Boxall's 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die discussion
This topic is about
Never Let Me Go
Specific List Books
>
Never Let Me Go
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Stephanie
(new)
-
added it
Jul 10, 2008 02:22PM
Could someone please explain to me what the big "twist" everyone was talking about in this book was? That they were clones? That wasn't a twist, it was obvious from the beginning. Can someone try and help explain to me why this book is on the list...I just didn't get it. I thought it was horrible, such a disappointment.
reply
|
flag
I think the "twist" is that the school was really a failed experiment in trying to get the rest of the world to recognize the clones' humanity/value beyond their organs.No, it's not much of a twist, especially considering the hints are pretty obvious early on, but that's all I can come up with.
I thought the whole thing was obvious. I thought the structure & style were annoying and tedious. This was definitely overhyped in my mind.
It wasn't terrible. It just wasn't as good as it could have been.
I loved this book and didn't go into it being aware of a supposed twist occuring. I agree, it was hinted at fairly early on what was going to happen.Twists are overrated mostly, usually very predictable.
I believe that the twist is that they're clones and honestly I don't think it's supposed to even really be a twist. It completely simplifies the point of the novel and turns it into a sci-fi piece which isn't what Ishiguro was going for. I thought this interview with him was really interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SmuYq...
I absolutely loved this book but can see why it's style might not be for everyone.
I recently read this (and saw the film) and thought it could've been done better. One thing I found disturbing was that when the kids were told what their purpose was, it didn't seem to phase them. I didn't feel like any of the students tried to fight/change the system, escape, etc. as is typical in a dystopia. Even trying to get a deferral seems lame - wow, 3 whole years of a real life. Found the ending depressing.
No twist, and the never really goes anywhere. A real disappointment.
No twist, and it never really goes anywhere. Kind of like life itself, if you think about it.
i don't understand why this book is on the list. i recently read it and could not figure out what the big deal is? so many people suggested it to me and i usually trust their reading selections. but this one? blech. it draaaaaged. like others, i was really disappointed.
i really don't think this book has "a twist" at all, and i think looking for and expecting a big surprise (and then not finding one) makes the book come off as a big disappointment. in the typical mystery/thriller setup, you the reader are led to believe one thing...then suddenly it's revealed to you that this isn't at all what's going on, generally with some big dramatic WOOSH! this book isn't structured like that at all, there is no big reveal, it's all right there from the beginning and what's happening at this school just slowly dawns on you as the story goes by. the kids don't fight and wail against their cruel future because they've been taught their whole lives that this is their purpose on earth and the sum fulfillment of their existence.this isn't a story about the fight against injustice, or michael bay explosions (he made a movie about organ donor clones a few years ago that was VERY different from this), and i think that it's on the list specifically because it's not what you'd expect.
I don't see why everyone hates it so much. I read it last year and really liked it. I never heard anything about a twist or surprise ending but can still see why its a really good book. Even though all the characters are clones, their humanity is evident throughout the book. I think that's the part that's supposed to make you think. Just exactly what about a clone supposedly makes them less than human? And how is it any more human to create life for the purpose of destroying it? In theory, if they could clone human beings, they can clone individual organs as well, why not just do it that way?
Teal wrote: "I believe that the twist is that they're clones and honestly I don't think it's supposed to even really be a twist. It completely simplifies the point of the novel and turns it into a sci-fi piece ..."I agree with you, and I haven't even seen your linked video yet - I will after I complete this reply.
I think this book IS science fiction in the way that great science fiction has been used by Heinlein and other classic writers of the genre to encapsulate an issue by taking it out of our every-day experience and making it unique enough to discuss it hypothetically.
Chris wrote: "In theory, if they could clone human beings, they can clone individual organs as well, why not just do it that way?"Presumably because the organs would not mature to adult size outside of a body .. just as a human embryo can be created in a test tube, but it has to be implanted into a woman's womb to grow into a baby.
I think that's reasonable, I didn't think it raised any credibility issues.
I don't understand why so many readers expected this book to have a "twist". It's not a mystery or a thriller. Have the publishers been marketing it that way?
I truly hated this book, twist or no twist. Interesting idea, but I couldn't stand his minimalist writing style. He never really develops the characters or uses any adjectives, which made me want to cry tears of boredom. And his whole plot is too obvious from the beginning. I wasn't expecting a twist really, but write with some INTRIGUE! Make me want to turn the page!!Seriously, I was like a third of the way through and he was doing one of those "I guess that reminds me of the time I saw Tommy on the soccer fields. Then I knew something was up." which actually turns out to be hardly anything. And I thought, "Crap, he's really gonna tell the whole story using this same device." I kept waiting for the real, I guess, "action" to happen...perhaps a switch to present tense. Blah. I got really of sick of her constantly being like, "I remember when this happened (insert boring but eye-opening moment)." I guess it was supposed to be conversational, but homegirl is a boring conversationalist.
Just finished this. Picked it up at the airport because I knew it was on the list but didn't know a thing about it. I agree with Megan about the style. At first I thought it was interesting how the narrator would say, "I want to tell you about this, but first I have to tell you about that." But by the middle of the book I was pretty tired of that and just wished he'd tell the darn story.In many ways, this reminded me of Frankenstein in that humans create something human-like and then are horrified by their own creation. This group's thread about Frankenstein and our moral responsibilities to each other as well as scientific ethics could probably be applied here.
In the end, though, I just had more questions that were never answered. If Hailsham is so much better than the other centers, what were they like? Exactly what were the students told about their lives? How did they feel about having no parents? How did they feel about not being considered fully human? They were asked to read literature and plays, so they would have known what a "normal" life was like. Why didn't they resent their own "fate?" The story describes the minutia of their lives but only gives us a tiny glimpse of their feelings. For example, Tommy's "fits" and Ruth's desire to find her "possible." All in all, I'd rate this a three out of five--not the worst thing I've ever read but certainly not the best.
Never Let Me Go wasn't translated from the Japanese. It was written and published in English.I also liked Never Let Me Go but understand the complaints about the writing style. I think that has more to do with the story itself than it does Ishiguro's culture.
My biggest issue with the complaints of this book are the assumption that clones would react and behave exactly as we would react and behave ourselves. There's nothing to say that if clones of humans existed that all of the emotional/psychological processes would still be intact.
My biggest issue with the complaints of this book are the assumption that clones would react and behave exactly as we would react and behave ourselves. There's nothing to say that if clones of humans existed that all of the emotional/psychological processes would still be intact.I totally agree. One of the complaints I have heard is that the narration is so heartless and there is such a disconnect between what is happening and the unemotional distance of the story being told. But, I think this is because she is a clone and as you said, El, the emotional/psychological reactions may not necessarily be fully formed.
El wrote: "Never Let Me Go wasn't translated from the Japanese. It was written and published in English."But not American English.
When we share a language, it's easy to forget that we don't also share a culture. To an American, British books are likely to seem understated. To Brits, American books are likely to seem excessively "in your face".
On top of that Ishiguro is Japanese/British, and the effect of the Japanese influence is likely to be even more understatement or "unemotional distance".
We are not unemotional ... we just don't talk about it so much ;-)
Rosemary wrote: "When we share a language, it's easy to forget that we don't also share a culture. To an American, British books are likely to seem understated. To Brits, American books are likely to seem excessively "in your face"..."Absolutely, I get this all the time with modern American literature but I recognise that there are cultural differences and I don't usually let it bother me unless it's very very intrusive. I've read a few novels recently by American authors trying to write British characters and found it hard to shake off the feeling that they weren't quite right. I'm sure British writers do the same with American characters, in fact sometimes they are deliberately over the top.
As for Ishiguro, I'm not sure exactly how culturally Japanese he is. He is obviously of Japanese decent, but he speaks with a very British middle-class accent without a hint of Japanese behind it. My guess is he was born and raised in England and possibly educated at schools like Hailsham (only minus the cloning!).
Also, I though the whole point of Hailsham in Never Let Me Go was to illustrate that the emotional and psychological responces of a clone ARE the same as everybody else's. They weren't precisely the same because they were raised knowing they would be donors, but they were genetically no different to the other humans and were raised to develop psychologically and emotionally as other humans would. No doubt the clones raised in other facilities had very different developmental patterns and did not seem human to society and thus the myth was perpetuated. I can see no reason from a scientific point of view why a perfectly cloned human would develop differently from a natually born one as all the biological potential of the non-clone would be in the clone also.
According to the Internet he was born in Japan and moved to England when he was six.
I agree with what Amanda says about the clones not being emotionally handicapped. In fact, I didn't see the characters as unemotional at all. They definitely displayed anger, jealousy, and longing. Maybe the narrator seems unemotional because she's being analytical. She's trying to piece together her past based on memories and what she knows now.
Tej wrote: "I agree with what Amanda says about the clones not being emotionally handicapped. In fact, I didn't see the characters as unemotional at all. They definitely displayed anger, jealousy, and longing. Maybe the narrator seems unemotional because she's being analytical. She's trying to piece together her past based on memories and what she knows now..."Indeed, Cathy is telling her story from the present looking back, so the narrative lacks emotional immediacy and feels more nostalgic. Perhaps some readers would have preferred that the characters were outraged by their fate and sought escape and staged rebellions, but I think Kazuo's story is more poignant. The clones have been told all their lives what their purpose is and what their place in society is and they're resigned to it.
Loved the book but didn't like the film half as much. Agree that its a certain kind a book, more a love it or hate it kind. Hence divided opinion, I personally love the author...I felt very invested in what was going on when I eventually got into the bit about the cloning and so on being Kathy H and all the others only purpose in life. I felt horrified by it, a horrible prospect so definitely not nice subject matter perhaps but I found it really interested and felt quite emotional at times.
Rosemary wrote: "But not American English."True, but nothing is lost in translation which is what I felt was being intimated. I still think the style has more to do with purposefully unsettling the reader than it does where the author was born or lived or of which descent.
I'm just not convinced that his ethnicity has that much bearing on his writing, or if it does it's not the driving force behind the style in Never Let Me Go, especially when one considers he moved to Britain when he was six and didn't go back to Japan for 30 years. I think it's almost offensive to presume his writing is Japanese because he was born in Japan. He's been known to say that if his books were published under a pseudonym and his photos weren't on the covers, readers would never have ever realized he was born in Japan. The writing itself, he feels, is in no way reflective of Japanese writing.
I did find this clip about Ishiguro's intentions for writing the book which I found interesting. He touches on the criticism that the characters do not fight back.
Nice clip El, thank you. It's always funny how a reader can run away with very different ideas to the author's original intention (as is their perogative), but I like to hear my favourate authors talk about their work and ideas.
Having read many japanese authors work, I can definitely say that Ishiguros work is lacking that style, it definitely comes across more British than anything.
El wrote: "Rosemary wrote: "But not American English."True, but nothing is lost in translation which is what I felt was being intimated. I still think the style has more to do with purposefully unsettling ..."
Very nice, El. Thanks for sharing.
i've recently also read never let me go, i didn't find it dragging at all but i think that's only because i didn't read it over a period of a month or something; just a week, so i was excited and intrigued all through, and the fact that they were clones was something i didn't guess (i already love books about boarding schools and orphans) , so it came as surprise to me, ofcourse i felt something was weird from the beginning, but then i knew by the way the writing was hinting that all will be explaned in due time, and also i loved the hailsham memories so i wasn't bored at all. the thing i liked most about the book is the characters and how they appeared to be normal but really felt like they were lacking something to be called humane and it wasn't feelings per se but it was more like a general interaction problem and that's expected since they lacked real social contant most of their lives, it just felt like they had their own rules when it came to reactions and interactions, not very remote from our ways but definately with the feeling that something's odd.
i found myself comparing it to 'one hundred years of solitude' for gabriel garcia marquez which i'm reading now, because it also sort of goes by explaining an incident from the past or future in the middle of the present which really makes a book a page turner.
I just loved this book. I was actually quite shocked to see so many comments that people didn’t like it, and some to the point of hating it. I loved everything about it. The writing style was one the best things about it. It felt so relaxed and calm even though it was talking about a really sensitive and emotional issue. I think the author did a great job of never really mentioning that they were clones but just hinted at it every now and then.
In my opinion it definitely deserves to be on the list. It probably is one of those books that you either love or hate.
Kathy wrote: "I just loved this book. I was actually quite shocked to see so many comments that people didn’t like it, and some to the point of hating it. I loved everything about it. The writing style was o..."
Kathy, I do so agree with you. I also love his style, his insight into people and the way he makes you think and feel. To me this was an amazing book.
I read this book in one day, last Saturday. I also didn't love the episodic and unemotional narration, but I think it had a purpose. The premise of this story is the stuff of science fiction and horror. The unemotional narration serves to let you slowly discover the horror, then to feel it for yourself, without anybody else telling you how you should be feeling. This book displays a very un-American sensibility. Had it been written by an American, there would have been tears, angst, bloodshed, a rebellion; in short, it would have been "Hunger Games." The Brits and the Japanese are brought up to keep their emotions inside, not to make a scene, and to do whatever is best for everyone. I think there's a Japanese expression that translates into "The nail that is sticking out gets hammered down."
Having said all that--here's my review.
If you have managed to reach the year 2011 without stumbling onto the secret at the heart of this book, kudos. I won't spoil it for you.
I almost gave this book 5 stars. But there were too many snags, like the irritatingly passive narrator, an unlikeable protagonist, the meandering conversational style. As an American, I can't believe anyone would accept the terrible fate that awaits the main characters. Why don't they just leave? At one point, there's even a boat. Is it because they're British?
Still...out of the blue, I started crying as I browsed through the aisles of my grocery store today. The story snuck up on me while I wasn't looking.
The plot is simple and devastatingly powerful, overcoming any question of style. Ishiguro creates a painfully believable world of school children--their fads, their crushes, their collections, their body language, their vulnerability, their games, their casual cruelty. Still, the cruelty they show each other is kid stuff compared to the cruelty the larger world has in store for them.
Is it a parable about life? You are born, you think you have all the time in the world, and in the blink of an eye, the years are rushing past, life is taking things back from you, and you are bargaining with God as you move inexorably towards a terrifying fate.
Is it a parable about the perils of hope? It is hope that the exclusive school Hailsham holds out to the students enrolled there, hope that if they are very good in class, good in art, good at writing, good at love, there is a chance they will get a reprieve.
Or is it a parable about the menaces of an increasingly scientific world that leaves unquantifiable things behind, things like kindness, ethics and morality?
For all I know, it is all of these things. But first, it is an achingly sad love story. This book, and what it may mean, will stay with you for a long, long time.
Helen wrote: "I read this book in one day, last Saturday. I also didn't love the episodic and unemotional narration, but I think it had a purpose. The premise of this story is the stuff of science fiction and ho..."Helen, that is a beautiful review and one I agree with wholeheartedly.
Helen, i likewise gave this book 4 stars initially, due to the slow pacing and the tension of them NOT railing against their fate in even a small way... but like your episode in the bookstore, i burst into tears when i caught the trailer for the movie (which i still haven't seen). clearly, this book sunk its emotional hooks very deeply.
Yes. Funny, isn't it? I have to see the movie now.
Most people seem to have a strong reaction to this novel, be it positive or negative. I personally found it really moving - the movie also. I read it really quickly so didn't notice any lag on the pace.I just found it painfully beautiful.
Kristine wrote: "Most people seem to have a strong reaction to this novel, be it positive or negative. I personally found it really moving - the movie also. I read it really quickly so didn't notice any lag on the..."
My only problem was humanizing them then having them be so listless about their fate. Not human. The rest was great.
My only problem was humanizing them then having them be so listless about their fate. Not human. The rest was great.
I neither loved nor hated this book. I think it had some very worthwhile aspects, but I think it many ways it was also a failed experiment. I think Helen made some excellent observations, except I think it could have been a parable about life, hope, or the dehumanizing effect of technology, it never made it clear whether it wanted to be any of those things; it never seemed to live up to any of its potentials. I think ultimately it's a tragic love story, and as I wrote in my review of this book, "I couldn't help wishing that this relationship had been set in more realistic circumstances."I thought the video El pointed us to was very interesting, though Ishiguro left me more perplexed than ever: Do we really need a "metaphor" to show us how fleeting time is? A real-life, present-day story about someone with a terminal illness would do that. By giving us an avoidable, artificial, and thus inherently unjust mortality, he's raising and then begging the question of injustice. Alternatively, a story about why or how we accept what should be unacceptable requires that we get some insight into how the characters process the situation--do they rationalize it? feel hopeless about it? go through mental contortions to ignore it? I felt cheated because the novel raises these moral issues inherently with its science fiction premise, but then it simply refuses to deal with them in the least. If he didn't want this to be a story about the struggle against injustice, he could have given us an explanation for why the characters hardly even seemed to sense much less question that injustice, or better yet, he could have avoided the entirely artificial premise that gave us the injustice to begin with.
My impression of Ishiguro's construction of injustice in this novel was to demonstrate how people remain passive and accept their circumstances. The characters accepted their fate because they weren't given the opportunity to think about alternate lives. Anyway even if they did imagine a different world, I don't think they would have chosen it. So much like real life, so much passive acceptance.
Yrinsyde wrote: "The characters accepted their fate because they weren't given the opportunity to think about alternate lives."YES. that was exactly my interpretation too. these guys have been completely institutionalized, taught from inception that their entire purpose for existence is to be harvested. they are utterly aware that they are clones, secondary, copies, and exist only for their defined purpose. they do not rail against their fate because they have no other model for how life is supposed to be.
I disagree with those that think it is unrealistic that the clones didn't rebel or question their "duty". Yes, sometimes humans are led to do that, but how often do they purposely bury their heads in the sand when they don't want to think about something they find too stressful? All the time! I think alot of that was going on in this book. How often were references made to "understandings" that certain subjects just weren't talked about? Combine that with the way they were raised to think that what they were made to do was normal.I just finished this book last night and I loved it for its subtlety. There is so much under the surface that isn't in your face. Some people prefer more action and directness but I liked it the way it was.
I forgot to say that I also disagree with the person that said the characters were not developed enough. I thought the 3 main characters were plenty developed and they all had their own distinct personality. With plenty of human emotions like a non-clone. I loved how the author always described the look on their faces when things happened. It told so much sometimes.
I liked the book. The concept is so horrendous that the subtlety with which the book is written provokes a melancholy for a culture in which this could be accepted as normal. The question of how a culture can adopt this practice is also huge and brings to mind the Nazi party brainwashing of its citizens. A third issue is that of the question of the humanity of a clone. The book views them as less than human by implication. However their story belies this belief.
