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

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by darryl

I think it is just that he was so focused on what he wanted to write that he regarded anything else as unimportant. He had the characters, he had the "story" he wanted to tell and he was just looking for a setting. The problem is that accurate science simply doesn't work for the assumptions he required for the "story". Perhaps he could have made the "story" work with modern science, but he just wasn't interested in doing so. It didn't matter to him. Similarly, he ignored possible rebellion or escape, because it was not the story he wanted to tell. This is something he states clearly in the video posted earlier. Addressing both points would have made for a much more credible book, but he had no interest in doing either. He simply ignored them to the maximum extent he thought possible. I don't know that I'd call it laziness. Just an extremely narrow focus. And I think it detracts substantially from what might otherwise have been a very good book.

I agree that it detracts. If a coherent and logical story didn't matter to him, why should the resulting book matter to me? I don't even know what story he wanted to tell: Was it the story of a love triangle of three doomed people? Was it a story about a dehumanized population?

I'm not saying there needed to be an escape or rebellion; I'm just saying that in light of the quest for a deferral, which is an important story element, why not include a sentence or two about why escape isn't considered a possibility--fear of the unknown, fear of punishment, some kind of surveillance, etc. That would have stopped me from being distracted about it from the point when the veterans first brought up deferrals.

@Catlady. Am I wrong in assuming that there is zero chance of you ever reading "The Girl With All The Gifts"? Even the first couple of chapters?

You are not wrong.

Originally Posted by gmw

I had thought - hoped - we'd gotten past the "science". There is no scientific presentation in this book, there are no facts to argue about. I saw nothing scientifically impossible in this book. I've certainly seen bigger stretches in other science-fiction - most of it (because the "science" of Never Let Me Go is not particularly interesting). Most of the details that have been questioned have some possible explanation. Whether the explanations are probable is another matter, but we've been through them so there is no need to repeat.

You're missing my point. When I asked about why the author chose to make the clones sterile, it was not a question about science, it was a question about his choice to add that to the story, when it is contrary to scientific fact. It's analogous to an author writing about a real-world setting but saying that his humans have three eyes--and then not using that invention to any purpose. I read something that's odd, and I think, OK, something's going to come of this. But nothing did, and that's distracting.

Same thing with the donations, and the general maximum of four times. I was distracted wondering what spare organs could be gleaned from living donors. Kidney and bone marrow, what else? It wasn't until very late that there was mention of organs being used for miracle cures, but even with that invention, still, there's the problem of what can be safely taken.

Now, if the author had decided to posit that the cloning process created beings with extra sets of various organs that could be harvested, I would not have questioned it as scientifically crazy or demanded explanations; I would have been perfectly willing to go along with it as something the author wanted for purposes of the story.

I find it curious that a rebellion or escape might be thought to make the story more credible. How can that be? Whether any attempted rebellion or escape was successful or not, it in no way changes the credibility of the starting situation, it only changes how you feel about it. Don't you find that a bit interesting?

As I say above, all I wanted was a sentence or two. The initial mention of a deferral set me up to expect that there might be a failed escape attempt at some point; I kept waiting for something, and that was a distraction.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by issybird

[...] But the discussion has caused me to appreciate more the language and the indirection used by Ishiguro to tell his story, so I need to step back a bit and not get so caught up in the minutiae. However, I still don't think his "point," if it can be called that, is all that interesting nor is the means he's using to tell it compelling enough for me. It needed to be one or the other - a fresh concept or a story that was more than a schooldays romantic triangle at base.

Your comment made me wonder whether the reader needs to be almost as passive and accepting as the clones themselves to become involved in the story that's there - which then made me wonder whether an author can create that sort of effect deliberately (I couldn't), or if it came out that way indirectly.

While I can see why you identify the romantic triangle, the romance aspect seemed so understated - to me - as to be mostly just another emphasis on their passive nature. It certainly didn't occupy the same sort of significant, up front, role that such a triangle would play in a more typical romance.

I don't know that Ishiguro had a particular point, or wanted to make a statement. It felt to me more like a question: "I saw this, what do you think?" He's not trying to compel, he's querying. (At least, I like to think of it that way, because that's the impact the book had on me.)

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Catlady

[...]You're missing my point. When I asked about why the author chose to make the clones sterile, it was not a question about science, it was a question about his choice to add that to the story, when it is contrary to scientific fact.

If Kathy equates cloning to sterility (I'm not sure it was ever that bluntly stated) this is just an example of her experience/knowledge not being a reliable guide to the science of that world. Why should it be?

The author chose to make the clones sterile, but the book never says how sterility (or cloning) is achieved, and it never states cloning=sterility as a fact. (Saying that the clones in this story are sterile is not the same as claiming that one causes the other.) The book gives very little in the way of science fact, and is very unadventurous in the science it uses, so it's almost impossible for it to be wrong. (It may be improbable or unbelievable to you, but that's different.)

For the rest ... I understand. I disagree in this case, but I can see what you are dissatisfied with and empathise - particularly since I have difficulty describing exactly why this book worked for me. As a science fiction fan I should have been pickier about that side than you, and as a person that prefers books with strong plots and forward drive I should have had more trouble with this book than I did. Instead, I picked it up and within a few pages I was happily ensconced in that world, accepting things as Kathy presented them, and driven forward by my desire to hear her out. And I finished the book both satisfied and contemplative - which is a sign of a very good (for me) book.

[Bookworm_Girl]

Originally Posted by gmw

Your comment made me wonder whether the reader needs to be almost as passive and accepting as the clones themselves to become involved in the story that's there - which then made me wonder whether an author can create that sort of effect deliberately (I couldn't), or if it came out that way indirectly.

While I can see why you identify the romantic triangle, the romance aspect seemed so understated - to me - as to be mostly just another emphasis on their passive nature. It certainly didn't occupy the same sort of significant, up front, role that such a triangle would play in a more typical romance.

I don't know that Ishiguro had a particular point, or wanted to make a statement. It felt to me more like a question: "I saw this, what do you think?" He's not trying to compel, he's querying. (At least, I like to think of it that way, because that's the impact the book had on me.)

Great post, gmw! You put into words what I was having difficulty forming in my own head. I think you have made a very important point. He is querying. You point out "I saw this, what do you think?" And, I'd add to that questions like "Do you think this is how it really feels?" and "Can you relate to that in your own life?".

This discussion has been great. It has helped me understand and appreciate the book more. I think I would have a completely different experience to read this book a second time. The first read-through there are so many concealed details that get revealed slowly that you are in a questioning mindset which makes its more difficult to passively accept the science and alternate world. The second time I would focus more on the people and emotions and interactions between characters.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by gmw

If Kathy equates cloning to sterility (I'm not sure it was ever that bluntly stated) this is just an example of her experience/knowledge not being a reliable guide to the science of that world. Why should it be?

The author chose to make the clones sterile, but the book never says how sterility (or cloning) is achieved, and it never states cloning=sterility as a fact. (Saying that the clones in this story are sterile is not the same as claiming that one causes the other.) The book gives very little in the way of science fact, and is very unadventurous in the science it uses, so it's almost impossible for it to be wrong. (It may be improbable or unbelievable to you, but that's different.)

Which still leaves the question, why? Why did the author choose to tell us they are sterile? Why does he have them hear lectures about sex and how they need to be careful about sex with non-clones in the outside world because they take it more seriously than the clones? What is the point he's making with this information? Why is it included?

I subscribe to the Chekhov's gun principle--if you show a gun on the table, that gun has to be used at some point, or why is it there? My issue with this book is that there's so much that Ishiguro throws on the table and just lets it sit there.

[issybird]

In the end, I can't tell if Ishiguro has a fully realized world in his mind and failed to communicate it, or if it's somewhat nebulous to him as it is to some of us.

It makes me appreciate how tricky a dance it is; I hate over-realized worlds where the author tells everything in so many words rather than, comfortable in the knowledge of the world himself, he trusts the reader to get it right, or right enough, based on what the author reveals. Of the two, I'd rather have less than too much. Unfortunately, the Miss Emily info-dump smacks of Ishiguro having second thoughts at the very end.

The gallery never made sense, no matter what interpretation you put on it.

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

<snip>
This discussion has been great. It has helped me understand and appreciate the book more. I think I would have a completely different experience to read this book a second time. The first read-through there are so many concealed details that get revealed slowly that you are in a questioning mindset which makes its more difficult to passively accept the science and alternate world. The second time I would focus more on the people and emotions and interactions between characters.

It was my second reading of the book and I did enjoy it, though not as much as I did the first time. But it did let me concentrate on the simplicity of Kathy's narration, and to consider who she thinks her audience is.

Clearly from the bits I quoted earlier, it is her fellow clones, so she doesn't need to explain the general ways in which the system works. In any case, she has only a limited understanding of that herself.

Her style is artless and in many ways she seems a lot younger than 30 or so. (She has been a carer for 12 years, which would make her about that age.) Again, I accept that that is a reflection of her limited education and interaction with anyone other than her fellow clones.

I didn't mind the "information dump" from Miss Emily at the end. This was something of which Kathy and Tommy had no knowledge, and so they and we could only understand what was going on by getting that information from someone who knew how the system worked.

And finally in writing this, I reflected on their names. Kathy is used for adults as well as children, but adult males aren't usually still called a more childish name like Tommy. It underlined again the clones' more childlike qualities.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Which still leaves the question, why? Why did the author choose to tell us they are sterile? Why does he have them hear lectures about sex and how they need to be careful about sex with non-clones in the outside world because they take it more seriously than the clones? What is the point he's making with this information? Why is it included?

In the Society it serves to preserve and further the isolation of the clones. This isolation does not seem to be imposed by law, but by the clones themselves. Having and raising children is not consistent with their destinies. Such children would be orphaned if born to two clones. If born to a clone and a "normal" then the mother or father would disappear from the Child's life once donations began, or more horrifyingly continue to visit the clone parent as they were taken slowly apart. Many of those with clone partners would agitate for clone rights. Clone fertility would inevitably have lead to the closer integration of these sub-humans into normal society. Sterility is an easy solution. No laws, no guards, no heavy handed enforcement needed.

Further, if clones were truly considered sub-human and it was easily possible to ensure their sterility, I doubt the decision to do so would even attract much thought.

Finally, this author did not want to write a book about clones interacting with "normal" society. According to the video interview, he wanted to write a book about love and friendship amongst people facing mortality. Anything else he seems to have considered extraneous.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by darryl

In the Society it serves to preserve and further the isolation of the clones. This isolation does not seem to be imposed by law, but by the clones themselves. Having and raising children is not consistent with their destinies. Such children would be orphaned if born to two clones. If born to a clone and a "normal" then the mother or father would disappear from the Child's life once donations began, or more horrifyingly continue to visit the clone parent as they were taken slowly apart. Many of those with clone partners would agitate for clone rights. Clone fertility would inevitably have lead to the closer integration of these sub-humans into normal society. Sterility is an easy solution. No laws, no guards, no heavy handed enforcement needed.

Further, if clones were truly considered sub-human and it was easily possible to ensure their sterility, I doubt the decision to do so would even attract much thought.

Finally, this author did not want to write a book about clones interacting with "normal" society. According to the video interview, he wanted to write a book about love and friendship amongst people facing mortality. Anything else he seems to have considered extraneous.

Your interpretations are not reflected in any way in the text. I do not believe that this author, who glossed over so many details that would have added veracity, sat down and thought out the sterility angle at all. I think it more likely that he didn't bother to research if cloned animals could or could not reproduce.

And if the interaction with normal society is extraneous, why was sex with non-clones specifically mentioned? I can't be the only reader who thought that that would lead to some subplot.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Which still leaves the question, why? Why did the author choose to tell us they are sterile? Why does he have them hear lectures about sex and how they need to be careful about sex with non-clones in the outside world because they take it more seriously than the clones? What is the point he's making with this information? Why is it included?

It's an important part of the context. The choice by Ishiguro was obviously deliberate, and not a lack of research or imagination. At a technical level, I and others gave various reasons why sterile clones might be preferable to fertile ones (see here). At the immediate story level I think sterility and sex speaks to the nature of the clones.

Sex even gets tied to the title of the book. Madame watching Kathy dancing to the song, Never Let Me Go, as if with a baby, and a couple of years later Kathy and Tommy trying to find an explanation as to why Madame was upset. Amid that conversation is this:

By then, of course, we all knew something I hadn’t known back then, which was that none of us could have babies. [...] I remember some people being pleased we could have sex without worrying about all of that [...] Anyway, when I told Tommy about what had happened, he said:

‘Madame’s probably not a bad person, even though she’s creepy. So when she saw you dancing like that, holding your baby, she thought it was really tragic, how you couldn’t have babies. That’s why she started crying.’ [...etc...]

This was part of setting up who Madame is, and what she means to Kathy and Tommy. It is also showing how sex seems very matter-of-fact among the clones while they believe it is a big deal among the normals - part of setting up the isolation between clones and normals. Also, this context may help us to understand the situation at the cottages better, and also to understand the lack of conflict in the Kathy-Tommy-Ruth triangle at that time. There's more - for me, almost everything in this book feels tied in some way to everything else.

Your questions had me collect the next bit about the fact that the clones are not supposed to smoke:

‘You’ve been told about it. You’re students. You’re … special. So keeping yourselves well, keeping yourselves very healthy inside, that’s much more important for each of you than it is for me.’

You mentioned earlier something about the author never showing the clones being told they were important, whereas I'd have said that almost everything about Hailsham was doing that - albeit in a distorted manner.

Originally Posted by Catlady

I subscribe to the Chekhov's gun principle--if you show a gun on the table, that gun has to be used at some point, or why is it there? My issue with this book is that there's so much that Ishiguro throws on the table and just lets it sit there.

Sure, in a murder mystery this is supposed to be the case - and some writers take this principle so literally that they leave no mystery, because every casually mentioned detail is a known clue. The better mystery writers know that sometimes the gun on the table is used only as a distraction.

But that's not the case with Never Let Me Go. There are no distractions. It is a book sparse of detail, so that everything that is mentioned feels important. In most cases the importance/purpose is contextual, it's that sort of book, part of setting up the feelings and questions in the reader's mind. If you're not in a receptive frame of mind you're going to miss the connections.


The following may be a bit presumptuous, I hope you'll excuse it.

Some of your comments might be derived from a genre-writers' advice column about finding sources of possible conflict in the story and using that to drive the action or character interactions. (The possibility of sex between clones and normals, or that supposedly sterile clones might find a way to breed, or that some clones might become rebellious or try to escape, and so on.)

It's good advice, as far as it goes, for standard genre fiction. Just one of the many guidelines that exist to help authors of such fiction to stay on the straight and narrow path (to keep to the conventions that modern readers expect). But I never really expected Ishiguro would stay on the path.

There is very little conflict in Never Let Me Go, and what there is never seems to get beyond rather childish stuff (as highlighted by bookpossum). It is my impression that this is entirely intentional (rather than lazy or accidental). So all your suggestions wondering why Ishiguro didn't introduce this or that conflict seem - to me - to be misdirected. The lack of conflict is one of the central elements of this book.

[gmw]

In the spirit of lack of conflict, I just had to reply to some posts where we are in agreement about this book

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

[...] This discussion has been great. It has helped me understand and appreciate the book more. I think I would have a completely different experience to read this book a second time. [...]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

It was my second reading of the book and I did enjoy it, though not as much as I did the first time. But it did let me concentrate on the simplicity of Kathy's narration, and to consider who she thinks her audience is.

I am looking forward to reading this again before too long. I want to know what else I missed, and I want to know how it feels on a second read. I think the experience of this discussion, both the agreements and the disagreements, will make the second time through very interesting.

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

[...] Her style is artless and in many ways she seems a lot younger than 30 or so. (She has been a carer for 12 years, which would make her about that age.) Again, I accept that that is a reflection of her limited education and interaction with anyone other than her fellow clones.

I found her style a perfect match to the story being told. It helped me to see that the perspective was limited and I think this, over the first few chapters, adjusted my expectations for extra detail or sci-fi-like elaborations and so let me more readily accept the story as written.

[darryl]

I on the other hand have no intention right now of re-reading this book or anything else by this author, though I am a believer in never say never. We thankfully have differing tastes and perspectives and I too have enjoyed the discussion, particularly how others interpret the book. The "conflict", such as it is, seems to be healthy disagreement amongst reasonable people. After all, it would be boring if we all agreed.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Your interpretations are not reflected in any way in the text. I do not believe that this author, who glossed over so many details that would have added veracity, sat down and thought out the sterility angle at all. I think it more likely that he didn't bother to research if cloned animals could or could not reproduce.

And if the interaction with normal society is extraneous, why was sex with non-clones specifically mentioned? I can't be the only reader who thought that that would lead to some subplot.

That is one of the biggest problems with the book. There is an awful lot not reflected directly in the text. It is sometimes a useful device to leave some things to the imagination of the reader, but in this case my opinion is that it is badly overdone. The sterility angle is just one anomaly in a science that is entirely incidental and almost totally invented. Human organs and other products harnessed from humans do not provide cures for cancer and all diseases, nor is it likely that they will ever do so, amongst other anomalies. It is imaginary science, and any attempts to reconcile it with real science is doomed to failure. To use real or reasonably projected science would have involved the author in telling more stories than he was interested in telling and likely more than he ever bothered to imagine.

Sex with normal people could indeed have lead to a very different story if the author had wanted to go that way. Instead it serves the very minor object of furthering the isolation of the clones from that normal society. I agree that, like much in the book, it raised expectations that were not realised. You have focused on some of these elements, I on others. In my case I have been left disappointed and frustrated and feel that the book is largely incomplete. Your experience seems to be similar. Others have been able to ignore all of these aspects and enjoy the book for what it is.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by darryl

[...] The sterility angle is just one anomaly in a science that is entirely incidental and almost totally invented. Human organs and other products harnessed from humans do not provide cures for cancer and all diseases, nor is it likely that they will ever do so, amongst other anomalies. It is imaginary science, and any attempts to reconcile it with real science is doomed to failure. [...]

"imaginary science" - isn't that pretty much the definition for science fiction? But this book barely qualifies for that distinction...

I still don't get why there is this suggestion that the sterility angle is an anomaly. Making the clones sterile isn't even science fiction, there are many ways it can be done (several involving no genetics at all). And there are many reasons why it might be done: in our world companies make GM crops infertile for commercial reasons. (One can easily envisage these clones as a sort of GM crop.)

There are also examples in our world of human body products used for treating disease, including cancer. eg: adult stem cells. (In a society happy to grow clones, the use of embryonic stem cells would seem like a more obvious choice than adult stem cells, but maybe they know something we don't, or maybe the clones are genetically modified to make a difference.)

I'm not claiming this is the answer in the story (I still consider it irrelevant), but the scientific stretch to what we see in Never Let Me Go seems very small indeed, certainly much less than a lot of other science fiction.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by gmw

It's an important part of the context. The choice by Ishiguro was obviously deliberate, and not a lack of research or imagination. At a technical level, I and others gave various reasons why sterile clones might be preferable to fertile ones (see here). At the immediate story level I think sterility and sex speaks to the nature of the clones.

These reasons are not in the text, not even hinted at in the text.

Your questions had me collect the next bit about the fact that the clones are not supposed to smoke:

You mentioned earlier something about the author never showing the clones being told they were important, whereas I'd have said that almost everything about Hailsham was doing that - albeit in a distorted manner.

I don't believe I said anything about "important"; if I did, it was in the context of making them feel they were acting for a greater good, inspiring feelings of altruism and nobility and self-sacrifice, etc. Saying they are "special" and shouldn't smoke because they need to stay healthy isn't exactly an inspirational message.

Sure, in a murder mystery this is supposed to be the case - and some writers take this principle so literally that they leave no mystery, because every casually mentioned detail is a known clue. The better mystery writers know that sometimes the gun on the table is used only as a distraction.

Chekhov's gun principle is not limited to murder mysteries; it applies to all good fiction writing. It's not a matter of "clues"; it's a matter of setting up the story so that all the pieces eventually fall into place because every detail was carefully chosen.

And the better writers, whether genre or literary, don't need to rely on an information dump.

But that's not the case with Never Let Me Go. There are no distractions. It is a book sparse of detail, so that everything that is mentioned feels important. In most cases the importance/purpose is contextual, it's that sort of book, part of setting up the feelings and questions in the reader's mind. If you're not in a receptive frame of mind you're going to miss the connections.

My frame of mine is just fine; it's the book that's lacking. You say there are no distractions? I say the book is filled with distractions--implausibilities, pieces that don't fit, scientific anomalies, the aforesaid information dump.

"Feelings and questions"? Are they supposed to be a substitute for plot? What questions am I supposed to have? Am I supposed to wonder about the morality of cloning humans? Did that in college ethics courses decades ago. Am I supposed to be amazed at the idea of learned helplessness? Been there, done that. Just what are the great insights I'm supposed to glean from this book and ponder?

The following may be a bit presumptuous, I hope you'll excuse it.

Some of your comments might be derived from a genre-writers' advice column about finding sources of possible conflict in the story and using that to drive the action or character interactions. (The possibility of sex between clones and normals, or that supposedly sterile clones might find a way to breed, or that some clones might become rebellious or try to escape, and so on.)

It's good advice, as far as it goes, for standard genre fiction. Just one of the many guidelines that exist to help authors of such fiction to stay on the straight and narrow path (to keep to the conventions that modern readers expect). But I never really expected Ishiguro would stay on the path.

There is very little conflict in Never Let Me Go, and what there is never seems to get beyond rather childish stuff (as highlighted by bookpossum). It is my impression that this is entirely intentional (rather than lazy or accidental). So all your suggestions wondering why Ishiguro didn't introduce this or that conflict seem - to me - to be misdirected. The lack of conflict is one of the central elements of this book.

You're being quite dismissive of genre fiction.

Without conflict, there's no story. The romantic triangle was at least mildly interesting because the characters were in conflict and you have the push-pull of competing loyalties and motives. The larger context of clones as a donor class was just a given; we didn't even know about "miracle cures" or how they fit into society as a whole until the information dump. To a certain extent, the clone aspect was background noise.