New Leaf September 2018 Discussion • Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Catlady

[...] Interesting, but I don't find it analogous. There's a huge difference between living somewhere with an average low life expectancy, and, in our book, knowing you are going to be chopped up on an operating table and die because of it. One is a maybe, the other is a certainty. And I'm sure that some people do move out of Glasgow; none of the clones try to escape.

From that Glasgow effect link: "The higher mortality is fueled by stroke, respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease and cancer, along with deaths caused by alcohol, drugs, violence and suicide." So there's probably going to at least some getting chopped up - on and off operating tables.

It may be that donation is done in stages precisely so the clones don't have an exact date of death - giving the impression of uncertainty. No one knows how many donations they might make before completion. (We all know we're going to die, we only have uncertainty about when.)

And the clones, like Glasgow, have decades of history behind their situation. Things tend to look different from the inside, when that's all you've ever known. This is what the book is asking you to accept, that the situation exists for whatever reason; the technicalities are irrelevant to the narrator whose life we are remembering.

How do we know that none of the clones ever try to escape? All we have is the inherently unreliable first-person account of one clone.

Originally Posted by Catlady

Rather than passivity, I would have liked to see in the clones an exaggerated sense of altruism. Suppose they'd been taught to be self-sacrificing and noble, to feel they were performing a great service to humanity--which they are. I think that would have been a lot more interesting, but there's nothing to support it in the novel.

And here you have me puzzled. What is not noble and self-sacrificing about the lives of these clones? Isn't self-sacrifice the sum total of their lives after going into training to be a career? Isn't going forward into that, without complaint, and with quiet dignity, noble? (We might except, perhaps, Tommy and Kathy who are asking for a delay, but it's still only a delay that they request, not a full escape.)

Even if you don't like my examples of innate human passivity, isn't it likely (or at least possible) that the clones' passivity is partly the result of being told from the start that their lives are of a great service to humanity? I see nothing to deny that in the novel. On the contrary, that the clones move voluntarily from the cottages into training, and then from caring into donation, seems to be evidence that this is how they see their lives. The fact that they don't make a big deal over this self-sacrifice (maybe reciting Dickens' "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done" as they stride to the operating table) is part of the quiet dignity I indicated, and all the more noble for it. I can imagine that if you tried to tell them they didn't have to do it, they would look at you as if you were crazy.

We have religions and cults created by people searching for a purpose in their life, and some cults happily sacrifice their lives for their beliefs. Here in this story the clones have their purpose handed to them with their earliest education. I think it was Aristotle that was supposed to have said: "Give me a child until he is seven and I will show you the man."

[ekbell]

[QUOTE=Catlady;3750054]Cloning the "trash" didn't make much sense to me--in the unethical society the author has created, why not just use the existing trashy members as the donors; why waste time and effort to grow clones of these dregs of society?

/QUOTE]
Not using the 'trash' as donors makes prefect sense to me as the 'trash' appear to be people who would have been living unhealthy lives and thus have organs in less than perfect condition.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by gmw

From that Glasgow effect link: "The higher mortality is fueled by stroke, respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease and cancer, along with deaths caused by alcohol, drugs, violence and suicide." So there's probably going to at least some getting chopped up - on and off operating tables.

It's not definite. What happens to the clones IS definite.

It may be that donation is done in stages precisely so the clones don't have an exact date of death - giving the impression of uncertainty. No one knows how many donations they might make before completion. (We all know we're going to die, we only have uncertainty about when.)

Except that four donations seems to be the max. And once the operations start, they are going to be operated on repeatedly and suffer until they die.

And the clones, like Glasgow, have decades of history behind their situation. Things tend to look different from the inside, when that's all you've ever known. This is what the book is asking you to accept, that the situation exists for whatever reason; the technicalities are irrelevant to the narrator whose life we are remembering.

But once they become carers, they are no longer in the tightly controlled environment. They see firsthand what is going to happen to them. They know there's a different world--e.g., the world represented by Ruth's office. When they go looking for her possible, the two veterans are already wanting a way out, even before the carer stage , so clearly they are not totally resigned to their fate.

How do we know that none of the clones ever try to escape? All we have is the inherently unreliable first-person account of one clone.

Why is she an "inherently unreliable" narrator? If you believe that, well, we could take it to an absurd level and say she made up the whole story of the clones and she's actually a delusional mental patient. I think with all her years as a carer, she'd know about escape attempts if any happened.

And here you have me puzzled. What is not noble and self-sacrificing about the lives of these clones? Isn't self-sacrifice the sum total of their lives after going into training to be a career? Isn't going forward into that, without complaint, and with quiet dignity, noble? (We might except, perhaps, Tommy and Kathy who are asking for a delay, but it's still only a delay that they request, not a full escape.)

Even if you don't like my examples of innate human passivity, isn't it likely (or at least possible) that the clones' passivity is partly the result of being told from the start that their lives are of a great service to humanity? I see nothing to deny that in the novel. On the contrary, that the clones move voluntarily from the cottages into training, and then from caring into donation, seems to be evidence that this is how they see their lives.

<snip>

We have religions and cults created by people searching for a purpose in their life, and some cults happily sacrifice their lives for their beliefs. Here in this story the clones have their purpose handed to them with their earliest education. I think it was Aristotle that was supposed to have said: "Give me a child until he is seven and I will show you the man."

Nothing to deny it, and nothing to support it. NONE of this is in the novel. Is there even a throwaway line about serving humanity? About this group of children having a special calling? About them being trained for a noble undertaking? About them being hailed as heroes after they die? That kind of Kool-Aid could have a powerful effect on children but the author says nothing about it.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by ekbell

Not using the 'trash' as donors makes prefect sense to me as the 'trash' appear to be people who would have been living unhealthy lives and thus have organs in less than perfect condition.

Yes, but one could also argue that using unhealthy people for cloning is a bad idea because they might have genetic predispositions to various illnesses. Seems to me that one would want to start out with the healthiest possible people to clone.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Catlady

[...] Why is she an "inherently unreliable" narrator?

One of the difficulties that first person narration presents to a writer is that a participant in the story cannot be omniscient. They only see what they can see, or what someone else chooses to tell them. This limits how much the writer can tell the reader, because it has to be something the first person narrator can conceivably know or be told. In the case of clones I fully expect there are details that no one from the outside world will tell them, so Kathy's knowledge is inherently limited and quite probably incomplete and/or unreliable.

Originally Posted by Catlady

[...]Nothing to deny it, and nothing to support it. NONE of this is in the novel. Is there even a throwaway line about serving humanity? About this group of children having a special calling? About them being trained for a noble undertaking? About them being hailed as heroes after they die? That kind of Kool-Aid could have a powerful effect on children but the author says nothing about it.

You highlighted the "nothing to deny" but ignored my "On the contrary" where I give examples that seem - in my mind - clear support that these clones believe their roles are important. I would add to all that, the obvious pride that Kathy has in her extended time as a carer, this is clear in the early paragraphs of the book.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by gmw

One of the difficulties that first person narration presents to a writer is that a participant in the story cannot be omniscient. They only see what they can see, or what someone else chooses to tell them. This limits how much the writer can tell the reader, because it has to be something the first person narrator can conceivably know or be told. In the case of clones I fully expect there are details that no one from the outside world will tell them, so Kathy's knowledge is inherently limited and quite probably incomplete and/or unreliable.

Limited is not necessarily unreliable. You seem to be saying that any and every first-person narrator = unreliable narrator, and I don't buy that. There's nothing to compromise Kathy's account. She doesn't mention escape attempts, therefore i think it's safe to say that the author doesn't want us to believe anyone has ever attempted to escape.

You highlighted the "nothing to deny" but ignored my "On the contrary" where I give examples that seem - in my mind - clear support that these clones believe their roles are important. I would add to all that, the obvious pride that Kathy has in her extended time as a carer, this is clear in the early paragraphs of the book.

Those are examples of passivity, not altruism. As far as Kathy's pride in her work, that's an example, perhaps, of her compassion for her fellow clones, not her belief that she and they are serving a greater good. (And I don't think you can call her unreliable on the one hand to dismiss my point, and then use her self-evaluation as a carer on the other hand to support your point.)

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

Tonight is the first chance I've had to respond to your questions. Memory is Ishiguro's big subject matter that is prevalent in his works. <SNIP> His earlier works were elderly narrators looking back on their lives with a self-deception and regret about what led them to where they are (unreliable narrators).
<SNIP>

My wife read this with me because she had really enjoyed the film, and wanted to be able to talk about the book with me. She felt like she was listening to an old woman telling stories in a nursing home. Which, when you think about Kathy's lifespan, is basically what she is. Close to death with nothing left but her memories.

Originally Posted by gmw

One of the difficulties that first person narration presents to a writer is that a participant in the story cannot be omniscient. They only see what they can see, or what someone else chooses to tell them. This limits how much the writer can tell the reader, because it has to be something the first person narrator can conceivably know or be told. In the case of clones I fully expect there are details that no one from the outside world will tell them, so Kathy's knowledge is inherently limited and quite probably incomplete and/or unreliable.

I think Kathy might also seem unreliable because we are having to see from her perspective as someone with hardly any contact with the outside world. Her perceptions, emotions, and judgment are limited by the very few other children/young adults she met, all of whom were basically marching onward to their noble deaths. She knows nothing beyond the role of carer or donor.

I also find it interesting that they are taught to refer to death as "completion." It's sort of a fun-house mirror version of the heroic quest. Their purpose is literally completed by their death.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

I also find it interesting that they are taught to refer to death as "completion." It's sort of a fun-house mirror version of the heroic quest. Their purpose is literally completed by their death.

But I wonder to what extent this is litotes, the completion that isn't. Because there's the sense of something "after" completion, which would be worse, far worse, than the sentient lives of the clones before completion. And it seems as if the things that the clones "know" on a deeper level turn out to be so.

In short, they might have learned to refer to it as completion because of the false comfort it provides, suggesting an absolute end instead of a nebulous continued existence as their tissues and organs continue to be harvested.

In that case, it would be part of the specialized vocabulary where standard English words have been corrupted to imply the reverse of actuality, to provide a gloss on the clones' reality, such as student, guardian, possible, and so forth. The students learn nothing, the guardians don't tend to their charges, the possible is impossible.

[darryl]

This is a good time to change tack as I think the discussion of credibility and sparseness of information about the overall setting has or should have run its course. Moving on (hopefully):

I have omitted some of astrangerhere's post:

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

First, the book got a lot of attention in the medical realm when it was published, so clearly, bioethicists don't find the question concluded as some of you do. In fact, in a review in the Nursing Standard nursing journal, the editor stated that she "fretted about these children long after [she] had finished reading." (Gray, Jean. Nursing Standard (through 2013); London Vol. 20, Iss. 14-16, (Dec 14, 2005-Jan 3, 2006): 29.)

There is also a great discussion of the novel as abolitionist literature rather than dystopia in the Human Rights Quarterly. I quote some of it here:

I know that for most of us, the question of cloning of this kind is long-since decided. But viewing it as a narrative of modern day slavery gives it a different flavor. Clearly this is taken to an extreme, but the people who will be donors are also forced to provide for the post-operative care and mental well-being of those already undergoing donations.

A few of you have termed this "alternative history" and I think that goes hand in hand with bfisher's comment below. We know nothing about this cloning program except that it started just after the war. We assume that this is WWII. Is it not just possible that more of the Nazi science bled out into the wider world in this version of post-war Europe? We never see mention of any other countries or wars after that.

I don't think the various labels used here are mutually exclusive. The book is alternate history, but in setting only. It is also dystopian. And, whether or not it was intended that way it can certainly be viewed as "abolitionist". It appeals to our emotions by making us identify with the plight of the clones and making it very clear that they are fully human. It is also science fiction though the science is so sketchy that some would class it as fantasy, like many but not all dystopia's. The author wanted to write about certain things, and that is what he did. Just about every other aspect of the book is secondary.

The use of the clones as carers is a chilling touch. They are active and willing participants in the whole system. It reminds me to some extent of collaborators/trustees in a concentration camp, though the analogy is admittedly a very imperfect one. The carers also know what is ultimately in store for them when they cease to be a useful part of the system. It is rubbed in their faces every day, yet they use euphemisms like completion and live with it largely without thinking of it. After years of this they even come to welcome their fate.

The ethics of cloning and human experimentation are far from settled. And they never will be. Respect for human rights and human dignity are not universal throughout the world and its cultures. Even Western cultures which purport to respect such things have engaged in atrocities, and not just in the past. Other cultures are based far more heavily on the welfare of the group as a whole rather than individuals. This was brought home to me very clearly recently when reading an article about China's trials of a social credit system. People who conform receive extra benefits, whilst those who do not become second class citizens subject to disadvantage and restrictions. If real concrete benefits such as curing all diseases suddenly becomes achievable but requires human sacrifices, then a ready made pool of victims exist. Even more liberal societies would likely not be able to pass up these benefits, and as a last resort would use their own underclasses or prisoners or the aged. Though more likely they would seek to keep their own hands clean by keeping the atrocities offshore where life is cheap.

And what if products from a single donor could save 2 others? 10? 100? 1,000? 100,000 or more? Where then does morality lay? And does it matter? When the benefits to the majority became large enough morality has a tendency to be ignored.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Limited is not necessarily unreliable. You seem to be saying that any and every first-person narrator = unreliable narrator, and I don't buy that. There's nothing to compromise Kathy's account. She doesn't mention escape attempts, therefore i think it's safe to say that the author doesn't want us to believe anyone has ever attempted to escape.

Well, in truth, every first person narrator is unreliable - just ask a policeman - but that's not actually what I meant. A narrator can tell you everything they know, the full truth as they know it, and still not be reliable about some things because they don't know any different.

Sometimes a writer will choose first person perspective for immediacy and emotive purposes, and in such cases it is not their intention that you would doubt the narrator. But in many other cases the first person viewpoint is chosen to deliberately limit the perspective, and I think that is the case here. (It may not be the only reason, but I think it is a big part of it.) The entire book is constructed around keeping the technicalities and long history that led to the context as entirely vague and ill defined. There is every reason to expect that these clones are not told everything (indeed, this is explicitly stated), so of course Kathy's knowledge of the wider context is inherently limited. Then there's the fact that she is looking back over many years, and memory becomes distorted over time (and this is another fact we are explicitly told - by Kathy herself, eg: "Or maybe I’m remembering it wrong").

Added: I don't think it's a matter of the author wanting or not wanting us to believe there was ever any escape, I think it's a matter of the author wanting us to look at the story they have written, not the one they chose not to write.

Originally Posted by Catlady

Those are examples of passivity, not altruism. As far as Kathy's pride in her work, that's an example, perhaps, of her compassion for her fellow clones, not her belief that she and they are serving a greater good. (And I don't think you can call her unreliable on the one hand to dismiss my point, and then use her self-evaluation as a carer on the other hand to support your point.)

Kathy's pride in her work is something she knows of her own experience, and relates to recent memory (as well as the past). It is more reliable than details from longer ago, or that she has no reason to know from her own experience.

Their behaviour can be both passive and altruistic. It's partly a manner of perspective and definition. A truly passive version of this would be if they sat in the cottage watching TV until someone told them to get up and go to training. That's not what happens. In their own time, they choose to move on. They don't struggle against what we might see as their doom, and so it seems passive, but nor do they shirk what they have been taught is their role and responsibility in life: they walk toward it, they are not pushed.

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

My wife read this with me because she had really enjoyed the film, and wanted to be able to talk about the book with me. She felt like she was listening to an old woman telling stories in a nursing home. Which, when you think about Kathy's lifespan, is basically what she is. Close to death with nothing left but her memories.

I think Kathy might also seem unreliable because we are having to see from her perspective as someone with hardly any contact with the outside world. Her perceptions, emotions, and judgment are limited by the very few other children/young adults she met, all of whom were basically marching onward to their noble deaths. She knows nothing beyond the role of carer or donor.

I also find it interesting that they are taught to refer to death as "completion." It's sort of a fun-house mirror version of the heroic quest. Their purpose is literally completed by their death.

We do go in for euphemisms, for example saying that someone has "passed away" rather than saying that they have died. So I thought that this use of such terms underlined the humanity of the clones.

The title of the book is another example. We know only too well that they have to let each other go, and Tommy deals with this by requesting another carer.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

We do go in for euphemisms, for example saying that someone has "passed away" rather than saying that they have died. So I thought that this use of such terms underlined the humanity of the clones.

The title of the book is another example. We know only too well that they have to let each other go, and Tommy deals with this by requesting another carer.

I liked the specialized vocabulary, the first indications that things were not what they seemed.

As for the unreliable narrator, I see no reason to doubt Kathy's accounts of events, but I think her understanding is limited in a typically clone fashion. Ironically, I think both Tommy and Ruth show significantly greater penetration; perhaps they were a better match at that.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by issybird

I liked the specialized vocabulary, the first indications that things were not what they seemed.

As for the unreliable narrator, I see no reason to doubt Kathy's accounts of events, but I think her understanding is limited in a typically clone fashion. Ironically, I think both Tommy and Ruth show significantly greater penetration; perhaps they were a better match at that.

I can see that my use "unreliable" has been interpreted in the sense of misleading rather than simply not reliable. I didn't mean to suggest Kathy was trying to intentionally mislead the reader but (as you say) her perspective is that of a clone. I believe it would be ill-advised/not-reliable to look for details like "have any clones ever tried to escape" from a narration by Kathy (or any of the clones). They are unlikely to have been told even if there had been, and their nature - as revealed, reliably I would suggest, by Kathy's narration suggests they would find it difficult to believe there was anything to escape from, and may well misinterpret explanations (or willingly believe a lie) surrounding any such event (like, perhaps, the ghost in the woods).

I had originally thought that Tommy - with his rages - might have been showing greater insight (albeit not recognising it as such), but that seemed to fade (until the final rage). I came to believe that his relationship with Ruth was actually part of burying his younger, more distressed self behind the acceptance that came with being with Ruth. I think Tommy and Kathy, together, had a greater chance of insight than any of the three individually, and so Tommy joining up with Ruth was a way of avoiding that insight.

I don't think Kathy ever really understood Ruth all that well. I got the impression that Kathy was a friend of convenience to Ruth - as were all her friends, including Tommy, but Kathy was more reliable (to Ruth) than most. I think Ruth was smart enough that she could have been insightful, but self-interest (in a purely social form) got in the way.

[issybird]

I think Kathy is effective (I know that means neither reliable nor unreliable) as a narrator; she's the personification of the "told and not told" style used to teach the young clones. The untold story behind many of her throwaway details attests to the obverse reality of the clones' life. The suggestion, for example, that the number of clones dwindles as they age (from the comment about the numbers in the dorms), indicates that some clones were harvested at a young age, as indeed they must have been as organ donors for children and Miss Emily specifically invokes "children" as a justification. "Do it for the kids!"

My point is that I don't think Kathy ever shows any signs of greater insight nor is that possibility inherent in her. Perversely, that makes her more reliable as a narrator; she's not trying to present a case or a viewpoint, just recall events. She's forgotten a lot. She certainly seems oblivious to the implications of much of what she says.

[gmw]

I agree that Kathy on her own was never going to offer great insight, but we had a period when Tommy was still trying to overcome his rages, that the two of them together - talking about Miss Lucy near the duck pond - were actually questioning things. This, it seemed to me, was a sort of unfulfilled turning point. Something could have grown from this, but didn't.

That failure seemed to be related to the idea that there were few places they could talk privately. This lack of privacy seemed to be an important aspect of the school. Even though Kathy never really talks of a lack of trust (on her part), it seems as if the children could not trust one another to keep secrets from the guardians.