So, what to say about Kazuo Ishiguro's novel, "Never Let Me Go"? Well, first I'd like to say that this discussion is open to anything--questions, your own conversation starters, etc. You can provide comments in the form of your own posts or in comments on this posting.
I guess I'd like to start with your responses to Ishiguro's narrator, Kathy. How did you feel about her voice? What is Ishiguro trying to do with Kathy's voice and characterization, and what effects does he accomplish? Can you give us any examples of what you mean?
I'd also like to think through the body-mind expression of this novel. What place is there for bodies here, for the human body, its wants and needs, its expressions? What kind of a relationship does Kath have to her body and her friends' bodies, and how were these relationships formed? What about physical appearance? What do we know about the appearances of our main characters and of their physical surroundings? Why do you think Ishiguro chose to present things in this way?
OK, that's enough to start with; but I invite you to bring up any questions or thoughts you might have as well. I'd love to hear what you have to say about the issues I mentioned, but we can follow these threads of conversation and your own interests and see what comes up!
Stay safe, everyone. Although the university is technically open, some of the roads are pretty rough and so if you are off campus, exercise extreme caution in coming in!
Well, to start, I'd like to simply note the lack of detail in almost everything. There are no concrete setting(within the sphere of the larger world), no dates, no last names even.
ReplyDeleteAs far as setting goes, I'd say it's set in England(due to the presence of real English cities such as Norfolk, the dialogue/vocabulary, and the occasional reference to American culture)
... but as to why England, I have no idea.
What I find the most fascinating, however, is the absolute lack of a date. Of course, the standard measurements of time are still used(day, week, month, year, etc.), but unless I'm mistaken, I've missed any mention of a Tuesday, a September, a 1st, a 23rd, anything. It almost gives what I would consider a very tightly written novel a sense of ambiguity-- we never know how much time has passed, or how long a character spent at any one location.(Except for a few instances)
Finally, every character in the book is referred to as "Firstname (Letter)." In a sense, this seems to detract from the personality of the characters, as if they're simply names on a long register in which the individual has become completely unimportant.
Did anyone else find these couple things extremely interesting? (I remember waiting for the action to start, so to say, for details to come up, etc.)
It's as if the author is focusing quite directly on the interaction of characters for price of physical detailing.
P.S. I also find the lack of physical description to be haunting. It's as if there is something about each and every one of these characters that is being deliberately hidden from us by the author.
I agree that the book is focused on interactions. I've gotta say, I'm enjoying this book. Finding out more about the setting piece by piece makes me feel like I'm reading a mystery novel. Things like the selection of works of art and the outside world being off-limits are ominous enough to keep me reading.
ReplyDeleteHaving the students (not the adults, by the way, just the students) referred to by first name, last initial is something I hadn't thought of when it came to symbolism. I'm not sure about the dehumanization factor of this detail, but maybe I need to read into it more.
Overall, a more interesting novel than I thought it would be.
I completely agree with the last two posts about lack of description. I could tell from the beginning that the entire novel would leave out specifics about characters.
ReplyDeleteI did notice though that they described Chrissie's physical appearance at the Cottages. I wondered why she was really the only student (besides an occasional physical appearance of a guardian) that was described. Does anyone have an idea why?
I agree about the dehumanization of the characters by first name and last initial as well. I also found it interesting that Kathy never seemed to really question her place in life. She did not really say that it wasn't fair or that she wished she was just normal. I wonder if that was due to her upbringing at Hailsham and her lifetime perspective of "normal"?!
Both Kathy and Tommy did not really get angry with Miss Emily at the end. Tommy's character was really the only one to show real anger throughout the novel. Ruth and Kathy would occasionally question one another and spat, but Tommy was the main one who showed outward emotion. Do you think he was different from his peers due to his perspective?
Although I was a bit disappointed to not learn more about society as a whole during this time, I felt like Ishiguro did a great job of keeping me interested, while giving me very little information. I was always wondering what was going to happen next and when I would learn more about Kathy's future.
In terms of Kathy's voice, I think Ishiguro's point is to show what an ordinary woman she is, despite the fact that she's a clone raised to give up her organs, a member of a group that ordinary society views as sub-human when they remember it at all. Through Kathy, you see that she and the other children at Hailsham have all the same desires and personality flaws as humans everywhere. Tommy tries desperately to fit in, and gives way to childish temper tantrums when he can't. Kathy is jealous when Ruth dates the boy she has a crush on. Ruth dreams of working in an office when she grows up. So it comes as a shock when you find out first that they are clones, and second that most clones are treated inhumanely because they are assumed to be inhuman, without souls.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ironspud that Ishiguro's not giving his characters last names, and giving only minimal physical description, to be haunting. I think Ishiguro does this to capitalize on the clones' unimportance to society. By denying them last names, and not even giving readers enough description for them to be able to visualize the characters, Ishiguro inhibits the readers' ability to connect with the clones, just as the society in the novel purposely marginalizes and forgets about the clones in order to avoid painful moral questions.
The voice and the plot line in this novel remind me of Margaret Atwood's book The Handmaid's Tale. I was wondering if any of you have read this book, and agree or disagree with me? This book also features an alternate society on Earth, with a female narrator who is one of the outcasts of the society. In this book, a radical Christian regime has taken over America and renamed it Gilead. The narrator, Offred, is a Handmaid, whose job is to concieve a child for a Commander, one of the leaders of Gilead, since his wife is no longer fertile. Like Kathy H., Offred chronicles her experiences being indoctrinated into her future role, and then later her life as a Handmaid, though her experience are much more unpleasant than Kathy's. Atwood also shows the dehumanization and loss of identity of women in Gilead through names. Instead of her rail name, Offred is given the name of the Commander she works for, Fred--"Of fred".
Especially toward the end of the book I noticed that the distinction between mind and body and the argument that has prompted those in the arts to tackle for years was made apparent. I feel as though Ishiguro wanted us to decide for ourselves how we felt about the relationship between the two and through her writing. This book was clearly a "western" novel, and according to Descarte, the pioneer in western thinking on this matter, "I think therefore I am." It seemed as though Madame and Emily represented this train of thought yet the students automatically knew their place in the world as a being less than humans. They never tried to act out, leave the facilities, or somehow escape their fate which makes me think that their must have been something odd about their appearance or else how would any normal member of society have known the difference between the clones and their own kind. In the beginning of the novel Kathy mentioned a few times that she noticed differences between herself and the guardians but never went into full detail as to what it was. I felt the ambiguity of the novel made it so interesting because it left certain aspects of it for the reader to interpret on their own and take from it what they could.
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact the author chose to tell the story in first person, his narrator, Kathy, spoke in a very objective manner. The straightforward manner in which she connected each of the significant memories of her past and the fact that she even admits in places that she does not quite remember what she said or did leads me to believe in her honesty and objectivity even more. Interestingly enough, while Kathy reveals her past chronologically, she does so bit by bit leaving the reader with some figuring out to do.
ReplyDeleteIshiguro might have wrote the book this way because of the controversial subject matter the book deals with - cloning people and using their organs to cure non-cloned human beings of diseases, cancer, etc. By not revealing straight away what Kathy is, the reader does not come into the book with a preconceived bias or opinion on the subject. I think the way the Kathy narrates the story, in a straightforward honest manner, and how she allows the reader to gradually figure out who she is and her purpose reveals how the author wants us to maintain an objective viewpoint throughout the book. That way, by the end, when we ask ourselves if it is ethical or moral to use human clones specifically for their organs we do not allow preconceived notions to affect our answers, or at least we are able to maybe think through the matter in a way we have not considered before.
As far as the lack of physical description of the characters goes, I think the author is deliberately hiding these details. I think he does so to increase their merit as an individual. Once the reader discovers that the students of Hailsham are clones, it would dawn on the reader that there is a "possible" that looks exactly the same. Due to this, I think the author wants us to get to know the characters by how they act and what the say so we think of them as Ruth, Tommy, and Kathy and not as the clones of the woman with red hair, the man with brown eyes, or the 5' 3" woman with freckles.
First of all, I do not feel that the first name basis on which the characters are known has much, if anything to do with dehumanization or any kind of symbolism. Think about what they are in existence - clones.
ReplyDeleteThere is really no mention of them growing up in any kind of family (though there is brief mention that Kathy "faintly remembers the world outside Hailsham"). Would a clone necessarily have a last name - and who's would it be? I'm assuming it would not come from the "possibles."
For tertiary characters with a "letter" surname such as "Maura G.", the letter may just distinguish between another Maura at Hailsham whom the reader is not familiar with.
Okay, changing the subject - this is what I like/don't like about the book.
I do not really like the way the author tries to build our interest by being incredibly vague about everything. From the first sentence of the story, Kathy has you asking questions.."What is a carer/donor?" While this technique did indeed help to hold my interest, it turned out to be more of a let-down than anything. While it may be a case of hindsight bias, I felt as though I had seen it coming a mile down the road when it was revealed that the children were clones being raised in order to donate their organs. That may not be totally fair, but at the very least I had a strong inkling that the truth was going to be quite gruesome.
One other thing on the author's presentation, and maybe I am being a bit "daft" here, but I found it annoying that Kathy repeatedly seemed to say, "Hey! There's a really interesting part of my story that would be quite relevant right now, but I'm not going to tell you til' later!" This had a reverse dramatic irony effect - Kathy always seemed to be a step ahead of the reader, even though we were watching her younger self experience all of these things. Though I found it annoying, it probably kept the story fresh, and so I will leave it at that.
Now, what I thought most interesting about the story is how ignorant the children are to their true purpose. Towards the end of part one, it seems as though the children have few worries about their futures as organ donors. Even when Miss Lucy gave it to them so bluntly, they were hardly phased. Kathy mentioned that Hailsham had been softening the children up to the idea for years - she indicated that they vaguely knew what a "donor" was. I feel like Hailsham was a brain-washing facility more than anything - it's purpose being to gradually introduce the clone children to their own "special" destinies and have them accept it with few qualms.
The interactions in the story, as a couple of you have already indicated, are also quite interesting. The specific topic that seems to appear the most (or is most noticed) is the role of sex. Kathy spends a lot of time talking about it - its purpose, physiology, emotions and social repercussions, and even disease transmission.(am I missing anything?) I feel as though Ishiguro might be expressing some of his own opinions about promiscuity and sexual expression. Does anyone have any opinion or insight into this?
For me, the whole story seems very undulant. There are peaks of tense excitement that make the mind race (such as the one-on-one encounters with the guardians), and there are long troughs of personal accounts that seem to get rather bland (Much of part 2). Though I try to look for deeper meanings in the stories within the story, many of them just seem to drag.
Overall, I enjoyed the book and found the interactions and little conspiracies rather fascinating interesting most of the time.
These are wonderful responses, truly intriguing! I love John's characterization of the novel as "undulant," and all of your remarks about Ishiguro's techniques for building character (or not) and suspense (or not) are really right on. The distance from the characters' physicality seems to me to say something about their awareness of their ultimate plight, as confused as it may have been. What does it mean to know that one's body is, in so many ways, not one's own? And what is the purpose or function of health, love, sex, art, under those circumstances? Alyse brought up the arts--I'd definitely like to talk more on Thursday about what this text has to say about the purpose of art. OK, back to inauguration viewing--keep it coming!
ReplyDeleteIshiguro does not let us know from the beginning what the characters are; instead he provides clues throughout the novel that something is different about the characters. Ishiguro makes a point of not emphasizing their actual bodies but he does emphasize the characters' abilities to express themselves with their bodies. They are artists, athletes, dancers and sexual beings. But he does no more than give us their names when it comes to aesthetic characteristics. The only physical descriptions of the characters comes when Kathy mentions Tommy had gained weight and when Kathy had a new hairstyle Ruth liked. The lack of physical description is one of the main clues in the novel that the characters are not viewed as typical human beings. After he reveals that the characters are clones created to donate organs, we look back and recognize that their actual bodies are not important, outside of the donation, because what they look like is not who they are. What they look like shows only that they are a copy of another being. It is only by describing what they are internally that we see who they actually are and that we see their unique human nature.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of time that Kathy was a carer seemed very important to her character. Kathy tells how some who were carers always seem tired, and almost dead themselves, and others mention how they were unable to continue being carers because it was too difficult. But for some reason, Kathy is able to remain a carer for almost 12 years. I felt this showed Kathy as an incredibly empathetic, caring individual. It also showed her as one who recognized that it is best to help clones before they die, rather than focusing on the fact that she will suffer the same fate. I felt that Kathy was one of the few who could prevent herself from fantasizing about what her life should have been and tried to accept what was.
The time spent at Hailsham also served as a defining factor in the characters', who went their, personalities. They were able to identify themselves as Hailsham students and unite around that fact. Their school was all they knew of the world and it served as the mold for their personalities. The school was also very important because it was a superior clone school where the students were actually treated as normal, talented children. It was the only place where these characters lived that they were able to be normal and experience a modicum of comfort and happiness. While the school was good in that it allowed them to live semi-normal lives for a time, it built them up and allowed for a greater moral dilemma in the end, when they were faced with donation and completion.
I really liked the novel but always found myself wondering why the students did not just run away and start a new life. Maybe someone has some good ideas?!
Going along with most of the other posts, the first thing I did notice in the novel was the lack of description. You're immediately thrown in with all these questions (or at least I was a little confused). The lack of knowledge keeps you interested because the more you read, the more you actually find out through clues and stories. Kathy doesn't every just come out to give a straight answer.
ReplyDeleteAlso, another thing I noticed with the lack of description, there also seemed to be a lack of emotion. She talks about emotion but her writing seems to be void of it. Also, when she tells stories of her childhood at Hailsham, the other children and guardians did not seem to have strong emotion towards anything.
I did enjoy the novel because I did find the plot interesting; however, I do agree with John in saying that I don't like the vagueness of the entire poem. I, myself, was wondering was is carer? and what are they donating? Like I said before, these questions are eventually unfolded but until then you are left wondering.
Also, to answer Marissa questions about why they didn't just run away and start a new life... I don't think they really thought about it because it was normal to them. It was just their way of "life." I think by the time they realized that this might not be what they wanted it was too late. They were all just going along with what was "normal."
Overall, I did enjoy the book because it was interesting and very unique.
In response to Marissa's question, I feel that they did not run away because they were unsure of the uncertain, and they did not push themselves to go past the unknown. Hailsham was a life that they knew and were comfortable with, so when an opportunity came to escape, it was more frightening than freeing. Another example of this would be when Miss Lucy told them more about their purpose as donors. None of them pressed Miss Lucy for more details. The narrator, Kathy, tries to explain this by saying that they all already knew the information, but were not mentally mature enough to fully understand what it meant for their futures or lack of a future. I do not agree. I feel that they did not press for more details because they were afraid of what Miss Lucy would say.
ReplyDeleteIshiguro's narrator, Kathy, has an objective manner. She is very straightforward and unbiased throughout the novel. I feel that Ishiguro is trying to use Kathy's voice and characterization to help the reader become unbiased toward the issue of cloning and ethical considerations, which is needed near the end of the novel.
As far as lack of physical descriptions, I feel that this was Ishiguro's way of presenting them as clones. It may be a little haunting in a sense, but in reality clones do not have distinguished characteristics. They are meant to be one of many that are used for a similar purpose.
Overall, I did enjoy the novel. To begin, the reading was rather slow. I figure this was because the reading was so vague in the beginning. I did like how Ishiguro presented the novel in three sections. In my opinion, this did add to the vagueness of the novel, but it was nice to be fed bits and pieces of information as the book became more in depth. It helped me achieve a sense of suspense throughout the reading.
Ishiguro left me very frustrated with the outcome of this book. So often today in literature, television, and movies, we get the “happy ending” that we have been anticipating. If we had gotten the happy ending in “Never Let Me go,” however, then I think we would’ve been cheated out of finding some deeper meanings in this book. I just sat in bed and thought about the book for a few minutes after reading it to try and find some explanations, parallels, and social commentary.
ReplyDeleteThe first and most obvious of course, is the role of science and necessity. We know that this “program” of raising clones started after WWII in the 50s, perhaps to help out war veterans. Ishiguro seems to communicate that society in the book is in favor of medical advances, but only to a certain point (the Morningdale scandal stirs up lots of controversy). To us, raising humans just to take their organs would be universally rejected. In this society, however, it seems to be more or less accepted. A parallel could be drawn in society today with something like abortion – it is hotly debated now, but at some point in time it may too become universally accepted or rejected, much like slavery. Necessity is what ultimately marginalizes the clones – people need organs, and they just don’t want to think about where the organs come from.
I next want to talk about the role of sex and the human body. Kathy’s strong urge to have sex is Ishiguro’s way of showing that she, and the other clones, all have fundamental human instincts. The guardians at Hailsham educate the students only in the arts and literature to try and show creative thought. The students can create these works, but there is still a disconnect between clones and humans. The clones don’t have the same emotions or free will that regular humans have. None of them ever fight back or refuse to be killed. Carers spend all their time driving across the country alone, yet none ever try to escape. The students do have such emotions as embarrassment, happiness, and jealousy, but they are missing perhaps the most important emotion. For how depressing their life is, they never really show sadness.
I want to close my post with a question – how do you think that the clones are treated by humans once they get out into the “real” world, like when Kathy, Tommy, and Ruth are at the Cottages? We never hear much about interaction with regular humans other than the guardians and the caretaker at the Cottages. What do you think?
Continuing with Charlotte’s statement about being confused, I was as well, but could that possibly be what Ishiguro wanted us to take out of his novel? Did he intend to string us along in order to keep us reading? Little bits of information are released little by little, such as Miss Lucy telling the students that, “You’re …special. So keeping yourselves…very healthy inside…” reveals that they are not at Hailsham because they are academically gifted. It says that they are Hailsham for some greater purpose.
ReplyDeleteI too noticed the lack of personalization that with the novel was written. The first names without a last name, no physical characteristics of the characters, and the minimal description of the guardians past. It did not really click for me until the end when it was flat out stated that the characters were clones. This most likely was the point of lack of description. However, it was odd that an author, who would choose not to give too much time to description to his characters or their surroundings, would choose to have a character detail her life through first person. This contrast showed that even though the “students” were not written about in great detail, Ishiguro still wanted to have some connection to someone, may it be his characters or his audience.
Kathy seemed to be very indifferent to her surroundings. The only time she showed strong emotion was when she prominently decided that she wanted to leave the Cottages and become a carer. Although she had close ties to both Tommy and Ruth as a child, she never truly vied to be either of their carers, until later in her life when she and Tommy believed that they could get a deferral from Madame. Otherwise, throughout the book she is very straightforward and focused on reminiscing and telling her story.
Never Let Me Go was interesting, yet I do not think it would be a book I would normally notice my own. I enjoyed the idea behind the book, and thought it was written creatively, while I was a little annoyed at being left in the dark for a good portion of the book.
Going on what Caldwell said about the ending of the novel, i think that the ending perfectly encapsulates the feeling that Kathy herself has at the work's conclusion, a sort-of emptiness, devoid of purpose and hope. This ending or lack thereof exemplifies the narrative style of the novel. The text offers only what Kathy experiences and understands. The novel's inability to explain anything is reflective of Kathy's own inevitable death at the hands of the system she is caught in. The only insights offered are through Kathy's realizations about Hailsham through such instances as her final encounter with Madame and Miss Emily. This narration helps immerse the reader in Kathy's experience, and leaves much to the imagination and self-determination.
ReplyDeleteOthers have also mentioned the lack of dates. This ambiguity in chronology as well as setting offers Ishiguro a chance to explore the way his characters feel and express themselves, as well as their interactions with one another. It also offers an opportunity for the lessons and realizations of the story to be applied to any other situation in human existence. With recent advances in biochemistry and other fields, this apparent fiction certainly has real-world implications.
I think that the bodies of the clones and sexual interaction are central to the themes of the novel. Their inability to reproduce reduces sex to a pleasurable action which Kathy feels overwhelming urges to participate in. This appears to be a comment by the author on the vapid nature of modern sexual relations.
Overall, I really enjoyed this novel, and thought it was concise, well-written, and thoughtful. The lack of detail was frustrating at points, but it ended up being essential to the gradually unfolding plot line.
I very much agree with Vanessa's assessment of the characters' personalities as humanizing elements of beings regarded as inhuman, and Hope's comments regarding Ishiguro's intentional abstainment from physical descriptions given their inherent unimportance in the novel's context.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to address Ms. Nicholas' comments regarding the importance of fundamentally human activity (i.e health, love, sex, art) amongst "people" regarded as inhuman. First, not only are the clones' bodies not their own, their minds belong to another as well, but in a different way. Ruth makes this clear during her tirade on page 166 about being more likely to find her "possible" in a trash heap or mental institution than an office building. Despite being raised under identical conditions, being imbued with matching perceptions of the world, Ruth, Tommy and Kathy contend with different destructive personality issues that likely landed their models in the unfortunate circumstances that led to their cloning. Given their similar upbringing, Tommy's anger issues, Kathy's atypical need for sex, and Ruth's constant yearning for peer approval are likely attributable to their models' genetics, a constant reminder that even their minds are not their own.
Therein, in my opinion, lies the importance of the aforementioned human activity...to create something that is their own. Perhaps their models smoked, drank and withered away into chronic unhealth. Personal health is somewhat dependent on choices and can be considered one symbol of differentiation, an area for a clone to become separated from its model (and everyone else). The same can be said about love, it's an emotion, a feeling that can't be shared (in an exact sense, anyways) by anyone but those two people..."in love" is a uniformly acknowledged state of being, but with infinite irreplicable instances. Even the clones, with what limited worldly perspective they had, could tell that being in love may be proof enough of individuality and humanity to warrant some extra time. Sex fits this model as well. How it's viewed morally and who/how many partners one chooses is somewhat predicated on upbringing and genetics (Kath's case) but largely an individual decision.
Finally, and most importantly, is the absolute uniquity of artistic license and creation. It's the "trump card" against those who deny the humanity and individuality of the Hailsham students, and, as Miss Emily explains, its for that reason that she and Marie-Claude chose to poach the students' art in an effort to gain footing in the battle for humane clone treatment.
This book exudes mortality and fatalism. Perhaps most depressing is a statement made by Miss Emily, the most advocate supporter of her students' rights, on page 272 addressing Kath and Tommy as "you poor creatures." Despite seeing all their art, witnessing firsthand the elements that they so desperately wanted to provide as proof of individuality, she can't view them as human.
P.S. With regards to the use of a single letter for last names, here's my take: Obviously they have no family, no lineage, no need for last names. The author also uses the initials inconsistently, only for some people. I wondered if they didn't use them as delegating signs for multiple iterations of a single model (Tommy "D" being the 4th such clone of the original model Tommy). Just a thought...
Although it was clear at the end of the novel that the characters were indeed clones throughout the course of the book I was not able to decipher what exactly it was that made the "students" different. Kathy often recognized herself as being different from the Guardians but the fact that there were never specific details made me assume that they were just students at a boarding schools. I figured they could have been orphans and therefore were not aware of their last names. The entire first half of the novel the setting, the interactions, and the relationships made it seem as though they were in fact regular students. It is clear that their bodies were replicas of others but whether their minds and souls were is a completely different argue. Ishiguro made it a point to talk about specific artwork that the students did and what they believed was good art. That is something they would have had to have developed for themselves. Although the many cases made previously about the dehumanization of the clones are very accurate it could be argued that she wanted us to make our own decision about how we felt about cloning and whether or not they actually deserved being treated as humans or clones. At the end of the book I think she wanted us to analyze BOTH senses of what a clone is and how they fit in with the technological boom of our era.
ReplyDeleteHaving grown up in a boarding school for almost a decade, I had to keep reassuring myself that I was not a clone after reading this book. That’s how eerily familiar to real-life it is. The concept of human clones and the future world (though no proper dates are mentioned) closely resemble books such as “1984” and “A Brave New World”.
ReplyDeleteThe narration is strictly mild and soft, which remains unchanged throughout the book. It fits in excellently well with the characters, while it surprises the readers. For example, it was surprising that the characters already knew about their purpose of donating organs at a very young age and show extreme calmness at their guardian’s outburst as if they didn’t know any better (and they didn’t).
The author hardly describes any physical appearance of the characters, depicting that, to the outside “human” world these appearances do not matter as the clones are simply a scientific tool to them. It goes along with the lack of the clone’s humanistic traits, such as having no proper last names, and their inability to produce babies. But from a non-scientific point of view, the author does a very good job at providing important humanistic characteristics (Tommy’s anger, the children’s imaginary horses, sexual curiosity, concept of love, enjoying music and television shows). Hailsham itself is portrayed much like a realistic boarding school, where the children are “special”, have classes, and play sports. Until the cloning is revealed, it is difficult to distinguish that the story is nothing more than just capturing old moments from a past life. Though, the author does drop in some excellent hints. The medical checks were much too frequent, and the attitude towards smoking although seemed morally right, crossed limits when the narrator mentions how even Sherlock Holmes books were banned from the library.
All said, I thought it was a good read, and excellent piece of scientific fiction. Though, I was a bit disappointed towards the end of the book. Especially the scenes with the Madame, and Miss Emily seemed unneeded, as the novel had already illustrated the horrors of cloning very well.
When thinking of the voice of Kathy throughout the novel I found her somewhat inhuman--which I suppose follows in the idea of the plot. The distance in her story was very evident, due in large part to the omission of details, names, descriptions, and so on. And while she even goes into detail to describe her feelings I couldn't help but feel removed from Kath the person throughout the whole story.
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning, Never Let Me Go reminded me of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World: the characters lived by standards and practices uncommon to the rest of humanity, a different opinion and attitude towards the body is observed, and an idea of the power of technology and the possibilities of a controlled world are evident. I found this connection at first around the ideas (which were originally vague and not explained) of donations and carers, as well as through the outlet of sex. This connection comes full circle, though, with Miss Emily's revelation about the role these clones which are supposedly de-sensitized and in-humanized have in the "real world."
In regard to Ishiguro's choice of narrator, after reading the entire novel I thought the story might have been more powerful through the eyes of one of the guardians, specifically Miss Lucy. There would be an extra dimension caused by a human from the real world living in the sphere of these naive clone children. Additionally, the evident moral conflict and internal struggles the guardians must have adapted to due to their job position would intensify both the reader's overall knowledge and the story's overarching theme of body-mind expression and what it means to be human. After Miss Emily revealed Hailsham's role in this growing scandal I found this plot aspect to be just as, if not more, interesting than the evolution of Kathy and her friends.
I found it interesting that the guardians used art not just to reveal the human soul but to prove that these students HAVE a soul. I suppose we all create art in our own ways, but I would have never think of creating to reveal my own humanity. It's an interesting thought and makes me wonder how I would stand up under these same standards.
I also came to wonder about the lives, personalities, and souls of the donors living in other places. The veterans of the Cottages were from locations other that Hailsham and didn't necessarily seem to lack a soul or have distinctly different characteristics than those that were from Hailsham. However, the adverse conditions that Madame and Miss Emily spoke of made me wonder if there were any real differences between these characters.
Overall I did enjoy this book. I also felt like I expected a more optimistic ending. While I never really thought that Tommy's "Gallery Theory" had any claim, I expected Kath and Tommy to break free of the cycle they were born into and live a real life. However, I also don't find it surprising that the two never just escaped due to the obvious brainwashing about what their lives were to become that they had been subjected to literally their entire lives.
Again, your points are extremely provocative--I really look forward to getting this all out in class on Thursday. Yes, that gallery theory--how childish! I'm continually moved by the way Ishiguro is able to speak from the stunted nature of these characters--
ReplyDeleteI can't decide if I liked Ishiguro's method of letting information trickle in. It gave the whole novel an air of expectation, and I was always wondering if the next revelation would have some huge effect on the plot of the novel. He seemed to make very simple and seemingly unimportant plot point take a lot of focus, while revealing the important ones in an offhand and casual manner. The children's always somehow knowing that they were organ donors, even if not consciously, added to this feel. If they would find out something major it just seemed like they always knew, so they were never surprised or showed a great deal of reaction.
ReplyDeleteOverall the book held my interest relatively well. I didn't exactly enjoy it because of the slightly odd way he wrote, but it was not bad.
I thought the way the children were rather emotionless was strange. Tommy was the only one who had temper tantrums, when this is an accepted practice of young children. They should not have been able to control their emotions so well. They saw the world through seemingly mature eyes, so this makes me wonder if this is because they never had a chance at a proper childhood and were never treated completely like children, or if cloning changed some fundamental nature of their being. Also, the way they seem to just accept their fate is eerie and seems to go against rationality. None of them ever seem to have a proper emotional reaction to anything except Tommy. The closest Kathy gets is her feverish flipping through the porn magazines to see if she can explain her reaction to sex sometimes. She obviously feels a lot of confusion and worry over this, but it is barely expressed.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to comment again because I agree with what Eileen is saying. I just don't fully understand how the clones around the world could not attempt to fight for their lives. How could they not see life as a right? I know they were brought up at Hailsham and taught their entire childhood that something else was "normal", but I still feel like it is human instinct to survive. I just don't completely buy that they would just blindly go along with their fate. If they knew they were going to potentially die after their donations anyway, then why would they not attempt to fight for their lives? Even the sickest people fight till their last breath to stay alive.
ReplyDeleteLike Megan, I also found the entire concept of the gallery incredibly interesting in this novel. Although I can see how art can be used to show identity or soul through the uniqueness of each students' creations, it seems strange to me that it was the only way the students were able to demonstrate the presence of a soul to the outside world. I get that it was easy for the guardians to use in their political rallies (who could possibly look at the young students' art and still deny their humanity?). However, I wonder if anyone in our class would immediately point to his or her past artwork if asked to justify his or her soul. The ways in which I would personally go about "proving" my soul would have nothing to do with any physical, traditional art I have ever created; my first instinct would be to describe the way I live my life, how I interact with others, what I believe in. I may simply be biased though - I was always horrible at art growing up. If someone were to apply the standard for "evidence" used by Hailsham, I wouldn't have much.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo basically after reading all of those comments I was really pretty shocked that no one mentioned the film "The Island" which was released the same year this book was published. And while the Island contained a completely different plot, a lot more action, and Scarlett Johansson---the basic concept of a society producing clones for organ donations is a common thread between the two. I found myself thinking this before the end of the first section of the book as I began to realize what the purpose of the children was---but it wasn't until I saw that the two were released/published in the same year that I found it to be pretty bizarre. Oh 2005, what a great year for sci-fi clone organ donor stories!
ReplyDeleteAlso, I found it very interesting that as a male author he chose to write the novel from the first-person perspective of a female. And even though completely personal emotional issues were not exactly the focal point of the book by any means, I felt that this was a very bold choice. And the fact that many of you have regarded the author as a "she" shows that apparently he was pretty convincing in his portrayal.
Ishiguru's method of letting information "trickle in" as Eileen said was extremely extremely important to the novel and was probably the most impressive aspect of the novel to me personally. From the very first sentence which mentions a "carer," the reader is left in the dark on some aspect of the story. I feel like by the time Mrs Lucy makes her exclamation, the reader has been given enough small bits of information to have pieced something of the situation together to the point where the information doesn't come as a shock. This same feeling is what Kathy described in the reaction of her and her fellow students---it was as if they knew already without explicitly being told. I felt like much of the writing in the book was intended to provide an experience similar to that of Kathy and the other students in discovering their actual purpose.
This, as a few have said, basically produces the feeling of reading a mystery novel. And utilizing that sortof "edge of your seat" technique I felt was very useful in keeping the reader's attention throughout the entire novel.
Overall, as Henry put it---the book was concise in its style. Though I felt that its atmosphere and conveyance of emotional experiences (despite the lack of explicit emotion besides Tommy's outburtst) was not lessened due to Ishiguru's lack of detail from Kathy's perspective.
And seeing as how this detail was very very minimal if present at all, I think that it is extremely impressive and says something for Ishiguru's writing.
Going into this book not expecting at all what it turned out to be, I came out of it completely satisfied and definitely considered it to be an extremely interesting read that easily held my attention throughout its entirety.
Just as a really quick question, did anyone notice the repetition of the argument between Kathy and Ruth about remembering the Rhubarb patch? Almost the exact same thing surfaces on pages 190 and 202. Most prominently, Ruth's response, "What does it matter anyway? What does the rhubarb patch got to do with anything? Just get on with what you were saying.", experiences no change at all.
ReplyDeleteThis strikes me as both puzzling and interesting. Surely Ishiguro wouldn't repeat the exact same argument with nearly identical responses unless he had a point. So I suppose what I'm asking is... why does he do it more than ten pages apart, and what does this tell us about the characters he's trying to present?
To me, at least, it struck me as a strange reinforcement of the characters as being not quite human, as they respond in almost identically mechanical ways when asked the same question. For that matter, even the description of the surrounding back story is relatively similar with certain words reappearing and phrases being reused.(Some of them are altered a little bit, but not by much)
Also, my apologies if this seems scattered. I just woke up after mulling this over via some serious sleeping and felt like posting about it.
Alexander, thanks for reminding me about that film!--I haven't seen it, but will look into it. It's fascinating the way these themes seem to bubble up at certain cultural moments. Eileen's note about the emotionlessness of the students is an interesting one; are the donors taught not to feel, or at least not to express emotion, to save the normal folk from the pain and atrocity of what they are doing? And what does that mean about the Hailsham project? Is it even the right thing to do to teach donors to love, to feel, to express, to be human?
ReplyDeleteAs for repetition in this text--yes. There are many instances of repetition, from the example mentioned above to the repetition of particular words--"daft" and "supposed to" and so on. What Ishiguro (who is a hyperconscious wordsmith) is doing by choosing to work within such a limited linguistic palette and running back through these motifs would be a terrific subject of conversation tomorrow.
Throughout reading this novel, two quotes continued to pop into my head. The first from John Stuart Mill "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied," and the second, "ignorance is bliss." According to Mill, what separated humans, pigs, and Socrates was each of their abilities to enjoy higher pleasures, such as music, literature, and art. So, my point is were the "students" better off being introduced to these higher pleasures if with these higher pleasures came some dissatisfaction.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the second quote, if Kathy and Tommy had not found out the truth from Miss Emily would they have been more happy than when they discovered the truth.
It has been mentioned several times in other posts, but I also asked myself the question of why they just did not run away and I agree with S. Garrell in that the "students" were afraid of the unknown and about where would they go. Kathy and Tommy were even confused and afraid about where they were to go if they were to get a deferral.
I found a parallel between the reactions of the people to clones and the reactions of people to slaves. In "Never Let Me Go," Miss Emily comments on how many clone houses compared to Hailsham were in "deplorable conditions" and to rationalize this treat of the clones, the administrators said the clones were not human. This same technique of saying slaves were not human was used to rationalize the treatment of slaves during the slave periods in America.
I found this novel depressing in the fact that human nature is almost completely reversed for Kathy and the other clones. Throughout the whole novel, the clone characters seem to have a fair amount of freedom considering their purpose. At the cottages, they were allowed to leave and visit towns, and when they become carers, they drive across the countryside to different hospital locations. However, never at any point does Kathy try to escape her fate. At the core of the human brain is the need for survival at any cost, and the fact that Kathy is so accepting of her fate is not only sad, but on some level disturbing. It scares me to think of people being able to create a system of raising children in which they are accepting of their impending demise. A system where the regulations of society overrule the humanity of an individual. Even when Kathy and Tommy are trying to get a deferral because they are in love, they will not work outside the laws, and running away together is never discussed as an option. This gives death an ominous persistence throughout the second half of the novel, and while I was waiting for Kathy or Tommy to strike out against the system, their complacency and inability to act left me unsettled.
ReplyDeleteThe method of story telling utilized in "Never Let Me Go" was extremely interesting to me. I enjoyed Ishiguro's tactic of gradually creating an imperfect, dark world by disclosing little facts throughout the story. He leaves a lot of room for interpretation, often glancing on certain subjects and letting the reader further create the world in their imagination. A great example of this is the comments made by Miss Lucy to the students. Tommy and Kath talk about how they were too young to often understand the things Miss Lucy and other guardians stated at the time, but the reader is presumably old enough to have some understanding of these statements and consequently, can create their own interpretation. To me, this is a very effective strategy because it sort of creates a novel that is very different for each individual reader.
ReplyDeleteI also think Kath's narrating is a very effective way of enhancing the aforementioned effect. Kath, especially in part one, is in the process of slowly piecing together and reflecting for the first time on her experience at Hailsham. In that sense, there is a shared experience with what the reader is going through of trying to put together all the little clues and figure out what exactly happened. This allows for Ishiguro to effectively use his technique of gradually creating the world that the characters live in to keep the reader for lack of a better term, "on edge."
In terms of the role and interpretation of the human body in the novel, I thought Ishiguro might have been aiming at conveying a very powerful critique. I felt that Ishiguro in some ways was creating a critique of modern sexuality. This was evidenced in several ways:
First of all, from their birth to their death, the students at Hailsham are never in possession of their bodies. They are resigned to the fact that they will donate their organs until "completion." They are guided by what the guardians and society tells them. In that sense, it can be compared favorable to media outlets telling teens and other what their bodies should look like. In that sense, the modern teen is almost never fully in possession of their body but are often forced to compete with the dictates of society.
This point is further developed by the lack of individuality in the world Ishiguro creates. No character has a last name (only a last initial) and many times Kath simply mentions names once or twice and rarely goes into further detail. Even the main characters of Kath, Ruth, and Tommy are fairly non-descript. Hailsham appears as a fairly uniform society in this sense.
Finally, this critique is further emphasized by the treatment of sex. From an early age, the students at Hailsham are told about it and it is the "hot" topic to talk about. Upon leaving school and moving to the Cottages, sex is completely casual and often sort of meaningless. Kath's casual encounters since her arrival at the Cottages are never really talked about and ultimately have no result. Relationships have a very fake aspect to them since many of the students are simply mimicking things they see on TV. To me, it further drove home the point that Ishiguro might have been creating this strong social critique.
Reading this comments, especially Hope's and Timothy's, caused me to wonder about the state of the world receiving these donations--something which I hadn't really considered before. Is the state of human health deteriorating to the point where this is necessary? Is this more a case of neglect where the people just use science the the "donors" as an excuse for bad behavior? Or is the world in such a state where life is virtually impossible to maintain? This makes me wonder if Ishiguro is subtly hinting that humankind is slowly making a future like this not just a possibility but a necessity. Is he criticizing our society in writing this novel?
ReplyDeleteAll of these posts have expressed deep thought into the novel and they have provoked a lot of thoughts on my part.
ReplyDeleteFirst, my opinion on the lack of detail is a reflection of the lack of detail and understanding that the students at Hailsham have. The story is told by a Hailsham student who even by the end of the book didn't quite undersatand everything and it left the reader with a since of uncertainty as well. Throughtout the book details are left out or mentioned for a later time. I think this added to the mystery of the book and it kept me reading on to figure out the details and solve the mystery.
I thought an interesting point mentioned in an earlier post was the idea that "normal" people knew the Hailsham students were different and they treated them differently. This could perhaps be a literary element of prejudice. The "normal" people didn't like the clones because they were different and they treated them inhumanely. This sounds like a lot of other accounts in history where people who were different got treated unfairly as well.
The idea of names and last names was also discussed. I was just curious about who gives the students the names in the first place since they don't have families. Is it the guardians? the scientists who cloned them?
People have said that the students didn't run away because they were afraid of uncertainty, and I agree with that to a degree. But I also think that they didn't run away or seek too much information becuase they enjoyed not knowing. They could imagine what was happening and have theories to entertain themselves and discuss, like the gallery theory. This allowed for them to hope and dream even with their unfortunate futures.
The discussion about sex and Kathy's urges bring up an interesting idea. I think part of the reason that Kathy had urges and wanted sex is because she didnt really have much holding her back besides the Guardians frowning upon it. In our society sex holds the threat of disease, unwanted pregnancy, embarrasment, and sin. Kathy didn't really have these problems to deal with or restrain her so that could by way her urges were so strong.
I thought that Alyse brought up something interesting about the clones having the same body as a "possible" but having different souls. This suggests that even though they were clones of others, they still did not act or feel the same way and the art they created showed this.
Another thing in the novel that I really liked was the analogy to the clown holding the ballons. The idea that all the students were held together by Hailsham and then they went of on their own ways still connected was cool. This also shows how bad it was for Hailsham to close down and for the students to somewhat lose that connection.
I think that Megan brings up some good questions that I hadn't necessarily thought about. I guess I only viewed this novel as a critique of the dehumanizing effect of scientific development in the field of human cloning/stem cell research. Megan brought up the prospective of the world having evolved to a point where these "donors" were necessary.
ReplyDeleteAs for the author's treatment of the human body, the whole novel is set in a world where society treats the bodies of these "donors" as possessions to used for other people. Furthermore, the novel lacks physical descriptions of individuals which creates a loss of individuality.
For me, the most interesting aspect of this novel is the way in which the author slowly reveals the details of the setting. We (the readers) are often left with the same confusion and uncertainty that the characters themselves feel in the novel.
Starting this post I am going to say that I am a little peeved. I hit the preview button and my post just got up and disappeared before I had a chance to post it, so yeah...
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I could think of as I began to read this book was Lois Lowry's THE GIVER. The little Utopia of Hailsham was very simple and very enclosed, yet like the village in The Giver, it seemed to be surrounded by mystery and a more complex and ominous reality. Of course, just like in THE GIVER, Ishiguro eventually reveals that more complex and ominous reality as the reality that we seemingly occupy. The second I read about the "donations" and "carers" I got the Utopian, THE GIVER-esque feel. As I read further I was reminded of two (or three, however you want to view it) things; the really crappy Jerry Brukheimer movie "The Island", and Phillip K. Dick's DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP (as well as the Ridley Scott movie "Blade Runner). These are both works that comment on the idea of cloning, and the idea of what is a human, and all of the philosophical mumbo-jumbo. The primary difference, as far as I can tell, is that Ishiguro's piece serves less as a commentary of the dangers of man playing God, and more as a commentary on how people interact with each other.
To begin with, the very first thing that struck me by this novel was the tormenting of Tommy. The students of Hailsham would do everything the could to make the boy suffer, but why? It was due to the fact that Tommy didn't excel artistically, coupled with the fact that he had an awful temper. That being said, Ishisguro makes a point to illustrate the fact that Tommy's athletic prowess far surpassed that of his peers. This, of course, is perplexing due to our society's general reversal of modes of acceptance. Most people could care less if you are artistically inclined, to a certain degree of course, but if you are athletic enough you will generally be accepted without hesitation, especially at the age all of the events surrounding Tommy occurred. This reversal of social norms could be a direct cause of the students not having the ability to procreate. Sociological studies show again and again that larger, stronger men are generally more desirable due to the security of such strength has offered to the posterity of mankind since its creation.
It is important, when discussing the issue of how people viewed Tommy to also look at the way the other students were described. None of them were. Tommy had the most physical description, when Ishiguro stated that he was large and strong, but this was to serve the point that I enumerated in the previous paragraph. No one else was afforded a description. Without the drive to procreate, since they could not, their peers' appearances did not matter slightly. Why do we judge people on their appearance in this society? It once again can be brought back to the desire and need to procreate. Their is a lot to be said about all the different interactions that can be had and how physical appearance plays into it, but on a sum of the whole the only thing that really needs to be considered is that the first part of life is a rat race to find the individual (or individuals) with the best genes to pass down to our children and their children, etc... For example, I am 5'9", not tall by any standards, in fact I am right at average for Americans, but it is in my children's best genetic interest that their mother be a woman who has height in her genes, so that they might have an easier time procreating, and so on and so forth. Anyway, I digress, the point is, when Ishiguro decides to leave out the physical description of his characters he enables the readers, who are "plagued" with the sole existence to procreate, to see the characters as the characters see them. The whole sexuality issue is very reminiscent of Orwell's 1984.
Another issue is the fact that the character's dont have last names, but merely initials. Of course, on an external level this can be contributed to the fact that it might be the easiest way to keep track of the clones, while still giving them a proper upbringing. There is something more, though, to this, another social commentary. The lack of last names, is similar to the universal lack of possessions. Names often have with them attached power, taboo, and even kinship, which are all mechanism we use in our society to judge someone before we are able to get to know them. The amount of possessions one has is also a means for judgment. Since these elements (appearance, family ties through names, and wealth or lack thereof) are all absent from this society, these clones grow up in a perfect environment for human interaction. They are able to form opinions of their peers through their performances and their personality. This is the most pure form of getting to know someone, because the social obstacles are simply not present.
Ishiguro is making a clear statement with this novel on the social interactions of men and women in today's society. The question really is, though, should be concerned that we are programed to judge based off of such seemingly superficial criteria? I personally thing, that no matter how you slice it, it is important that we judge the way that we do. It is our instinct and it has keep us alive and thriving for this long. If it ain't broke, ain't no reason to fix it.
While I did find the lack of description interesting, I found the Hailsham students’ reactions and feelings even more intriguing.
ReplyDeleteMany of you have brought up the question “why didn’t any of the clones ever try to run away?” I think the most basic explanation has already been stated—the students wouldn’t know where to go. They have grown up in a sheltered environment, and have not been taught how to acquire money, a job, or somewhere to live. But I don’t feel like that lack of knowledge would stop absolutely every student from trying to escape their fate.
I think that maybe, the human instinct for survival (which many of you have brought up) can be influenced by “nurture”, in addition to “nature”. These student clones have been raised to obey their guardians. They trust that the guardians know what is right for them. They spend their entire lives waiting for someone else to tell them the next step in their lives. So when they hear from their guardians that they are on the earth to donate their organs, they probably don’t even think that there are any other options. They talk about how “interesting” it would be to be a movie star or work in an office, but in their heads, they know it’s not possible, so they don’t even try. I guess it could be compared to us dreaming of working on the moon. Someday it might be possible, but now, it’s hard for us (or at least me) to imagine.
I also wonder if the donations give the clones a sense of purpose. Being secluded from the world most of their lives, they might feel a little useless. But knowing that they’re helping the outside world could give them a reason for existence. Again, caring and donating is what they know. For them, as horrifying as it seems to us, being a carer or a donor is just their job, or their place in the world. I think the clones’ viewpoint can be semi-compared to caste systems. You were born into a certain caste, you could not move castes, and once you were old enough, you took on the career that your caste dictated. People did not often try to defy the castes, because they knew it would be almost impossible.
Another point I would like to bring up is the importance of the clones’ art. This probably stuck out to me more than other aspects of the story since I personally enjoy drawing, painting, etc. Again, since the Hailsham students were so sheltered and influenced by that sheltered environment, I wonder if their art could even really be called “their art”. Kathy notes that the guardians hinted that there was even a certain way to do art. This can be especially seen through Tommy’s struggles with his creativity. Once he starts to draw his “invisible animals”, Kathy describes them as nothing like the art they were taught at Hailsham. At one point, Tommy describes his animals as mechanic, or metallic, which I found interesting. His drawings seemed to reflect his own feelings about himself and the other clones—“creatures” with pre-destined and mechanic reactions and feelings.
I personally thought that the book was kinda predictable. Just from reading the first chapter I knew that they were clones and they that were donating their organs for some reason. I was only particularly confused as to why it was such a secret until they were about to leave.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read all the posts but just to address those that I have...I think someone said why wouldn't they escape? Well think about it how often do children really run away from home? If all you knew was Hailsham as your home why wouldn't you think that was the norm or a privilege to grow up and give your organs away if you had been told all your life that you were special. Where would they go?
Someone also said that they think that they must have looked different...I don't think that they necessarily had to look different I think they may have just carried themselves differently and if you think about it the only people that treated them that differently were the people that knew what they were clones.
Lastly, someone asked why it was set in England...the author lives there so its only natural to write about what you know.
This book was definitely brought an interesting and thought-provoking perspective to the table. The idea of having clones solely for the purpose of organ donation is definitely one that could draw a parallel in current controversies like abortion and/or other stem cell research. What I find fascinating about the book is the contrast that seems to be portrayed. For example, while Kathy can feel human emotions such as jealousy or love, you read about it while still realizing the bigger picture- that her life is essentially not human. And, as other people have said, it is definitely a frightening thing to consider the idea of clones having these human characteristics and yet still not feeling any resentment or urge to reject their ultimate fate. Kathy's voice in the novel at times seems very matter-of-fact, and completely accepting of the fact that she was created for organ donation and her life is otherwise without purpose.
ReplyDeleteAs for the repetitions of words and phrases- and this might be going out on a limb some- but I couldn't help but wonder if it was some type of ulterior parallel to the clones, because they are technically only repetitions of humans? Again, that might be stretching it some...
I think that a lot of good points have been made here that have encouraged me to look at different sides of the book, as opposed to only the way that I saw it. And ultimately, I thought it was an interesting (if not somewhat eerie) read.
I know that my post is late but in my opinion, I agree with what Brielle said, I thought that the plot of the book was predictable as I was reading I did what I normally do when I am reading and even watching a movie and that is I attempt to guess what is going to happen next based on the information already presented in the novel, and most of the time I was actually right.
ReplyDeleteI found the use of the characters in the book to be very distant; the author did not offer details about their physical features so it was impossible to visualize what they actually looked like. I mean he mentioned small things like about the one girl who wears glasses and towards the end I remember something of a mention about one the characters saying that the others hair looks better shorter? (sorry I can’t remember where); but overall there were no in depth descriptions. There were also no precise description of the actual school, there were bits and pieces that you could put together, but nothing that would make the school stand apart from any other place that you would randomly pass while driving. I think that the author presented it in this non-descriptive way in order to reinforce the idea that they were just clones not actual “people” I think that if the author had presented the readers with enough descriptions than we would have began to think of them as “everyday” people not the clones that they actually were.
As for bodies, I don’t think there was no real connection between the mind and body. I really don’t have a clear idea of how they felt about their own bodies because it was used for a “greater good” I suppose but it wasn’t really theirs. They knew what there purpose was so there was really no deterring from it no going out in the “real world” matter there intelligence or even artistic abilities. There purpose in life was solely their bodies. I felt like the characters treated them like they were taught through there lessons at school: the special emphasis on health and things like smoking especially in regards to sex. At times there was no real emotional ties to it just a function that there body needed/wanted to perform. Kathy at times treats some of the boys in the house, like vessels that she needed for a specific time dependent upon how she was feeling.
A lot to respond to here in terms of Dr. Nicholas’s questions and peoples responses, I will try my best not to be repetitive! First off in terms of Kathy, I spent a long time trying to decide if we were supposed to view her as typical or atypical in terms of the other students from Hailsham. While reading the book, I considered Kathy to be a more or less average member of their little society, not the top of the social pecking order like Ruth, but not someone who is constantly ostracized like Tommy once was. However, the more I think about her, the more I see her as different. First of all, she largely seems to be the only one to constantly see through Ruth’s acts and ploys. However, it was hard to tell if this view was only because other than Ruth and occasionally others, Kathy seemed to have very little insight into others thoughts and feelings, and when that insight does exist, it seems to be a fading thought, rather than something that Kathy thinks about for any length of time.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Kathy seems unusual in the length of time that she is a carer. Someone suggested earlier that this shows how empathetic she is, how she believes it is important for clones to have a good life. While I think that may be a small part of it, I think that it may also speak to Kathy being especially detached from her future, or from her own emotions and fears. The main thing that Kathy worries over throughout the novel is her relationship with Ruth and how Tommy is viewed. When others speak about deferrals, her first reaction is just plain doubt, no trace of hope, or even a wishful “wouldn’t that be nice”. Additionally, I spent much of the novel waiting for her to make an emotional attachment to Tommy, and then when she does, it doesn’t seem that intense, it is nowhere near what we see in most stories with a love component. I guess more or less I just see Kathy as being incredibly detatched.
That being said, I think Ishiguro chooses to have Kathy be detached for a reason. I think that detachment reflects the detachment that the clones are taught to feel towards their bodies, but more importantly their fates. Their whole lives they are carers, first for their own bodies and then for others, but as someone pointed out earlier, their minds and bodies are not their own, they have very few belongings, and no real parent figures, just a series of guardians. This along with the lack of physical descriptions creates a detached ambiguity, one that almost mirrors Tommy’s theory of the intended effect of the timing with which they are told about their futures.
Someone mentioned earlier that Tommy was the only one to show real emotion and that this made him different. While even in our society today a child who is past a certain age would be ostracized for having temper tantrums, could part of his ostracism be ignored by the guardians because they did not want to encourage emotional reactions such as this. If everyone was brought up to not be easily upset, to basically be complacent all the time, Tommy’s behavior would be something the guardians would really want to quash so that others would not also react this way, as it is seemingly incompatible with being a good selfless donor.
One last thing that I found interesting were the deferral rumors because they were the only hint that people were not 100 percent comfortable with their fates. However, I think part of the reason, other than maybe a learned helplessness, as to why they clones never rebelled, even if they were not 100 percent happy was because they were purposely kept apart. They are separated, moved to be with new people they don’t know when they are only teenagers with only a few close friends that they knew, and then not long after that they were trained to be carers, and moved to live a solitary life. All together, I think this life style might mean that they were never really given the time to think about rebelling, let alone forming a group consciousness about it.
Parting questions – was there any significance to Miss Lucy’s being given a name at the end? This caught me off guard, as (like discussed above) no one else had them, and I was wondering if anyone thought there may have been any reason behind this?
As mentioned, in other’s posts the lack of time mentioned was interesting. While it was anchored by WWII, the lack of technology was weird, especially with the evil of science that views humans as disposable, as the background. I was wondering what other people thought about this.
Ishiguro's approach to writing this book was one that I have not encountered in a long time. From the beginning of the book, I was in the dark about many things. More and more questions arose because of how vague the descriptions were. My feelings on books is that they are always more entertaining because you can visualize it yourself and I felt that a lot with this book. Because of the suspense and lack of description used by Ishiguro, I came up with many different scenarios about what was going on with the characters, where they were and why they were there. I was essentially wrong about it all at the end of the book but I did enjoy the fact I had to keep guessing.
ReplyDeleteKath and her friends seemed liked regular children to me; I could relate to many of the activities they took part in because I attended an English style boarding school when I was younger. I could not detect what made the school so special, my first guess was that the children were orphans or that they had some type of disease. I stuck with the idea of them having some kind of disease because of the medicals that they were required to have weekly and also, "Madame's" reaction to them. Kath's style of narration fits and the suspense of the book fits in with what was actually happening to the students because they were learning about themselves as they got older. In stories of people growing and their personal journeys; they have never have the answers from the beginning and learn through experience which is what reading this book was like. The children were very sheltered and had to see themselves in a new light as they received more information or questioned different things.
I think there was a large distance between mind and body in this book. The lack of physicality and lack of descriptions underlines the fact that physical things are not as important as you may expect for these clones. Their body was their most important possession in a sense but the interactions they had with each other and the emphasis on arts and the way Kath speaks about her feelings towards different people or the tantrums Tommy has illustrates the point that although, their bodies may all be the same they are different and that humanizes them. This speaks to the notion of looking at people's "inner beauty" or not judging a book by its cover etc.
As for the human body, we know almost nothing about the physical appearances of the characters. Aside from a reference to the appearance of Ruth’s possible, we have no indication of what any of the characters look like. I think Ishiguro did this to parallel the unimportance of their appearance. The characters are only to serve one purpose and that is to donate their organs. How they look does not matter.
ReplyDeleteI think the majority of the book was written with this perspective. The style of writing seems to coincide with how Kath goes through life. She slowly learns more and more about her purpose in life. There are a lot of times that it is hinted about why they are there, but the word clone is not even written until page 166. I found the book fascinating, especially the style of writing. Although its written from Kathy’s perspective, we don’t really learn that much more about her than we do about the other characters. She rarely describes her feelings, rather tells a story about her life.
It is interesting that the book rarely mentions a sin in any comparable way to what our society views as sins. Kath and the other students only know what is against the rules- leaving Hailsham and smoking. It’s basically the attempted control of the students and the need to prevent them from getting any diseases. However, sex is fine, even good, according to the guardians. It’s as if the guardians don’t want to be too constraining otherwise the students might rebel. All the tormenting of Tommy and Maura B. also come into this idea. There is little punishment in the book.
Joe said that there is never any discussion of escape, which I find very interesting as well. I can only attribute this to the clone’s knowledge of their fate from early in their life. It also helps how much independence the clones are allowed.