ishiguro obtained his Bachelor's degree from University of Kent in 1978 and his Master's from the University of East Anglia's creative writing course in 1980. He became a British citizen in 1982. He now lives in London.
Ishiguro received the 1989 Man Booker prize for his third novel The Remains of the Day.(less)
“Memories, even your most precious ones, fade surprisingly quickly. But I don’t go along with that. The memories I value most, I don’t ever see them fading.”
—
1,076 people liked it
“I keep thinking about this river somewhere, with the water moving really fast. And these two people in the water, trying to hold onto each other, holding on as hard as they can, but in the end it's just too much. The current's too strong. They've got to let go, drift apart. That's how it is with us. It's a shame, Kath, because we've loved each other all our lives. But in the end, we can't stay together forever.”
—
424 people liked it
Loading...
·
review of another edition
Jul 05, 2011 09:58am
Aug 25, 2011 04:34pm