Never Let Me Go question

I was thinking this throughout the book but this is what made the book so good.Another question I had was why did the recipients or government not question this or put a final end to it.

As humans we often live our lives without questioning and there are so many examples of in the world today which makes the book brilliant and relevant. People who benefit often turn a blind eye to the suffering of others because they are benefitting from that suffering. This is regardless if it is human, animal or environmental. Those that are providing the benefactors accept their fate for what it is as they are "programmed" to do so and as a result are trapped in a perpetual cycle.

The donors in this case were programmed as children through the education system and society that this is their fate and destiny in life, never getting the opportunity to question this. As result they never did question it which allowed those in more powerful positions to take advantage of them. How many actual events in history and in our current day lives does this happen ? It is a constant theme of history and it still continues to this day in real life.

This book is so much deeper than a run of the mill sci fi. There are so many levels to it that it definitely needs a re- read. There are so many comparisons to real life. As a reader I could identify with the central characters. They don't run away because like many people they aren't masters of their own destiny. How many people stay stuck in jobs they loathe, or have destructive habits that destroy their health. You don't need a reason as to why they don't run away. The science fiction plot is simply a device to give a heart wrenching tale of how greater forces shape our lives and yet the importance and fragility of human relationships. This is the only book I have read that brought a tear to my eye when I closed its pages. I feel Never Let Me Go is a superb piece of literature, and highly underrated. This isn't Logan's Run. If you close it's final pages with that sentiment then it's missed its mark. In a nutshell they don't run away as like many of us our lives are already pretty much mapped out for us. It's philosophical stuff.

This story reminded me of the era of slavery, when it was perfectly acceptable to hold other human beings as property to be traded on an open market. Today, we look back in horror at this, but back then, society as a whole embraced the assumption that certain classes of people were less than human, and thus not worthy of freedom. I am sure that there are things we accept today (perhaps, for example, the resolution of international disputes by military action), that will be an abomination to societies of the future, and vice versa. Ishiguro is reminding us how malleable society can be . . . how we can as an entire societal unit glom onto the most cruel expediencies when we proceed down the slippery slope of treating other humans as inferior (whether we do so on the basis of racial genetics, manipulated genetics, or other uncontrollable fates).

I took it as being a government ran program.
And as for not running, I think that because of the way they are raised and the types of propaganda they are fed from such an early age, the thought of running away feels impossible to them.

It is like to old tale about the eagle egg that fell from the nest. The egg was found by a chicken who took it in and nurtured the egg until it hatched. The baby eagle was raised as a chicken. As the baby eagle got older, it asked the mother hen why it could not soar through the skies the way some other birds do and the momma chicken told him that it was because he was a chicken, and chickens can't fly. The baby eagle grows up and never knows that he can fly because he was told his entire life that chickens don't fly.

Ishiguru has himself explained, his vision was of people doing as they are expected to; as they have been socialized and conditioned to. This most British of authors, himself Japanese, may have drawn on his own experience transitioning from upper-class Japanese to upper-class English society. In any case, in my opinion, the novel is an existential tragedy and not intended to be analyzed all that realistically.

It's pretty easy to program a person. It happens every day to everyone, constantly. There is so much that goes on in the world that should outrage us to the point of bloody uprising that doesn't. Why? Because we have great distractions to keep us docile and within the boundaries of the Social Contract. To put it bluntly: we like our shinies more than we like the idea of our freedom.

This society obviously achieved much the same thing with both its citizens and its donors. It's already happened. It is happening. The only reason we see the audacity of the events in the novel is because we are conditioned to a different area of acceptance of a different heinous reality.

Someone suggested somewhere (I wish I could find it, it explains it very believably) that the 'rebelling' gene and 'leadership' gene were probably genetically engineered out of them to ensure a more peaceful process

This isn't the story of the people who rebel. This is the story of the ones that don't. There are plenty of other similar stories about the ones who do. And there are fantasies of rebeling and running away. Did everyone forget the whole story with the fence at the school? Everything at school was made to condition them to stick to the Program.

They are made to grow up believing in nothing. They are made docile. And they are engineered to practice 'willful ignorance'. It's like they are in a prison.Where could they run to? I think indirect frustruation is engineered in their society, so that they subdue to everything happening to them and see it through eyes scaled with indifference to everything. They try as they could to break free,but they would always be a castaway.The queston is, should they give up a life if dignity for nothing? There is a dignity in doing what you are engineered to do, even if you don't like it, partially because you can't run away. The same is in the case of humans, we do what we love to do.We see dignity in it. But if there is a much dignified position, some of us lung for it even if we are nnot engineered to do it. Some succeed, some donot.But in the case of clones, they have no option, for which they are fighing in the book. They are made to believe that, they suceed by doing what they are supposed to do. No one is forcing them.

In my opinion, Ishiguro has started a soft war, in this world of injustice.

It was a sophisticated form of farming, kids as crops. They took pride in being good donors.

I liken the book to immigration or slavery. People keep asking "why didn't they run away?" Run away to where? They were trapped in a society where they weren't considered real people. They had no rights, they had no standing and they had no where else to go. They had no relations, no circle of friends. They were also separated from society. They used trinkets and dimestore junk to placate the clones. Relationships existed, but I feel like they were only tolerated because sex was a good way to cool other possible emotions. With no pregnancy or disease to worry about, sex was the new "trinket."

This book if very focused on the concept of 'willful ignorance'. They do express their wishes for a different life, but they do not make a move to change it. They are raised in an environment and indoctrinated subtly with the idea that this is simply the way things are. There are plenty of things that we do in our daily lives that are the result of our own ignorance, but we simply do not see them. It's the same for Kathy and the others. We all know that we're going to die. They do not see it as being 'forced' upon them. It is simply part of the progression of their life.

Somehow, after reading all the comments, I am reminded of Gone With The Wind.

When all the slaves are set free, Mammy chides the slaves who do embrace their freedom and sticks firmly to her place of servitude to Scarlet and the O'Hara family.

In a way, maybe holding to what you spent your entire life believing, as horrible as it may seem to us, is a way of fighting off the idea we spent a whole life being wrong - we must face that we did nothing for ourselves and truth hurts your feelings more than perpetuating physical pain.

Maybe it is like choosing the least of two evils.

it wasn't exactly forced. but since their birth it had been instilled within them that their only role in the society is that of donors. when you are nutured with a particular mentality, you don't only start accepting what conventionally is being taught but somehow also start holding the same beliefs. it is difficult to look beyond what everyone is trying to make to see, and actually look at the real true picture. it is difficult to understand why people in dark ages so blindly believed the church or why it took women centuries to get equal status and are still stuggling today in many countries for it. but the truth is we all are intimidated by the authority and get dictated by them even if we don't actually realize it. having said that, ishiguro does, in the book, trys to show that donotion is something which had started to being condempt upon. although the method of showing condemption was more gandhian than the orthodox way of bloodshed.

I can't remember if it's mentioned in the book, but maybe they have been genetically modified to be more subservient and docile?

I think if you have such questions, you must go further. where can they go? what do they run away of?
I think the problem here is not run or not run because of the fact that the society does not accept them. It is just like the discrimination exists everyday all over the world. So you do remember these feelings that Kathy's had since she was a child: "So you're waiting, even if you don't quite know it, waiting for the moment when you realise that you really are different to them; that there are people out there, like Madame, who don't hate you or wish you any harm, but who nevertheless shudder at the very thought of you – of how you were brought into this world and why – and who dread the idea of your hand brushing against theirs. The first time you glimpse yourself through the eyes of a person like that, it's a cold moment. It's like walking past a mirror you've walked past every day of your life, and suddenly it shows you something else, something troubling and strange.”
I totally agree that the controvercy is whether people accept them like human being or not. If they have human rights, they are not forced to donate, they have their own choice. Unfortunately, it does not happen in the real world. People still be contrainted by some "dirty" rules of the society.
Kazuo reminds me of a lot of social issues in our life.

You should take a break and read "Those that Walked Away," by Ursella LeGuin. It's a fabulous short story.

Rutul wrote: "I get the fact that clones' purpose in life was to donate organs. But knowing that they can think on their own, why didn't any one of them rebel and just ran away from their responsibilities, go to..."

I think that it is really the reflection of our own lives. This book made me think and think about. Why they didn't do anything? Why we don't do anything when we see hunger, pain, war,...? or about our own live?

Yes, the clones want to live their own lives, to be human just like everyone else, but they never think to run away. Instead, they throw themselves into obtaining validation from their handlers that they are human beings. First it's the artwork, then it's the couples "proving" they are in love. And in the end, they just accept their intended purpose and go about it cheerfully, with a brave face.

It's rare to read a story where characters leading lives without freedom or self-determination resign themselves to their fate. I was half-expecting one of the clones to stand up and say "We don't have to take this. We don't need their permission to live our lives," and lead them out of captivity.

And yet, that's what happens in real life. People lead lives of quiet desperation, wanting something more but never getting the chance for it, or choosing security over freedom. It's not near as uplifting as the rebellion story, but it's also true.

My understanding of the story is not that it's about human complacency, though I certainly see the value in reading it that way. I thought the author was simply offering us a look into one possible society that includes cloning, making a statement about the dangers of cloning for the sole purpose of organ donation. If they have the power to break out of their situation, then there's no (or limited) conversation about the positive/negative aspects of pursuing this practice. If we look at them as living solely for the benefit of "real" people, then we begin to look at the moral questions around cloning more thoughtfully. I think Ishiguro humanizes the clones so that there is only one answer to the question of whether or not a clone is a human being.

If he had got into the details of attempted escape it would have turned into a much different story, I think. The focus would have to be split between the clone's life and the society which permits it. This way we simply accept the society in which this exists and watch the clones move through it.

I think the entire premise for the book is why they don't run away. It's a book about these clones trying to live and love and understand themselves, and find a place for themselves.

Most notable, to me, is the way they transition from one 'phase' to the next. Particularly when becoming caretakers, at some point, they just decide they're ready for the next phase, and they do it. My understanding is that nobody forces them, and they come to the decision on their own. It's similar to the way we sometimes get fed up with one phase of our own lives and feel ready for the next-- changing jobs (when do you decide to send that first resume out?), marriage, etc. We begin to find a dissatisfaction with out current states, or a desire for something greater, and at some point we just go out and do it. For the clones in the book, that transition is to donors. Essentially, they know this is the last phase of their life, and that it'll be spent helping others. I understand the idea that they 'should' want to escape, but I also feel like not escaping is just as justified a reaction.

Rutul wrote: "I get the fact that clones' purpose in life was to donate organs. But knowing that they can think on their own, why didn't any one of them rebel and just ran away from their responsibilities, go to..."

Cultural Hegemony should answer your question.

Maybe they didn't know how? They don't get the kind of education we do. They don't know whats really out there. They were taught, the world out there is mean and cruel. So maybe, they are to scared? What does someone do, who has no options? Or simply don't know there are other options? They were raised as orphans, far away from anything, with every step they made being watched. I think, they didn't run or rebel, because they didn't know how and where too scared of what might happend.

Isn't it how humans are - conditioned to believe in something and unable to break free?

I think it's more complex than choice or not - we see a choice (why not just leave?) and in the seaside village that several of them visit they don't seem to be treated any differently, so it is not clear to me that they are somehow identified and monitored. Think of some Jews in Nazi Germany, with clear threats around - why not leave? Many of course did or tried to, but far more did not and just waited for the inevitable.

They clearly don't get a choice. They are, legally, not people. They're raised to believe they have no choice, that this is their Calling, and they couldn't do anything else.

But Rutul is absolutely right that there are some serious holes. The fact that no one tries to get away, and they don't have any stories, either fantasies about successful escape, or cautionary tales about escapes that failed, is just plain contrary to human nature.

Because the society has made less technological process, and it's set in the 1990s when a lot of our cell phone and GPS technology wasn't well developed yet, the "who's watching them?" problem is very real, too. Conceivably, though, all those legal Real People have some form of Real People i.d., while the clones have i.d. that identifies them as clones.

I didn't think that anyone was forcing the donors; this was just the place in society they were born to. To me that was the interesting tension in the story: for how long and to what hengthsdo we accept the status quo.