Writers of Color Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Never Let Me Go
Book Discussions
>
Never Let Me Go Discussion Part Three
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Litsplaining
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Oct 02, 2014 09:13PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
I've just devoured the last part of this book. What a fascinating look at human nature. I particularly liked the focus not on the dystopian government and society as a whole, but more on individuals just existing within it, which I haven't really seen that much in the (limited) dystopians I've read so far.
So I feel quite conflicted about this book. I think I would've enjoyed it more if it had focused more on one of the two themes presented. On one hand we have the coming of age story and on the other we have the ethical discussion about genetic science and clones. Unfortunately I felt Ishiguro left them both a bit hanging and didn't explore them as much as I would've wanted.As I've mentioned in previous comments I think Ishiguro does a terrific job with the social interactions between teenagers. I believe this book could've been a great bording-school-coming-of-age-story if he would've excluded the whole sci-fi element. I also believe the idea of creating clones and the dilemmas with it is very interesting and could've been thought provoking if Ishiguro had taken it further. The way the story was presented I felt both themes were left hanging a bit and I didn't feel completely satisfied with either one.
I feel like I've been left hanging a little bit too. On one hand it was horrific partly because it was so plausible to me and partly because the main characters where so accepting of their fate. I wanted one of them to fight back or say no but then how could they it was all they knew? On the other hand I felt empty almost in regards to the characters. I never connected to any of them. I don't know I feel conflicted about this book the only way to describe it is I feel some type of way about it. That's all I got! I am interested to know if anyone has seen the movie and if so what they thought about it and should we watch it?
Mod
Even in the scene where Tommy and Kathy go see Madame and end up seeing Miss Emily, the tension felt anti-climatic. It was almost as if the reader had become a Hailsham student and was being "told, but not told" the key point and reasons of the children's existence. Furthermore, that scene felt unbelievable/fake since I distinctly remember Kathy saying Miss Emily had moments where she wasn't always lucid when the three characters were at Hailsham.
As for the relationship between Tommy and Kathy, it seemed another let down. I almost feel like Ruth's shadow was over this whole novel even when she wasn't there. Kathy seemed to pride herself on retelling all the happenings of Tommy and Ruth's relationship, but she held back on really letting the reader in when it came to her and Tommy's brief period as a couple. In a way, I guess this had to do with the couple's feeling that their relationship happenedtoo late, but it also made the relationship feel forced. What I mean by this is, I got more emotion and detail about them when they were just friends than when they became romantically involved.
In short, I expected more from Ishiguro's novel and felt short changed by the end. I'd love to watch the movie though. It seems like the visual of his story would be stunning.
I was pretty happy with the ending straight after I finished it, but the more I think about it the more questions I have. I'll make a point to watch the movie maybe next month and see what the adaptation is like.
Mod
Same! The more I think about it, the more I get let down. I feel like it left me with more questions than answers. I will say though that Ishiguro appears to be a phenomenal writer in terms of his control over pacing and the potential to create believable characters. Even though I didn't necessarily enjoy this last part, it's obvious Ishiguro is a master storyteller.
The ending is what I loved! The more I think about it, the more I love Ishiguro's delicate treatment of dystopia. I thought it was a refreshing look into a dystopia- that not every character is an ass kicking heroine- the disturbing way people inside this kind of society are so used to the way things are.I think the book more subtly points to how troubling "philanthropy" can be. The "guardians" didn't ultimately identify the students as humans - otherwise they would not have been able to let them leave to die as cattle - or at least be able to arm students about information about what would happen to them. Kathy specifically noted how Madame still viewed them as something disgusting (like spiders). Instead, they "did all they could".
PS - I can't wait to see the film adaptation!
Ruth: what a true frenemy! Anyway, moving on, lol.
I don't think the novel was meant to be an in depth treatise on genetic science/dystopian governments, etc. As far as commentary goes, It seems like it's a cautionary element there: what we as a society can become if we take these things too far. I think, at it's core, it was a study on what it means to be human. I loved the coming of age theme, and found Part Three to just be so damn heartbreaking! Could they have fought the power? Sure, but where would these characters even begin to even do that? To me it wasn't so much of passively accepting fate, as it was playing the part of a tragic destiny.
Erin wrote: "PS - I can't wait to see the film adaptation!"Adding it to my Netflix queue, now!
Stephen wrote: "I would say they've been raised to be basically passive... the characters have NO skill sets to go about doing that."Exactly!
Erin wrote: I think the book more subtly points to how troubling "philanthropy" can be. The "guardians" didn't ultimately identify the students as humans - otherwise they would not have been able to let them leave to die as cattle - or at least be able to arm students about information about what would happen to them. Kathy specifically noted how Madame still viewed them as something disgusting (like spiders). Instead, they "did all they could"This was very frightening for me. When Miss Emily described having to hold back her revulsion to just do what was right. It's a binary for me, for how we (in general) see people who are of a different race, sexuality, culture or social class. We are taught to "tolerate" and to "help those less fortunate" but we are never taught to relinquish are own false sense of superiority in the process.
For all the good places like Hailsham did for them, it didn't change their fate! It didn't affect their position in society or even change how people felt about them.
Erin wrote: "Stephen wrote: "I would say they've been raised to be basically passive... the characters have NO skill sets to go about doing that."Exactly!"
Co-sign!
Guys, I'm still thinking about this book, days after finishing!
Lynecia wrote: "Guys, I'm still thinking about this book, days after finishing! "Me too! Sign of a great book.
Lynecia wrote: "We are taught to "tolerate" and to "help those less fortunate" but we are never taught to relinquish are own false sense of superiority in the process.For all the good places like Hailsham did for them, it didn't change their fate! It didn't affect their position in society or even change how people felt about them."
The novel asks important questions that are disturbingly relevant in our own society.
So I'm a little late finishing this book, but I thought I would try to add to the discussion anyway. Something that really struck me about the novel was the theme of things being left unsaid. Characters wouldn't say how they were feeling, and things were implied and suggested without being laid out. I'm assuming this way of being was taught to the students at Hailsham and contributed to the characters not fighting their fates because nothing was ever really questioned. Kathy mentions how when students would ask questions that were out of bounds there was this atmosphere of everyone getting angry and the questioner might even be punished by her fellow students. I definitely agree that there are things I would have liked to find out more about. Kathy frustrated me as a narrator a bit because I had so many questions she wasn't answering such as why Ruth and Tommy even got together in the first place and how did the clones get money? Were they given it by people like Keffers, and, if so, why didn't some of them just try to leave and go settle down somewhere else in the country with an office job? Also, even though I started out enjoying Kathy's style of telling the story, by the end I was sort of annoyed by the constant teasing and back and forth of the story because it was employed so much.
Overall I did enjoy the story. I wasn't sure if I was going to because I was somewhat familiar with the plot of the movie (even though I haven't seen it), so I knew it was about organ donations. I was worried the book might be a bit of a mystery with that being a big twist, and I would have been spoiled. So, I was glad when it was obvious from the beginning that's what was going on, and the piece was more character driven than I had thought. I am interested to see the film now, and I will be adding some more of Ishiguro's works to my TBR.
I watched the film at the weekend and I really enjoyed it- I felt that a lot of thought was put into the adaptation and I think it made some aspects clearer. You mentioned, Elizabeth, that they didn't try to leave- in the film, they have to sign in and out of buildings with some sort of wrist band, so tabs are definitely being kept on them. I also watched the making of documentary on the DVD and Ishiguro said that he meant some parts of the book to be a metaphor- running from the donations would be running away from death. However, we all die eventually- death isn't something you can run away from. I'm sure this is a book that'll stay with me forever.
Mod
