• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Kazuo Ishiguro: Never Let Me Go

The "Flatness"

For me at least the flatness of the writing was brilliant. The children, the outsiders and some of their guardians were also emotionally sedated or flattened. When I read the book I found my own reactions, to a situatuion that had it occured in real life would horrify me, flat, sedated and clinically reserved. As I read the book I felt like an objective non-connected observer and I believe that was reflective of how the children were meant to be seen, since they were merely donors and not "fully normal".

Just my two cents.
 
drmjwdvm said:
For me at least the flatness of the writing was brilliant. The children, the outsiders and some of their guardians were also emotionally sedated or flattened. When I read the book I found my own reactions, to a situatuion that had it occured in real life would horrify me, flat, sedated and clinically reserved. As I read the book I felt like an objective non-connected observer and I believe that was reflective of how the children were meant to be seen, since they were merely donors and not "fully normal".

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

Do you mean to say that the flatness of the writing reflected the attitudes of the main characters in the story, even the supporting characters?
 
I guess I mean the writing style, rather than enraging me or horrifying me was written intentionally to make me feel flat or detached about the whole thing. Somewhere in the text were some lines about how the carers that were good could always keep their donors calm. Just seems like the writing manipulated my feelings in a way similar the manner in which the characters's feelings were manipulated.
 
drmjwdvm said:
I guess I mean the writing style, rather than enraging me or horrifying me was written intentionally to make me feel flat or detached about the whole thing. Somewhere in the text were some lines about how the carers that were good could always keep their donors calm. Just seems like the writing manipulated my feelings in a way similar the manner in which the characters's feelings were manipulated.
Click to expand...


I think you may be on to something there, mjw. Excellent observation!
 
Just about done the book (one chapter to go and then I will be done, unforntately not in March :() and I have to say that I wished that he hadn't revealed why Halisham and the other schools were set up so late in the book (not telling where, in case there are people looking that haven't read it and don't want to be spoiled), but I guess he had his reasons as to why he did that. Oh well. *sigh* But I do love Tommy's reaction after they go and visit their former teachers; talk about doing something spontaneous :p

Anyways, with it being almost 2:30 on Saturday morning and me needing sleep (stupidly bought a grande from a local coffee shop at about 10 mintues to 10 last night), I should head off and will let you all know tomorrow or Monday night what I thought of the book overall and ask any questions that I still have of the book. Now I want to read Remains; he's such an excellent author :)
 
I can describe this book with one word: predictable. And it's predictability made it boring. The message was evident very quickly and each chapter was a rehashing of the message. This is a book that bears it's subtext with the subtlety of an elephant. There just wasn't enough beyond the blatant subtext in this book to make it interesting. Another gripe is that I didn't buy all of the little bit of content that was there. For instance the naivety of the characters to their plight was a major issue for me. Then when their roles are revealed to them they roll over and accept their pre-determined destiny like a obedient dogs.

Other than a few occurences of british slang, I loathe british slang, the language was clean and pleasent.
 
ions said:
I can describe this book with one word: predictable. And it's predictability made it boring. The message was evident very quickly and each chapter was a rehashing of the message. This is a book that bears it's subtext with the subtlety of an elephant. There just wasn't enough beyond the blatant subtext in this book to make it interesting. Another gripe is that I didn't buy all of the little bit of content that was there. For instance the naivety of the characters to their plight was a major issue for me. Then when their roles are revealed to them they roll over and accept their pre-determined destiny like a obedient dogs.

Other than a few occurences of british slang, I loathe british slang, the language was clean and pleasent.
Click to expand...

Ouch, ions! You're one tough critic.
 
I guess so although I've never thought that.

Why do I never see the spelling and grammar mistakes in my posts until someone has quoted them? :eek:
 
i agree to Ions. from the point of view of the topic, the book was quite uninteresting.
but still, i think the style of writing was very good and the author had a lot of strain with it. it is not easy to deal with such a rather melodramatic topic and still keep it in a detached style. i think he was great as he let all the emotional charge on the reader's side.
and then i also liked the way he conceived the telling of the story. as everything was indirect. just like the kids were told their "meaning" in life in the story, back in the hailsham years. nothing is blurted out, but as new events happen, we all have the feeling that they were predictable, that we all knew about them, that there was something expected.
and maybe this is why the characters did not rebel. because everything seemed normal. this was the only path they could choose, so it is exactly what they did. maybe because they did not know any other possibility that their freedom looked merely like a dream (they still do feeble attempts to change their lives, like their hope for a deferral). but still, it is quite unusual for kids who apparently had access to culture (for example, they were reading a lot of books) not to ask themselves questions and not to rebel against their situation.
as for the naiveté of the characters, i think it was not something negative in the book. they were normal kids. i doubt many of the 18 years old today have very different interests than the ones in the book.
so, even if i was not very much attracted by the subject of the book, i really appreciated the manner in which the book was written.
 
Finished this afternoon

All in all an interesting read. Not one of my favorites and I don't think it will really stick with me but I did enjoy it and found the style fresh and interesting. Next Book: The Secret Supper
 
Just finished reading this, and I don't quite know what to think. :confused: I enjoyed it, but I'm not sure why. :rolleyes: When I first started reading, all the talk of 'carers' and donations' had me really intrigued, because there wasn't any sort of background or "introduction" to the book. It was all discussed as though this was normal everyday current life (as it is now), so I was quite confused. I kept thinking - does this have a sort of 'sci-fi' element to it, or am I misinterpreting what I'm reading? :confused: I quite like the way that little bits and pieces were disclosed as part of the story - not as an explanation to the reader - in a very matter-of-fact way.

Ruth was the only memorable character in the book, and I just couldn't stand her. Thought she was such a bitch! (As a side note, I've been watching The Apprentice, and in my mind Ruth from the book will always look like Ruth from The Apprentice. :p Silly, but I can't help it). I didn't think that anything was resolved in the ending (apart from the "truth" about Madame's gallery, but that was hardly a huge revelation), it's like the book just ending without anything significant happening. :confused:

Was it ever explained why there were so many "donors" needed? I mean, were people sick all the time that they needed a "steady supply" of organs? :rolleyes: Were they churning out these "clones/donors" constantly? If so, what happened to the ones who weren't "required"?

I haven't read Remains of the Day (loved the movie, thought it was heartbreaking), but after reading this, I'd love to give it a go.
 
angerball said:
Was it ever explained why there were so many "donors" needed? I mean, were people sick all the time that they needed a "steady supply" of organs? :rolleyes: Were they churning out these "clones/donors" constantly? If so, what happened to the ones who weren't "required"?
Click to expand...

That's a really good question that I don't think anyone of us has thought to ask yet - you're thinking outside the box! :). As far as I can remember, that question was never answered in the book. Maybe they exported? :eek:
 
I dunno. :eek: I have a feeling that the author wrote about cloning to make a political statement (ie. whether cloned beings have a "soul", and whether they should be treated as "real people"), so he wasn't too concerned about making sure everything was answered/explained. :confused: That sort of thing maybe went beyond the point he was trying to make. :confused: Still, I wished that he'd given some sort of explanation, because it just didn't fit IMO.
 
Apparently you're not familiar with organ donor waiting lists? There are many with many people on em now. With aging Boomers living longer and cancers becoming more rampant an increase in organ donations required is no stretch.

I suppose I should be horrified at the idea of how quickly the donors who are people, they're people damnit!, are turned into commodities. Maybe I would have been if I wasn't bashed over the head with the idea.
 
'Harvesting' is the polite word. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh! /There is just no smilie for it/
Peder
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top