The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion
Group Reads 2020
>
"Never Let Me Go" - March 2020 Group Read
date
newest »
newest »
Ed wrote: "The first line of my review for this was The author and I experienced a failure to communicate.He may be saying interesting things. But for whatever reason, I'm not understanding him. The same ma..."
I am not sure she was that against SF but her critics were:
"Third came the Sufi phase, explored in the Canopus in Argos sequence of science fiction (or as she preferred to put it "space fiction") novels and novellas.
Lessing's Canopus sequence was not popular with many mainstream literary critics. For example, in The New York Times in 1982 John Leonard wrote in reference to The Making of the Representative for Planet 8 that "[o]ne of the many sins for which the 20th century will be held accountable is that it has discouraged Mrs. Lessing... She now propagandises on behalf of our insignificance in the cosmic razzmatazz," to which Lessing replied: "What they didn't realise was that in science fiction is some of the best social fiction of our time. I also admire the classic sort of science fiction, like Blood Music, by Greg Bear. He's a great writer." She attended the 1987 World Science Fiction Convention as its Writer Guest of Honor. Here she made a speech in which she described her dystopian novel Memoirs of a Survivor as "an attempt at an autobiography.""
I still need to read her. Too many books, too little time....
Mod
In the movie, there is a scene where one of the clones opens a door with a wrist swipe--that is, ..."
In response to Ronald's comment about the the Never Let Me Go movie, you posted a you tube clip. I assumed it would be the clip Ronald was talking about. Instead it is an unrelated clip from Blade Runner with no explanation of why that clip is relevant.
Because Blade Runner is set in 2019.
Took me a great deal of effort to figure out what question you were responding to. It would really help if you could provide context to your responses. This website does not help much with that. You have to explain what question you are referring to. (You were responding to my question "Why is this set in the 1990s". Your answer implies that you think this is a sort of spiritual prequel set earlier in the Blade Runner universe, which I don't accept.)
Literature has a strong tradition of referencing especially Postmodernist literature.
True. But there is no reason to believe NLMG is referencing Blade Runner. No connection at all.
Just so no one else has to search for the text. Note the question is not about Never Let Me Go
Correct. The overall discussion was about The Unconsoled, but the specific quetion was about PK Dick. Mr. Ishiguro states that he has never read Dick.
If you want to create a work of fiction that links Blade Runner and NLMG, fine. But there is no evidence Ishiguro was trying to do that.
I simply don't understand your attempts to communicate.
Mod
It isn't a question of her being for or against it. What I said is that she didn't consider her novels to be SF. She would refer to them as things like "inner space fiction". She later softened her opinion and doesn't care if people call them SF.
Her regular readers disliked that she had gone towards SF.
SF readers disliked that it wasn't like the SF they were used to.
She was like: yeah, that's because I wasn't trying to do SF.
Anyway, that's my memory of stuff I was into 20 years ago. I don't expect I remember everything properly.
Mod
Mod
Thanks. That first video link contains enough information for me.
It is an interview. We don't hear what question was asked, but his answer immediately says (again) that he hasn't read PK Dick. He goes on to say that the idea of clones was not the main point and was added at a later stage. The main point is to talk about the meaning of love and friendship etc. faced with the knowledge that we'll die. Fine. If clones was an afterthought, I wish he'd left it out because the details just don't feel true to me.
For those that did not see the links I posted originally. This says it all for me when it comes from the horses mouth.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGZQz...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SmuY...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jCB5...
The last links is probably the most germane to this discussion.
Ed wrote: "Gregg wrote: "Ronald wrote: "I saw the movie adaptation and liked it. The movie was a commercial failure though.In the movie, there is a scene where one of the clones opens a door with a wrist sw..."
Ed, the problem is not my communications. It is that you are unwilling to accept their line of thinking. Only you and Jim to date have seemed to be confused.
The author is stating in the interview that his knowledge is based on Blade Runner not Dick and that he did not use the source material for book under discussion. The evidence is in the text. The author specifically highlights issues raised in Blade Runner and drops hints about it being a prequel.
If you were following the discussion you would know that the film clip was answering the question that he was asking.
The reason my answers are scattered over a month long thread is that for some reason beyond my comprehension Jim decided to begin discussing the book even before we were supposed to start reading it...
Ed wrote: "Gregg wrote: "I am not sure [Dorris Lessing] was that against SF but her critics were. ..."It isn't a question of her being for or against it. What I said is that she didn't consider her novels t..."
Sure.
Ed wrote: "Leo wrote: "#26 behind the [spoiler]"Thanks. That first video link contains enough information for me.
It is an interview. We don't hear what question was asked, but his answer immediately says ..."
Would it surprise you to know that Dick and Blade Runner aren't really about clones but the question: What is human?
Dick wrote SF because he could sell it. His mainstream writing was a failure at the beginning of his career. He is an unusual SF writer because he was asking non-SF questions in the SF genre.
Mod
No, he is not. He says, word for word: "Philip K Dick has not been an influence."
Mod
That is not a problem. The problem is that you don't provide context for your comments. You offer comments with little indication of what you are responding to, so it is very difficult to understand what you are talking about. The design of this website is partly to blame, but most of us are willing to make the effort to help people understand us.
Mod
Thanks for those.
Ed wrote: "Gregg wrote: "... The author is stating in the interview that his knowledge is based on Blade Runner not Dick and that he did not use the source material for book under discussion. ..."No, he is ..."
What is the difference between our two statements???
Ed wrote: "Gregg wrote: "The reason my answers are scattered over a month long thread is ..."That is not a problem. The problem is that you don't provide context for your comments. You offer comments with l..."
I would call "Bullshit" on your statement. No one else seems confused...
What I am beginning to find amusing is that the guy who stated he couldn't understand the book is arguing with me about the meaning of the book...
In a situation like that I was taught to not say anything, Ed. But to each his own...
Gregg, tone it down. I have also found your posts confusing in many topics because you seem to assume references that aren't readily apparent. There are a lot of posts here & remembering what everyone has written is difficult, especially when they were posted days before. Remember that you may read them all at once, but some of us read them, go on to other things, & then come back much later. We might not always read back as far as you think.
Gregg wrote: "The reason my answers are scattered over a month long thread is that for some reason beyond my comprehension Jim decided to begin discussing the book even before we were supposed to start reading it..."I only jumped the gun by a day. Hardly seems worth getting in a huff about & I explained that early on. I got the book from the library unexpectedly & had missed our Jan read, so I jumped on it. It's a popular book, so I wanted to return it quickly.
Mod
I will give context here to make sure we are talking about the same thing. The two statements:
Gregg stated: "The author [Ishiguro] is stating in the interview that his knowledge is based on Blade Runner not Dick and that he did not use the source material for book under discussion. "
("The book under discussion" was "The Unconsoled" in the magazine article, and "Never Let Me Go" in the youtube interview. Ishiguro gave similar responses in each case.)
I stated: "[the author, Ishiguro] says, word for word: 'Philip K Dick has not been an influence.'"
What is the difference between the statements?
I repeated what the author said. You refer to Blade Runner although he did not say anything about Blade Runner in either of the interviews or in any other material you've presented.
I'll readily admit a thematic similarity between the characters in the two works facing mortality and wondering who is or is not human. But it is a huge leap from there to say they are directly referencing each other.
Mod
Gregg wrote: "I would call "Bullshit" on your statement. No one else seems confused..."
Fine. I find your interactions confusing. Jim has expressed similar problems.
I don't want to continue this.
Anyone (including you) with thoughts related to this book, please continue to share them.
Jim wrote: "Gregg, tone it down. I have also found your posts confusing in many topics because you seem to assume references that aren't readily apparent. There are a lot of posts here & remembering what every..."Jim, that is an issue you need to work on not me. So far we have two moderators actively berating folks simply having a discussion in a book club discussion group. I had to tell both of you that your paranoia was unfounded. Sorry we don't have the same perspective on the book but it is no reason to act the way you have been. And you wonder why folks don't participate...
Physicians heal thyselves!
Jim wrote: "Gregg wrote: "The reason my answers are scattered over a month long thread is that for some reason beyond my comprehension Jim decided to begin discussing the book even before we were supposed to s..."Jim, there is absolutely no reason to start talking about a book before at least the first week has passed. It is a Book of the Month. Be courteous and give folks a chance to read it first. This is simply common sense and manners.
Getting the book and commenting are separate events. Just be mindful of that in the future.
Ed wrote: ""Ed wrote: "...The problem is that you don't provide context for your comments..."Gregg wrote: "I would call "Bullshit" on your statement. No one else seems confused..."
Fine. I find your intera..."
Good.
Ed wrote: "I'll readily admit a thematic similarity between the characters in the two works facing mortality and wondering who is or is not human. But it is a huge leap from there to say they are directly referencing each other. ..."They do not exist in the same universe and do not reference each other. They share similar tropes due to cloning (replicant) and the nature of the genre. But that is also like saying Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica references each other because they both have space ships.
Kazuo Ishiguro explicitly stated that Philip K. Dick did not influence the book and he had never read anything by him.
Ed wrote: "Gregg wrote: "What is the difference between our two statements??? "I will give context here to make sure we are talking about the same thing. The two statements:
Gregg stated: "The author [Ishi..."
Frankly, no, it isn't. He was utilizing a major cultural artifact so the focus would not be on a SF plot but his study of human emotions and resignation.
That he didn't admit doesn't mean he didn't utilize it. There are simply too many thematic references for him to not have been culturally aware of the influence of Blade Runner.
Look at the comments on here about why didn't they run? Where are the "donor-hunters"? It is an integral part of our cultural awareness. The Postmodernists have written extensively on this subject of artistic influence and interpretation.
I have been in other groups discussion this book. It always seems to be controversial and be an "either or" type of read. It has also gotten intense in the discussions too. It provokes the passions to say the least, which I think is a good indicator that it affected all that read it. That is all you can ask of a great book.I have said it is a piece of literature wearing SF tropes. It is certainly highly metaphorical. My question to all, do you generally like straight reads or the deeper reads when it comes to the genre?
Gregg wrote: "That he didn't admit doesn't mean he didn't utilize it. There are simply too many thematic references for him to not have been culturally aware of the influence of Blade Runner...."Yet, it does not prove he was influenced either. He is certainly aware that Philip K. Dick was alive, but he also said that he never read him either.
Mod
That is an interesting question. Since it may be of general interest, not only to readers of this month's book, I've started the discussion in a separate thread.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Mod
This is not true. We have disagreed with your opinion. And we have stated that your posts are confusing due to lack of context. I don't berate people.
The following is intended as constructive criticism: When you want to make a reply to a statement from another user, it is helpful to provide a quotation, or summary of the statement you are responding to. You never do that and it is confusing to both me and Jim.
When I said I find your statements confusing, that is not "bullshit". I seriously do have to work hard to try to understand you.
Mod
Precisely my thought*. There are many books, films and news stories about cloning. The idea is part of the culture, and not tied to any one work.
There are more differences from BR than similarities. In this work, the clones grow up and go to school. In BR they are created in a lab as adults and have false memories implanted so that they believe they grew up. (You could argue that Kathy H's memories are not real. But I saw nothing in the text to support that.)
*It is possible that Battlestar Galactica references Star Wars. It wouldn't surprise me. But I wouldn't presume it until seeing some evidence. Certain tropes about space travel stories are certainly shared among disparate works.
Gregg wrote: "Jim, that is an issue you need to work on not me. So far we have two moderators actively berating folks simply having a discussion in a book club discussion group. ..."If you expect to have a decent conversation, you need to make your points clear & be polite. Consider this your second warning. You won't get a third, you'll just be removed from the group. If you feel the need to discuss this further, PM me or Ed.
Obviously, I feel differently about the group reads.
Jim wrote: "If you expect to have a decent conversation, you need to make your points clear & be polite...."
Papaphilly wrote: "I have been in other groups discussion this book. It always seems to be controversial and be an "either or" type of read. It has also gotten intense in the discussions too. It provokes the passions..."I think the reviews and opinions reveal the answer to your question. Papaphilly....
Papaphilly wrote: "Gregg wrote: "That he didn't admit doesn't mean he didn't utilize it. There are simply too many thematic references for him to not have been culturally aware of the influence of Blade Runner...."..."
However, he is knowledgeable of Blade Runner and it is clear it was in his mind as he wrote whether directly or indirectly. Again, the Postmodernists have written extensively about this type of cultural influence on writers. They feel it is integral to the cultural grounding of art.
Ed wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "They do not exist in the same universe and do not reference each other. They share similar tropes due to cloning (replicant) and the nature of the genre. But that is also like sa..."Actually Battlestar Galactica references Mormonism.
I've deleted a couple of other messages by Gregg & he is now blocked from the group. When I tell someone to take further complaints to PM, issue warnings, & ask them to be polite, I mean it.Papaphilly & I disagreed completely about the book & yet wound up finding we have so many opinions on books in common that we became GR friends. Disagreement is fine, rudeness is not.
Makes me sad when I look at Gregg's comment in the deep reading topic.
Mod
He has interesting thought and has contributed usefully to conversations at times.
The decision to ban him was Jim's, but I support his decision. I did not see the final messages that Gregg wrote and Jim deleted, but he had been rude earlier.
He has been in at least one other group I was in, but later left and deleted all of his posts from it. So I suppose there was some friction in that group as well.
Back to this book. I actually like some aspects of it very much. As a metaphor or allegory (or whatever) about mortality it works fine and is moving. And that seems to be the main thing the author was trying to do. Bravo for that. But the made-up world that the story is set in failed to make enough sense to me. He says he didn't want to write a story about people who rebel against the system. Fine. But it just didn't feel true-to-life that they would never even think about it.
I still love "Remains of the Day" and still consider Ishiguro a talented author. And I could even still recommend this book to some people.
Gregg wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Gregg wrote: "That he didn't admit doesn't mean he didn't utilize it. There are simply too many thematic references for him to not have been culturally aware of the influence of ..."I will take the bait. You need to explain how he is influenced by some thing he did not read. He plainly says he did not read Philip K. Dick. He does not mention he saw the film. He acknowledges he was aware of Philip K. Dick and that he was a great writer, but how can he be influenced?
Gregg wrote: "Ed wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "They do not exist in the same universe and do not reference each other. They share similar tropes due to cloning (replicant) and the nature of the genre. But that is a..."I would bet it is referencing Judaism.
Jim wrote: "IPapaphilly & I disagreed completely about the book & yet wound up finding we have so many opinions on books in common that we became GR friends. Disagreement is fine, rudeness is not...."Disagreeing on a book is not a problem. It is a matter of taste. It is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong.
Mod
Since I complained about someone else not including context, to be fair I should complain when you do it, too.
Is the "it" you are referring to "Battlestar Galactica" ?
For myself, that is one of many shows I never got around to watching. And that gets a bit to your question about "deep reads". I like SF when it asks interesting questions. Battlestar Galactica looks to me like just another "adventures in space" story. That isn't usually enough to interest me.
Ed wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "... I would bet it is referencing Judaism. ...."Since I complained about someone else not including context, to be fair I should complain when you do it, too.
Is the "it" you ..."
I was answering Greg's statement about Mormonism. when you look at Battlestar Galactica, it reads more like Judaism. 13 tribes, one lost. The humans running from bad guys and looking for peace. The original uniforms were very Egyptian Pharaoh like in design and so forth. This was the 1970's version. The 2003 version is about the war on terror.
The 2003 version is well worth watching. The 1970's version not so much.
The Evolution of Science Fiction
Books mentioned in this topic
On the Road (other topics)The Catcher in the Rye (other topics)
On the Road (other topics)
The Catcher in the Rye (other topics)
Moby-Dick or, The Whale (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Philip K. Dick (other topics)Philip K. Dick (other topics)
Philip K. Dick (other topics)
Kazuo Ishiguro (other topics)
William Gibson (other topics)
More...
On the Road and The Catcher in the Rye were both like that f..."
Interesting. I liked "On the Road" but I have never read "Catcher".
"Road" is a bit a a fluke. It only got a NYT review because the normal reviewer was on vacation. It is unlikely we would know about it if that hadn't happened...