The Bookhouse Boys discussion
Never Let Me Go Schedule/Discussion
Mod
Who hates this one? :P
Mod
I'm only 3 chapters in, but I think I know what's going on...it seems like a '70s movie that was skewered by MST3K. I'm really curious to see if I'm right. I kinda wish we had spoiler tags here; I'd share my suspicions.
Mod
Mod
If I am right, it would be another weird bit of synchronicity. I just watched the MST3K version of this earlier this week! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6ryWi...
Mod
Since I'm re-reading the book, I only have my memories of when I might have figured it out on the first go-round. Knowing the twist going in this time, it's totally obvious to me from the first page.
Mod
That's going to make discussing it with you on the podcast pretty strange, especially with a book as dependent on its mystery as this one.
Mod
Yes, and since I'm the quiet Beatle...the one who does some of the arrangements, pushes record, and keeps the talent on-track [George Martin], it might be a one-man show.
d[-_-]b"I'm listening..."
Mod
Although I'm sure you could do a pretty fair "Hey-Oh!"
Mod
;)
Dave wrote: "Not to worry, you'll know exactly what's going on by the end of Part I. Although it's something of a slow reveal, it's by no means the thrust of the narrative."Like Matt, I miss spoiler tags right now. Wanna know how I got spoiled on the twist to which Dave is referring? My library's website includes the Library of Congress cataloging info: "1. Women - fiction. 2. England - fiction..." Then the spoilery stuff. Check the copyright page of your edition, but consider yourself warned.
That's gotta be the weirdest way to get a plot twist spoiled that I've ever heard.
Matt wrote: "Yes, and since I'm the quiet Beatle...the one who does some of the arrangements, pushes record, and keeps the talent on-track [George Martin], it might be a one-man show. "
That reminds me, I forgot to compliment your musical choices. You're not just an editor monkey. :P
Everyone knows you're fantastic, Matt. Just maybe work on those self-esteem issues.
Mod
[spoilers removed]
I got spoiled by watching the movie trailer. But like Dave says, it is revealed in the text a little earlier than I imagined it would be."
Thanks for the HTML tip. I thought I had looked up what we could and couldn't do, but I guess I was wrong.
I listened up to the "reveal" while working in the yard and garden today. I think I would have figured it out even if I hadn't watched (view spoiler)
Heather wrote: "Hey! Why's that a spoiler? ;P I almost didn't look, because it could have been [spoilers removed]."Just trying out my new toy. Warning: Spoilers!
(view spoiler)
Back on topic: I am loving this book! The story does move back and forth in time frequently, but the changes are well-telegraphed so I'm never lost. It's straightforward despite the time-jumping -- Part 2 is shaping up to be more linear so far. The lead characters (and even some minor ones) are so well-drawn.
But mysteries remain: I know what these kids are, but how will their adult lives play out, especially after a lifetime of isolation and preparation for an unwished-for destiny?
Does everyone else have the little glyphs that appear as passage breaks within chapters? Any ideas what they are, what they might mean?
Mod
Dave wrote: "That aspect of them is, I think, clearly meant to foreshadow (view spoiler), but, being very simple drawings, I also wonder if they're intended to remind us of the art the children are producing at the school? "From the repetition and simplicity of the drawings, I like your idea, Dave. I briefly thought of Tommy's animals, but the glyphs are far too simple for that to be the case.
Finished the book this morning. I'll admit I welled up a bit, didn't quite get a full-on cry going -- and I am not a crier.
Damn, this one's gonna haunt me for a long time.
Mod
I, too, was interested in the blasé attitude these 'people' have towards their lot in life. I wondered if it was a some kind of social commentary that is not connecting with me 'cause I'm a Yank. Morrissey and Ray Davies have taught me that the school systems in the UK can be downright dismal and I wondered if this might be a jab at that. I don't know yet. That's why I was asking Dave if it's revealed that only the rich and privileged benefit from these donations, if so, that would kinda sound like allegory, if not, it's even more nightmarish, in a weird kinda cannibalism-kinda way.
I was all set to be the resident grouch for this book, but talking with my boys made me rethink my impression and focus on what I did enjoy.
Mod
AND the looks, AND the money, AND the...
Mod
I'll be interested to see what people think of life in the Cottages, outside of Hailsham. Though Hailsham is still a strong presence in the narrative in Part 2, no scenes actually take place there. We also see many more examples of Ishiguro's signature delivery style, pretending (from the POV of the narrator) that a scene is about something small when the underlying message is that it's about something else entirely, and something gut-wrenching.
BTW, great thoughts Heather and Jim! It kind of amazes me (in a good way) how Ishiguro is able to take a cheesy and cliched sci-fi plot and turn it into something worthy of intense conversation, speculation, and heartache. Don't listen to these other 2 yahoos, this book is an ace! *eyerollz*
Mod
I'm not making any judgments on the book as a whole until I've read the whole book, but just as a general statement, it's easier to seem like a genius when you make everything implicit, not explicit, and have readers who are willing to give you the benefit of every doubt. That's a talent in itself, I suppose, but sometimes a pencil case is just a pencil case.
Mod
I also noticed in reading Part 2 the number of times Kathy describes Ruth or Tommy as looking upset, being upset... but rarely herself (if ever). I started to feel like Kathy was trying to point out her own feelings in these situations, indirectly. I wonder whether Kathy's capable -- intellectually or otherwise -- of admitting any feelings to herself outside of mild happiness or irritation.
Mod
Mod
Now her ability to love, that's something else entirely. I'm at an intriguing point in the book right now, just after Tommy discovers her flipping through the porn magazines. Maybe I'm about to get some answers.
Matt: you also left in the part where we talk about how boring it will be for listeners if you leave in that part. You dork. Maybe people will find it charming (or just won't be able to find the off button on their Ipods in time). *tonguestickingout*
Mod
You're right, I worded that the wrong way... I think she's capable of strong emotions, but not of admitting to them. At least in this narrative. She seems to be coming from the position of a carer even in telling her story... a false sense of comfort to both herself and the reader, maybe?
Point being, Kathy's voice in the narrative is different from the one that plays out scenes with other people... not so unusual, but it usually works the other way round, with all the roiling emotions on the inside and an inability to express them on the outside. The Kath of the narrative comes across as in-control, thoughtful, analytical... but we can see how much these past scenes meant to her, and that they continue to haunt her for years afterward. In a lot of ways, she's like a first person narrator who's trying to be a third person narrator. She's that intentionally detached from her own life.
Mod
Great point, one that's going to inform my future reading a lot.
I'd expect the passage of time to smooth out the rough emotional edges, to even out the peaks and valleys, making Kathy's narration of her past more dispassionate. I wouldn't expect her to feel the same about the events of her life now as she did at the time they were happening. She's had time to reevaluate, to analyze. But I would not say this makes for a dull narrative, not at all.I was also curious about the nature of the recipients of the donations. I just wrote a long, pessimistic reading of the novel as a whole, which I may share when the group has finished the book. Or not.
Let me close by complimenting Heather on her brilliant analysis. Great stuff.
Mod
Would it be getting ahead of where we are to re-post it here?
It seems to be my turn to be the odd man out with this book. :S
Mod
"WHY?!" is peppered throughout my notes for tonight's podcast. I may have to rein in a rant or two.
Mod
Sometimes that works out. At other times, the coldness in the pit of my stomach grows as I feel the ground rushing up to meet the back of my head. I've still got my eyes closed and my arms at my side but I'm getting nervous...
Mod
Hey guys! Thanks for the mention on this week's podcast. :)I do listen to most books on audio and have found it very easy to follow along. Jason, I used to think that I simply couldn't focus while listening, but then I listened to a great book with awesome narration (Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card, I think) and that changed everything. I'm not saying I don't have to rewind thirty seconds every so often, but I'm really enjoying this reading, unlike Matt...
Great podcast this week! And I'd like to throw my own little interpretation into the mix. I think Kath was looking for her possible in porn mags because Ruth told Kath that her sexual urges weren't normal, that Tommy would never want to date a girl who slept around as much as Kath, etc. so Kath goes looking for the source of this abnormality that was only created by Ruth.
Kath takes all of Ruth's words to heart, but seems blind to the fact that Ruth is playing off of Kath's insecurities and manipulating her so she'll stay away from Tommy.
I don't think that was spoiler alert worthy, do you?
I can't wait to finish this one. Thanks for all the different viewpoints.
Mod
Nice post, Sara! Can't wait to see what you think after you've completed.....The book, that is.
I fear Matt and Jason won't be any happier with Part 3 than they are now, despite many answers that await them there. The good news is that it doesn't devolve into "The Fugitive" in Act III.
As Dave mentioned, I've been on an Ishiguro kick which is winding down. NLMG does share some themes with The Remains of the Day (serving others at the expense of oneself) and When We Were Orphans (the inconsistency of memory, filling the gaps with assumptions and jumbled recollections, and the effects on one's later life), but it is definitely its own thing.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the book as a whole.
Mod
I only wish I were Dave. Every year I blow out those birthday candles, make my wish and...nothing.
I'm really glad that you responded to this book the way you did, Jim, and was inspired enough to race out and grab more of his novels. That's probably been my favorite part of the whole process of reading and discussing this book, actually.
Yeah Jim, you highlighted two major themes of the book quite succinctly.I think that's why Kath turns out to be such a good carer. She has a habit of taking care of and thinking of others first, despite the pain and loss she suffers.
It's just who she is, maybe it's part of her soul?
I hope I didnt just get myself in trouble with Matt. ;)
Mod
Naw. : )
I forgot to mention on the last ep that one of the things about the reading that got on my nerves was the voice the reader used for Tommy's dialogue. It made me long for the subtlety of Just One of the Guys.
Jason wrote: I'm really glad that you responded to this book the way you did, Jim, and was inspired enough to race out and grab more of his novels. That's probably been my favorite part of the whole process of reading and discussing this book, actually...
All snarkiness aside, I have to echo these thoughts, too. I'm glad that everyone else seemed to dig it. I've enjoyed talking about it here and on the show, despite not enjoying the text. So it was worth my time, for sure.
I feel there's some kind of adult video spoof to be made of this playing off of the 'nymphomaniac clone' angle, but the 'clever' play-on-the-title name is eluding me. Hmmm....
Apologies for the misattribution, Jason.After getting very little out of Midaq Alley and House Made of Dawn, it is nice to have my joie de lire back. We'll see if Affliction crushes my spirit.
A well-placed barb is more entertaining than a pleasant word, so y'all should rip away at NLMG in your last discussion. It'll be fun!
More fun than two hours on "What is a soul?" would be, anyway. ;)
Mod
This one is an original cooked up by yrs truly:
THE HORNY CLONE (a/k/a A Tom Cruise's Daughter)
In an old-fashioned glass filled with ice, add
- 1 shot of light rum
- 1/2 shot of blue curaçao
- the juice of 1/2 a lime
- top with ginger ale or club soda
Serve very cold and detached. The unnatural blue is the key to this drink. If you find a man-made (hybrid) fruit for juice, let me know. Bottoms up!
I think you may be able to use lime juice from concentrate.And maybe substitute vodka for rum. I think it gets distilled more than rum. ;)
Mod
And maybe substitute vodka for rum. I think it gets distilled more than rum. ;)"
Good suggestions.
I think Dave'll have a much easier time with the drink for Affliction. o_O
Mod
Mod
There was something I forgot to mention on the show that especially struck me: Kath owns four identical lamps, each a different color. She's described as continuing to look for lamps like them, not to buy, but to compare to the ones she already has.
There is social currency in not being *too* different from others. People want to feel like they belong, at least to a group of their choosing. Being a clone puts Kath in a very select group, and she derives comfort and a sense of purpose from it.
Mod
I agree with pretty much everything she says, too. I appreciate the work for what it is; I just don't like what it is.
I'm glad Jason mentioned the lamps. I noted that brief passage as I listened and meant to discuss it with you two, but lost the thought by the time I sat down to have a horny clone with y'all.
I wondered if she found comfort in seeing the ones in the shop window because they were (most likely) going to be purchased and used by "normal" people and the connection/similarity to her lamps pleased her.
Mod
Well, of course, I...uh... wha ? o_O
I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later! :)
First of all: Thanks for listening, Heather. My wife has never listened to a'one! Second of all, TWO episodes in a row?! That's like the Sun Dance in A Man Called Horse! As far as I'm concerned, you're an honorary member of our tribe now.
In your previous post, you mentioned something about Miss Emily in spoiler tags. I realized that that scene kind of took the shine off of the "negative space" I liked in the narrative. When we only got a clone's perspective and naive hopefulness, the mystery of the 'reality' of this world kept things interesting (and the clones' actions plausible via the reader not being privy to the 'skinny'). When Miss Emily's 'parlor scene' happened (or whatever Jason called it), it kinda deflated the world for me. I wanted some answers the whole time and when I got them I realized they were never going to satisfy. (See: Lost)
I don't know if Kath is any more unreliable than any first-person narrator in literature. That's a good question. It seems like we brought it up, but never really dove in. She had obviously been manipulated in her education for the purposes of her application in society. She and the others were given bits of info, inured to it before they could fully grasp it. It's like a lot of little 1-degree shifts until you're 180 degrees off course, but you're unaware of it. Does that make her unreliable? I think it gives us a good peak into the conditioning the subjects received, so in many ways, she's a great narrator. So, I guess I talked myself into saying 'no, she's not.'
Thanks again for all of your thoughts. Glad to hear the book effected you so much.
Tell Jason "hey"...he'll know what it means.
BTW, your awesome posts/listening inspired me to have one last Horny Clone. Goodbye, Tom Cruise's Daughter.
Here's me regarding the drink with an innate sense of revulsion.
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/46...
Heather wrote: "Seriously though, I wonder if I had more of an activist's perspective in my reading than all you softies. A lot of my thoughts and posts have been railing about why nobody fought the man! And I couldn't seem to get my head out of that space. Was that an element in anyone else's reading?"Honestly? I haven't read the book in years, so I don't remember the intimate details, but we did just watch the movie last night (not perfect, not terrible, I'm sure Dave will talk more about it soon), so I'm refreshed on the key elements. And I think part of the point, part of Ishiguro's warning - because all good sci-fi has an inherent societal warning from the author - is exactly how complacent people can be. Especially if something like this grew over time - I can imagine the program began with cloning specific organs. Maybe they decided it was more efficient to clone a whole human who could be used for multiple organs. But when such things happen over time, and they mean a benefit to society at large (no more waiting for an organ donor to die if you have liver cancer or asking a loved one for a kidney), people can be quite complacent. Think about Hitler's Germany. Do you think all Germans - or even just all soldiers in the Nazi army - were horrible people who honestly believed in purging Jews from the earth? I don't believe that's true. But one madman convinced them somehow if not to actively participate, then at least to remain silent. And they did! Very, very few fought back and said it was wrong. I think the complacency of the teachers at their school and the other "regular" people the characters encounter is the most chilling part of the whole book - Ishiguro is saying, "That could be us; don't think for a moment that it couldn't."
Mod
So, I'll say it simply: I think of this as a sci-fi version of The Diary of Anne Frank.
We get one simple, young, human perspective, someone learning to touch and feel in a world that, while horrific, is the only one they've known.
To Heather's point about fighting back, that was very much at the forefront of my mind on my first reading as well. It took me a long time to come to terms with. I couldn't understand why there weren't at least some rumblings of escape or resistance, or some Eden the children could aspire to, even if only imagined. That was the part that seemed so inhuman to me... not that people could treat each other like garbage, but that everyone could take it so calmly.
Beyond deferrals -- putting off the inevitable for 2 or 3 years -- however, there didn't seem to be much thought of how to get out of the situation. Surely there was a means of getting out into the world, of blending in... we never learned of any physical characteristics that distinguished clones from humans, though several humans seemed to be able to tell on sight. The clones weren't instructed that this was a noble duty, either... no "die for your country" patriotic jargon, no selling them on the idea. Everything just is as it is. It made me wonder whether Ishiguro really was trying to separate the clones as a race from their human counterparts, despite so much evidence to the contrary.
Even Ruth, the most intelligent of them, uses her natural gifts for leadership and manipulation for simple, stupid ends, never trying to organize, never thinking to question. Not to mention the fact that, surely, only the healthiest, the most fit and athletic humans were chosen to be cloned, in effect creating the potential for an actual master race that should be able to eventually overrun their soft human counterparts.
But, again, the clones seemed never to develop a basic instinct for survival. There were never mentions of armed guards, jackboots, checkpoints. Clones' outside influences were controlled, but not to the point where no outside influence was ever made available. Even without being taught to read critically, surely a young clone would read a book and it would stoke their imagination, make them put themselves in the places of the people they were reading about? Even 5 year-old children want to be things when they grow up... things other than cattle awaiting slaughter, that is.
Yet, when we're in that world, when we're seeing it through Kath's eyes, it all makes a sort of cold sense. The children are reared without affection. They have no examples of compassion in their lives, see no adults who love one another or them. I think Ishiguro is examining the miracle that, in a structure such as this one, the ties that bind Kath, Tommy, and Ruth took root at all. It made me think that this young race, with its simple rumors of deferrals, was finally beginning to develop an instinct for survival. I started to project out a hundred, two hundred years into the future and imagine how it would be then. In a weird way, the way these characters developed in the face of being told all their lives that they were relatively worthless is something that filled me with hope, not despair.
The film version was pretty good... it locked in on the Kath-Tommy relationship more than anything. Certain things had to be condensed and abridged, as you'd expect, but I always find it interesting to see Ishiguro novels translated to film, see what professional actors bring to the reading that isn't always readily on the page. Ishiguro is very much an "iceberg" writer, and the film interprets the work as being about Kath quietly coming to terms with the extermination of the love of her life and the many things that conspired to keep them apart for so long. Certain scenes that seem cool or simple in the novel take on a very different tenor when played out. The characters all seem much more intelligent and emotional than in the novel, too (or at least, as I read them). Though not half as deep as the novel, it's worth a look for fans of the book.
Signed, the Ramblin' Man
Mod
Exactly. That's the same thing I was talking about with lots of one-degree shifts that completely re-orient the position. I used that example talking about inuring the clones to their fate, but it applies just as much to the rest of society (the recipients).
Dave wrote: "Even 5 year-old children want to be things when they grow up... things other than cattle awaiting slaughter, that is."I actually had a very interesting discussion with my real-life book club on this very point a few weeks ago when we discussed Room (a book all about the psyche of a 5-yr-old boy born to a woman being held captive by a kidnapper for many years - I really liked it, but some found the fact that the book was written in the kid's voice to be really annoying). Basically, some argued that the book was unrealistic because the boy never really thought that there was a world or other people outside of the room he and his mother lived in, despite the fact that he had books to read and TV to watch and saw their captor come and go with some regularity. His mother taught him that everything real was inside the room, and everything outside was kind of a dream/fantasy/made-up world. Those without children who had never spent much time around small children found his belief completely unrealistic. Those who had children or had spent a lot of time with small ones could, on the other hand, easily envision a child being conditioned with those beliefs.
And I think that's what happens in the context of Never Let Me Go, too. When it's all you've ever known - when the adults around you and the older children you know teach you that it is correct for your destiny to be a donor - and it's been that way for as long as you can remember, I can easily imagine that you wouldn't question it. It's how racism perpetuates across generations, too - when your parents and siblings and most of your schoolmates and neighbors all project negativity about races other than your own, you adopt those attitudes very naturally and most people carry those attitudes into adulthood without ever questioning them. It's how self-esteem can be so low for children in abusive households - if you're told your whole life that you're useless and worthless and will never amount to anything, you will carry that belief into adulthood more often than not. It doesn't mean that such beliefs can't be overcome - they certainly can - but it's hard. It takes intelligence and perception and a lot of gumption, a lot of active re-programming of yourself. Did any of the characters in the book have enough to do that for themselves without any prompting from others? I'm not sure they did.
The Bookhouse Boys
Books mentioned in this topic
Room (other topics)Rabbit, Run (other topics)
Infinite Jest (other topics)
Part I (Ch. 1-9) episode published on July 12th.
Part II episode published on the 19th
Part III published on the 26th
Let's play ball!