Kazuo Ishiguro: Never Let Me Go

[angerball]

Apparently you're not familiar with organ donor waiting lists?

Nice sarcasm. Of course I'm familiar with organ donor waiting lists. What I was saying, is that in the book, there seems to be a large number of "donors" - far more than would be required (as well as counting the "regular people" who are listed as organ donors). Otherwise, why would there be some clones that weren't "donors", but "carers"? Why not use "regular people" as carers, and use all the clones as "donors"?

 

[steffee]

That's another good point, Angerball.

 

[angerball]

Thanks again, Steffee.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Nice sarcasm. Of course I'm familiar with organ donor waiting lists. What I was saying, is that in the book, there seems to be a large number of "donors" - far more than would be required (as well as counting the "regular people" who are listed as organ donors). Otherwise, why would there be some clones that weren't "donors", but "carers"? Why not use "regular people" as carers, and use all the clones as "donors"?

The way I saw it was that rich people were cloned and when they needed organs, the clones were there to give up their organs. I thought that the carers were just those clones whose "original copy" had no need for the organs as of yet. This would explain the rumor about each student having a double on the outside, but I'm probably wrong anyways

 

[ions]

Nice sarcasm. Of course I'm familiar with organ donor waiting lists. What I was saying, is that in the book, there seems to be a large number of "donors" - far more than would be required (as well as counting the "regular people" who are listed as organ donors). Otherwise, why would there be some clones that weren't "donors", but "carers"? Why not use "regular people" as carers, and use all the clones as "donors"?

If memory serves carers eventually become donors. I can't recall if it was said if there were exceptions to that rule. I would imagine carers were not regular people to further emphasize the seperation put on the organ donor folks over the regular folks. To furhter beat the dead horse named "look at how terrible man can be".

 

[Shade]

To furhter beat the dead horse named "look at how terrible man can be".

I don't think it's really about that at all. It's no more a tale of moral angst than it is a sci-fi novel. The focus for me was on the way the clones/donors react to their situation, ie limited opposition, general acceptance, no sense that things should be or could be any way other than they are: representative, in other words, of all humans and their general failure to rage against the dying of the light or to want to break free from their limited lives.

 

[pink shadow]

If memory serves carers eventually become donors. I can't recall if it was said if there were exceptions to that rule. I would imagine carers were not regular people to further emphasize the seperation put on the organ donor folks over the regular folks. To furhter beat the dead horse named "look at how terrible man can be".

I agree, the carers eventually became donors. I think it was either said out loud or strongly implicated that Kathy would soon become a donor herself. The meeting with Madame basically said that there were no exceptions.

 

[sydney1]

I don't think it's really about that at all. It's no more a tale of moral angst than it is a sci-fi novel. The focus for me was on the way the clones/donors react to their situation, ie limited opposition, general acceptance, no sense that things should be or could be any way other than they are: representative, in other words, of all humans and their general failure to rage against the dying of the light or to want to break free from their limited lives.

Hi, new here. And that's exactly what I got from this novel too. For me the whole organ harvesting storyline was really secondary to the central themes - social alienation, and mute acceptance of the constraints - whether they be class-based, economic etc - that people find themselves in.
The flatness of the author's tone is a great way of reinforcing the image of a world where people are too emotionally deficient to do anything other than accept their lot in life - no matter how unpleasant or unfair it may be.

 

[Peder]

After two concurrences, it now feels like the right time to ask. Is it really so clear that it is the donors who deserve the criticism of the narrator, or the reader, rather than the people who got the donors into their predicament? There are certainly two parties, or more, to the situation and criticizing the donors sounds to me at least a little like blaming the victims moreso than the perpetrators.
Baffled a little,
Peder

 

[steffee]

Peder, do you mean the teachers at the school, those who decided that people would be cloned in order to satisfy donor requirements, or the people who the Hailsham students were molded from (sorry, I've forgotten the name Ishiguro gave them)?

 

[pontalba]

Is it really so clear that it is the donors who deserve the criticism of the narrator, or the reader, rather than the people who got the donors into their predicament? There are certainly two parties, or more, to the situation and criticizing the donors sounds to me at least a little like blaming the victims moreso than the perpetrators.
Baffled a little,
Peder

Peder I've been following this discussion as well, and it seems that for the larger part it is the 'doners' that are being critized for not railing against their fate, and not rising up in revolt. What about the ones that caused, and started this system? They're the ones that deserve to be hung.

Now granted I didn't read all of the book, it was, for me one of the ones thrown (only in my own mind) across the room in disgust. From the beginning I could see that it was lambs being led to the slaughter, and I didn't wish to be an observer. But by following this thread, I suppose I may as well have.

 

[steffee]

Do we actually find out who started it though? The Hailsham teachers are just there to teach them, and to look after them, but there's no suggestion of them starting it. Unless I'm mistaken, we never find out who they answer to. Kathy is a carer for all those years, and she talks of "they" thinking she's a good carer, etc, but who "they" are are never mentioned. It's hard to feel anything for that type of non-existant behind-the-scenes character, then. The teachers, and Madame, we do get to understand and empathise with, I thought.

 

[pontalba]

Surely by extrapolation the culprits would be known.

 

[Peder]

Peder, do you mean the teachers at the school, those who decided that people would be cloned in order to satisfy donor requirements, or the people who the Hailsham students were molded from (sorry, I've forgotten the name Ishiguro gave them)?

Steffee,
It is a little hard for me to phrase the question in any but the vaguest terms since, after browsing the book early on, I decided it was not one that I wished to read. And maybe I should stop cluttering up this thread, in which case people should simply feel free to ignore me and not respond, and I won't press the matter. But it sounds to me like there were donors and carers, within an institutional framework, which was managed by someone(s), and which itself existed in a larger societal context, perhaps indicated only vaguely and by suggestion in the book (or not). The donors were clearly in a role of unusual passivity and the question arises how that came about, as well as how the overall context of the story came about -- donors, carers, institution, managers, seeming isolation from surrounding society. Someone(s) or something(s) caused it to be that way, although maybe not indicated explicitly in the book.
However to suggest that the most passive of the participants, and the ones marching to their fates, are analogous to passive people out in real society, e.g. couch potatoes, seems to be unwarrantedly critical of the donors. Unless one really imagines that they, the donors, just fell into being donors unthinkingly and heedlessly uncaring about their own lives and their own fates. Something or someone in the overall setting of the story caused them to be donors, and that is where I would think the implied criticism and moral of the story would be found.
If that's as clear as mud, then just fuhgeddaboudit.
Peder

 

[Peder]

Ooops, apparently a few posts slipped in while I was typing, so my post is out of sequence with respect to the discussion and may sound strange or repetitive. Please forebear. I think and type slowly.
Peder

 

[steffee]

Peder, the donors and carers were the same people. They were carers first until they were called to be donors. Kathy, for example, was a carer for a long time (IIRC, 12 years) whereas Tommy, for example, was only a carer for a short time, as was Ruth.

I can't remember ever reading of those who were in charge, though I agree there must have been someone(s) in charge of the whole operation... but towards the end, Tommy and Kathy go off to find out if they can prolong their lives together, and they don't know who they're to go to, but assume it's Madame. It turns out not to be her afterall, so we're left wondering again.

The donors/carers were cloned from people who they referred to as a "likely", I think, although from the sounds of it, these models weren't aware of their clones? Maybe, maybe not, we'll never know.

But as to who is responsible for the whole charade, the Hailsham students did wonder, did try to find out, but with little success. Aside from that, they were the ones that acted passively.

I think it's a little far-fetched to aliken the donors/carers with "couch potatoes" too, but took it to mean that people don't dare to break the mold, and they maybe should?

 

[Peder]

Steffee,
Thank you! It sounds like the author took specific care to construct the story in the manner he did, with the loose ends deliberately left loose, and many questions unanswered and maybe unanswerable at all. In which case, an outsider like myself stands little chance of appreciating its true flavor or its true meaning from a second-hand perspective. So you have given me a good reason to stop trying.
Many thanks, again,
Peder

 

[Dogmatix]

she talks of "they" thinking she's a good carer, etc, but who "they" are are never mentioned. It's hard to feel anything for that type of non-existant behind-the-scenes character, then. The teachers, and Madame, we do get to understand and empathise with, I thought.

I agree Steffee. I believe the anonymity adds to the sense of "What can be done?" For both the reader and the students/carers/doners. It's easier to get angry with a classic bad guy/gal, but in this story there wasn't really a bad guy written in.

Anyways I really liked your point.

Melissa

 

[sydney1]

Yes, I don't think the author wants to provide the reader with an easy way out by giving clear cut "bad guys" to hate or "good guys" to cheer for. There are myriad moral ambiguities in the story - just as there are in life - even the horror of what is being done to the clones is marginally tempered by the fact that they are saving somebody elses life by their deaths.

 

[Shade]

an outsider like myself stands little chance of appreciating its true flavor or its true meaning from a second-hand perspective. So you have given me a good reason to stop trying.

...Or a good reason to read the book!

I think reference to 'criticism' or 'blame' is misplaced. The donors are not passive in the sense that couch potatoes are passive; they are passive in the sense that we all are: victims (if that's not too emotive a word) of the circumstances of our birth and upbringing. The clones, with their thirty-plus year lifespan, are just concentrated versions of ourselves. No one is 'to blame.' By setting the book in 'England, late 1990s' rather than in the future I think Ishiguro wanted to avoid sci-fi-ish discussions of how society came to be the way it is in the book, and just concentrate on the microscopic examination of the donors' general acceptance of their lot.