January 2012 - Never Let Me Go

[Tammy]

I read the book a while back and enjoyed it a great deal. I saw the movie because of the book , and though I couldn't find any fault with the acting, I felt it was lacking. Artistically done but a bit bland.

[Terry]

Well I down loaded it today and intend on get things moving tonight. From the sounds of the comments it's not going to be a laugh per minute but as I am trying to move away from my YA and paranormal fix I am in, I am hoping it will broader my mind a tad....wish me luck ;)

[Tammy]

Terry wrote: "Well I down loaded it today and intend on get things moving tonight. From the sounds of the comments it's not going to be a laugh per minute but as I am trying to move away from my YA and paranorma..."

Lots of luck Terry! :)

[Tracy]

Preface: I have to teach several units of dystopian lit each year. It makes me want to crawl back to the library's poetry section whispering, "Please, help me."

Since I'm on a phone and can't set up spoiler alert---consider yourself alerted.

I ended up enjoying this book more than I thought I would. The concept of art and souls relating intrigues me. Where does one draw the line? Well-done art means more soul?God, help the stick people artists among us.

[Mary, Quiet Observer]

I still haven't finished the book yet. I'm not really a fan of the style of writing but keep going by the need to find out how it will all turn out.
I also am writing this on the phone so don't have the spoiler tag. Sorry for any spoilers

It makes me think about purpose in life. So many of us spend so much time pondering what purpose our life has without any real answer, while these people have that purpose and accept it, and I think, given the choice, I'd rather not know.
The question of humanity is very interesting. I'm curious about a society that will allow these people to be created just to be harvested. How do things come to that?
I don't know if it gets revealed later, but who uses the donations? Originally I thought rich people might have got themselves cloned to have a spare set of organs available, but then they said that the models were homeless people and prostitutes and stuff so I'm not sure how that came about.

[Tammy]

Tracy wrote: "Preface: I have to teach several units of dystopian lit each year. It makes me want to crawl back to the library's poetry section whispering, "Please, help me."

Since I'm on a phone and can't set ..."

~Laughing at "God, help the stick people artists among us"

[Kieren]

The thing is the story is told from the perspective of a young girl who is raised in the bubble that is Hailsham. I found the writing style reflected the character well. You wouldn't expect her to be succint and well spoken as her social interactions were quite limited. And this story had to be written in first person narrative, I don't think third person would have worked at all.

[Deborah]

I wonder if the tone says anything about how the author sees women. Or how he views their communication style.

[Pam]

I read this book last year. I didn't give it a high rating. It was an interesting concept, but I found it rather depressing. I did not see the movie, although my daughter did say it was good.

[Kieren]

I don't think so Deborah, I think this girl was stuck in adolescence. She didn't get a job in the "real world" after school or go into higher education, I think she just didn't grow up properly and it's reflected in the way she communicates and the author has shown that.

[Deborah]

Kieren wrote: "I don't think so Deborah, I think this girl was stuck in adolescence. She didn't get a job in the "real world" after school or go into higher education, I think she just didn't grow up properly an..."


Interesting. I'm not far enough along yet, but that's definitely something I'm going to look for as I read.

[Jocelyn]

my mom tried reading it, and said she wasnt all that into it. When I told her it was our book for the month, she said she hoped i like it. Hmm...

[Veljko]

I liked this book... but I did not love it.

I think, at the end of the day, I found it depressing.
Such lives feel so futile... having an expiration date...

But I think it was pure genius to not dwell upon it directly, to let the reader glimpse into the mind of someone who accepts it, as the only life they know.

On the other side, the whole time, I kept thinking: why don't you just run? Why accept this?

But I think that was the whole point. There is so much we all accept and learn to live with that someone else, someone with a bird's eye view, would find cowardly.

Well, maybe I should revise my initial comment. How not to love a book that makes you think?

As an unrelated comment - once I finished the book, I just wanted to know more. I'll try not to spoil it for those who have not finished it yet... but I was left wanting to know more, much more, about the central characters.

[Sandie]

I also really liked this book and found it incredibly interesting the world Ishiguro created in which children were raised with the idea that their only contribution to society would be their organs. I also found it sad but normal in terms of dealing with death by saying they have "completed" instead of actually coming out and saying they died. The ending of the novel represented to me the loss of all this innocence Kathy still had or clung to.

Overall I think "Never Let Me Go" is a great novel that questions society and how far it would go to preserve its members while dispatching the unknown, the not human element like so many times before in history.

[Andreas]

Sandie wrote: "Overall I think "Never Let Me Go" is a great novel that questions society and how far it would go to preserve its members while dispatching the unknown, the not human element like so many times before in history. "

I agree. I think the book can be seen as a very bleak vision of a social structure where the lowest class doesn't fight oppression. The biggest improvement in their lives they dare imagine is a deferral of a couple of years which is very sad.

[Maree]

Andreas wrote: "I think the book can be seen as a very bleak vision of a social structure where the lowest class doesn't fight oppression. The biggest improvement in their lives they dare imagine is a deferral of a couple of years which is very sad."

It's definitely sad, Andreas, and that's what makes me question it. Are they human? They act like it in almost every way except to fight for their freedom. They don't even fight for a deferral or run away, but dutifully do their duty.

[[deleted user]]

I read this book a couple of years ago and loved it. It really made me think. If this actually existed and you or someone you loved needed a transplant would you say no? Many of us eat food, wear clothes, etc without thinking at all about what goes into the production - sweat shops, animal cruelty and so on.

The problem with them fighting or running away is where would they go and what would they do? They have no friends or family on the outside. Although they have a kind of education it seems centred around PE and arts and crafts so they don't really have the knowledge or qualifications to get a job. The minute most people found out what they were they wouldn't want to know them. They haven't been prepared at all to live in the world.

I did see the film but I also found it somewhat lacking. Can't put my finger on it as there was a good cast. If I'd seen the film first I'm not sure I would have read the book.

[[deleted user]]

I think it was quite beautiful written. I can't say I loved the characters, but there was some sort of sense of nostalgia and sorrow, and loneliness connected to the story and I loved it. Probably because we can all think and remember our childhood days so innocent and free and naive... The novel's worth reading, but I liked the film a lot better.

[V.]

I read this book exactly one year ago and really did enjoy it even though it is quite somber (but then, as I've said before, I really do love a good tear-jerker).

There are so many images from this book that have stayed with me- but none as much as the final scene when Kathy pulls her car over and watches the wind wash over the hillside and the rubbish blowing against the fence. It was neither the happy ending I'd been hoping for, nor the tragic ending I'd been expecting. Instead I thought it was a rather beautifully balanced sort of non-resolution that expressed Kathy's resilience wonderfully.

Reading up on Ishiguro's writing, it seems this poignant kind of non-ending is a bit of a hallmark of his. Wikipedia has the following to say:

"The issues his characters confront are buried in the past and remain unresolved. Thus Ishiguro ends many of his novels on a note of melancholic resignation. His characters accept their past and who they have become, typically discovering that this realization brings comfort and an ending to mental anguish. This can be seen as a literary reflection on the Japanese idea of mono no aware."

It's a very, idk, 'zen' kind of world view, with acceptance being the focus, rather than success or triumph for the protagonist. I like that it's quite different form the usual narrative model where the protagonist must always overcome (or miserably fail- if it's a tragedy) plot complications.

[Philippa]

Jessa wrote: "It does some that a relationship with a non-donor is not strictly forbid but when all you know is non-donors, I wonder if you would ever stray. It seems as if they have been raised in solitary confinement, even from other donors. They are split up after schooling then are sent to live alone as carers or with only other donors as donors. They never really interact with anyone else. Even their identities are not their own, they're clones. I think this has to be a huge reason why they never revolt. Their is no community or sense of something better."

I agree that the relationships between a donor and non-donor would be very unlikely due to the isolation they live in but at some point in time, as it is not strictly forbidden, statistics would say that it would have to happen and I think that would have a very interesting effect on society. I doubt a 'normal' person would be very accepting of only being able to spend a few years with the person they love because that person has a very limited life expectancy. Really it seems that it could only be through events like that where donors might learn to try and rebel.

In the book it's also indicated that being raised, as a donor, at Halisham was somewhat of a privilege compared to many other places. Being raised in an environment where you're not really encouraged to grow, be artistic etc would also limit your view of the world. In addition I suspect the system of informing them about their futures used at Halisham (slowly breaking it to them in ways that limit their understanding) was not used at all in other institutions, where instead it was probably just purely drummed in to them that to make donations was their purpose and there was no alternative, an education purely in the ways of being a good donor and some basic skills for survival for their few years in the real world. Certainly being raised in this way wouldn't encourage much independence of thought, which Halisham students did at least partly gain by being encouraged in the arts.

Tracy wrote: “The concept of art and souls relating intrigues me. Where does one draw the line? Well-done art means more soul?God, help the stick people artists among us.”

Personally, I interpreted this to mean that the fact that they made (any) art and had a capacity to be creative showed that they were capable of independent thoughts and feelings and were not just bye-products of a system for generating replacement organs for mainstream society. Much perhaps like there are arguments made for the treatment of animals (esp) chicken that is found in the supermarkets on the grounds that they feel pain etc. (On this subject I’m a huge fan of organic and free range systems).

Sandie wrote:"I also found it sad but normal in terms of dealing with death by saying they have "completed" instead of actually coming out and saying they died."

I viewed the use of the word 'completing' as having a kind of dual purpose. For mainstream society (ie the doctors and nurses involved in the process) 'completing' dehumanised the entire affair it wasn't a death or a loss of life it was just another stage in a production chain being finished. At the same time for donors talking about 'completing' indicated a mark of respect. By the standards they had been taught to live by the individual involved had achieved them by giving up their organs to the point of death. I think this is also why there was so much respect given to those going on to their 4th donation - they could give no more.

Victoria wrote: “There are so many images from this book that have stayed with me- but none as much as the final scene when Kathy pulls her car over and watches the wind wash over the hillside and the rubbish blowing against the fence. It was neither the happy ending I'd been hoping for, nor the tragic ending I'd been expecting. Instead I thought it was a rather beautifully balanced sort of non-resolution that expressed Kathy's resilience wonderfully.

I loved this final scene too Victoria. It suggested a kind of faint hope on Kathy’s part that she felt she might find Tommy again and also an understanding that she knew he was gone. It was heart-breaking but it also demonstrated how she realised she had to go on. I appreciated that Ishiguro did not go for a conventional style ending. It would have felt out of place with the rest of the narrative.

[Mary, Quiet Observer]

Do you think Tommy really loved either girl? It seems to me that he just takes the path of least resistance. Ruth wanted him so he went along with that even though it seems obvious that Kathy would be a better partner. But then Ruth declares they should be together so they get together. I never got the impression that Tommy would have cared either way. Sure, he tried to apply for a deferment with Kathy but he started the animal pictures originally in case Ruth wanted to defer. He just seemed to go along with whatever anyone told him.

[Maree]

That's a great point, Mary, especially if you take a wider view of it. They all just seem to go along with whatever anyone tells them. They do what they're told and don't struggle against it, not even when pushed into their slow, eventual deaths.

Nicely said, Philippa. I agree with you on pretty much every point, especially the art one. Hailsham was an experiment, meant to try to prove to people that clones had souls too, and their creativity was a way to express that. And that if given a chance and raised normally, they would be just the same as anyone else. That's why I think the scene where Kathy is dancing to the song that gives the book its name, cradling an imaginary baby that she'll never have, is also such a big moment in the book, showing once again that they're human, too. But then again, their lack of struggle to fight for their freedom and that acceptance of whatever slot they're handed in life seems to speak differently.

Someone asked where they would run to at some point, I think. I assumed they would just pass as normal, get a job and live that way. Normally, I would assume that someone had escaped the system and done something like that, but all the characters are just so passive in the end, even Ruth, that I have to wonder.

[Jessa]

Maree ♫ Light's Shadow ♪ wrote: "That's a great point, Mary, especially if you take a wider view of it. They all just seem to go along with whatever anyone tells them. They do what they're told and don't struggle against it, not..."

I was reading something Philippa said and they're passive but I wonder how many could wander off. It is said many times that Hailsham is different and treats its students like humans, or at least tries too, and other schools are nightmares. What if at other schools they aren't even taught and just raised as cattle? That would make more sense why no one ever stands up for themselves, there are few who have even been raised to have that capability. Just a thought

[Logophile]

I thought the complete absence of any resistance movement whatsover was implausible. Unless you accept the notion that the clones truly aren't entirely human, raging against injustice is what humans do, particularly at the age when they would have been at Hailsham. Acceptance of an unjust fate is one thing, but Ishiguro doesn't show us any of the process that would lead to acceptance; acceptance has to start with at least some sort of awareness of the situation that needs accepting. The characters were too oblivious to their situation for me to really buy in to the whole premise.

[Jessraines]

Logophile wrote: "I thought the complete absence of any resistance movement whatsover was implausible. Unless you accept the notion that the clones truly aren't entirely human, raging against injustice is what human..."

I think it's completely possible if you think about a society where you've grown up not to question anything you are told. (view spoiler)[This is possibly why they were so confused and fascinated by Miss Lucy. It's an interesting question of human nature. I think many countries take for granted the fact that many are taught from a young age to think for themselves- to some degree anyway. In the US we are taught that one person can make a difference and that questioning things you're told is important for development. The fact that they were clones simply gives us the out to ask if this is because they weren't human or if it was the environment they were brought up in. I think everyone is hoping and waiting for rebellion. Was this in their nature as apposed to ours? or were they simple not raised that way? For me it's the latter. (hide spoiler)]

Living abroad in a Post Soviet country I'm always a bit shocked by the passivity that people around me live their lives. I ask why certain things are the way they are and they say "It's life." I see it from an early age when students are simply regurgitating facts or regurgitating ideas of other people, they have never even heard of critical thinking and they wait expectantly for me to tell them the answer when I ask for their opinions or simply say "I don't know." While I think it's human nature to question and to understand, I think a lot of that can be squelched from you at a young age.

[Maree]

Jessraines wrote: "Living abroad in a Post Soviet country I'm always a bit shocked by the passivity that people around me live their lives. I ask why certain things are the way they are and they say "It's life." I see it from an early age when students are simply regurgitating facts or regurgitating ideas of other people, they have never even heard of critical thinking and they wait expectantly for me to tell them the answer when I ask for their opinions or simply say "I don't know." While I think it's human nature to question and to understand, I think a lot of that can be squelched from you at a young age."

I've seen the same thing, Jessraines, and I definitely agree. I don't know that people who live in much freer cultures quite understand this. When you've been raised your whole life to one purpose, it's very difficult to shrug off that one purpose. I mean, I wanted them to, but it just wasn't their nature.

[Chelley]

I really didn't care for the way the author bounced around when telling the story, always going back to explain something afterwards. Also it seemed like the author would start a story, sprout of something else then go back to the original thought once you had forgotten the poing.

[Marlene]

I don´t know if that was the intention of the author, but the writing style fit the characters perfectly. I found it somehow neutral and cold when emotions were concerned. That´exactly what my impression was for the characters as well. They felt these emotions, but... it´s hard to describe what I mean. Sometimes I had the feeling it was just on the surface. Like Tommy, when he came together with Kathy.
It´s like it didn´t really matter to him with which girl he was, as long as they wanted him to and somebody told him what to do. That doesn´t really sound like love.
But I have to agree with what somebody said before: It´s all because of how they were raised.

I liked the book, but I always waited for something like a revolution to happen. It´s just too sad that they just accept their fate. It would be interesting to see how human would handle a clone who refuses to donate! That would screw the whole system. Would they force him/her?

[Franky]

Chelley wrote: "I really didn't care for the way the author bounced around when telling the story, always going back to explain something afterwards. Also it seemed like the author would start a story, sprout of ..."

I'm about 2/3rd of the way through, and I feel the same way about Kathy's narration. She says things like "And something happened that would greatly affect us forever....But, this reminds me of a funny thing Tommy said today after talking with Madame that I've got to tell you about.." Gosh, it is driving me crazy.

I guess I'm getting used to it, though.

[Franky]

Almost finished with the book. I did go ahead and watch the film last night and thought it was pretty good, mainly because it seemed to fill in the gaps. I also thought the film captured the "human" side a little more. I think Carey Mulligan did a fine job as Kathy.

Just curious what the thoughts were on the book vs. the film amongst the group here. Did you like the book better? The film better? Thoughts?

[Maree]

I have to say that I was totally drawn in by the language and way of revealing stuff in the book - with the movie, I already knew what it was about, so it was difficult to make a new impression. I have to say though, I don't remember there being ID badges on the wrists or whatnot in the book - if the movie added it, I thought it was a nice touch.

The movie was good for expressing things, but it can't say everything in Kathy's mind. I think I liked the book better.

[Franky]

The third part of the book really sold me on the story. Everything made so much more sense. Among other things this novel seems to be about questioning the nature of humanness. Each of the three main characters reveal a level of humanness and yet, are considered "soulless."

Like others, I was initially put off by the chatty tone, but I think it is an intentional way to make what Kathy experiences more personal to the reader, as they see what she goes through as a carer. This world is gradually revealed to us.

I agree with the sentiment that the last paragraph was moving and powerful. It really was a perfect way to end the novel.