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

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by gmw

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.)

Because clones are not sterile in the animal world. Because these clones would have to be made sterile. Because if they were made sterile, the reader has a right to wonder why that choice was made. Because the author does not indicate why.

If animal clones were infertile, fine, I wouldn't question why sterility was mentioned. But they're not.

However, I would still question why he mentioned sex with non-clones and then did nothing with it.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Catlady

[...] You're being quite dismissive of genre fiction. [...]

That was not my intention. It's what I write, and most of the time it's what I read.

Genres exist because certain standards/conventions/traditions have evolved that categorise the results - not perfectly but enough that most resellers use recognisably similar sets of genre names. In general, what doesn't fit into commonly recognised genres is either called a mash-up or gets lumped into "Literary" fiction.

My own definition of Literary fiction is fiction in which the rules of genre are set aside (or not followed as assiduously as normal). As I mentioned earlier, I think an author takes additional risks when choosing to write Literary fiction, because the rules of the various genres help to keep your work in a form that readers are familiar with and are prepared to enjoy.

None of this makes genre fiction necessarily easier to write or of a lesser quality than Literary fiction, but by definition it does make it conventional (to a greater or lesser extent).

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Catlady

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

I think I will leave our conversation about the book there. I did read your response, but I cannot think of anything to add on my side that I have not already said. Saying it again is unlikely to be more convincing so it's going to be another case of unresolved disagreement between us ... but thank you for the discussion.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by gmw

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

Of course. I personally was able to accept it on that basis, barely. The author has done little more than slowly reveal the assumptions he made about his society and the science and has left readers to fill in virtually everything (or simply ignore it). Neither is particularly satisfying. I don't think it's laziness. Just a very narrow focus.

Originally Posted by gmw

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.)

It is an anomaly which can be explained in any number of ways, which you and I have both done, but the author has not. To the author it simply does not matter.

Originally Posted by gmw

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.)

But we don't need to kill people to obtain stem cells. Neither stem cells nor other human products cure all diseases. This is the scenario the author wanted to set up. The Clones had to die to provide the setting for the story and he didn't care how he did id. It is fantasy science in the true sense.

I

Originally Posted by gmw

'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.

This is the problem. It was so irrelevant to the author that he did little more than reveal it. But to some readers it was very relevant. Catlady for one.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by gmw

That was not my intention. It's what I write, and most of the time it's what I read.

Genres exist because certain standards/conventions/traditions have evolved that categorise the results - not perfectly but enough that most resellers use recognisably similar sets of genre names. In general, what doesn't fit into commonly recognised genres is either called a mash-up or gets lumped into "Literary" fiction.

My own definition of Literary fiction is fiction in which the rules of genre are set aside (or not followed as assiduously as normal). As I mentioned earlier, I think an author takes additional risks when choosing to write Literary fiction, because the rules of the various genres help to keep your work in a form that readers are familiar with and are prepared to enjoy.

None of this makes genre fiction necessarily easier to write or of a lesser quality than Literary fiction, but by definition it does make it conventional (to a greater or lesser extent).

This rule breaking characteristic is missing from most (but not all) definitions of literary fiction which I come across. Certainly I doubt that a work of genre fiction becomes literary fiction solely because it fails to conform to all of the conventions of the genre. If it possesses only one characteristic of literary fiction it surely remains genre fiction, probably either very good or very bad genre fiction. Nor do I think the categories are mutually exclusive.

I use the genre fiction label for one purpose only. When I see the label and I'm interested I take a much closer look before deciding to read it, and decide not to more often.

An interesting topic, but perhaps one for its own thread rather than this one.

[orlok]

As usual, I haven’t read any other views on the book yet so as not to be influenced. I picked this book up with a sense of anticipation, expecting something a bit special, something moving and engaging. I felt let down in all respects. Not to say that it was a bad book. On the contrary, it was well written with an intriguing concept. It just didn’t deliver in the way I expected it to. I never felt a sense of jeopardy or risk on behalf of the protagonists, and I didn’t really feel invested in their stories or the relationships. But what really surprised me was that there was no sense of outrage or challenge from the characters when they found out what their destiny was. I thought the story would become one of a fight back again the inequities of their situation, or maybe at least a flight from it. What I did not expect was the mild acquiescence. Yes, it felt a bit sad, but when the characters don’t seem to feel strongly about the unfairness they face, how can the reader really get invested?

I gave it 3 stars for being well written, but found it ultimately disappointing.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by orlok

What I did not expect was the mild acquiescence. Yes, it felt a bit sad, but when the characters don’t seem to feel strongly about the unfairness they face, how can the reader really get invested?

One almost wonders if Ishiguro meant to imply that something about the cloning process resulted in passivity, as if the clone, while being an exact genetic match, still lacked some vivifying element present in the original. But this was one of the issues for me and others, that he didn't seem to have a firm grasp on his world or at least didn't convey it satisfactorily. I don't like to have everything spelled out for me (and I loathed the info dump at the end), but I need the sense that the author has created a consistent and coherent world.

One thing that occurred to me that I don't think has been mentioned is to what extent the clones might accept their destiny because that is how they got a life at all? That the good moments might justify their dreadful destiny?

[orlok]

Originally Posted by issybird

One thing that occurred to me that I don't think has been mentioned is to what extent the clones might accept their destiny because that is how they got a life at all? That the good moments might justify their dreadful destiny?

I think that’s a very good point. They did seem to accept they were lucky to be there, and that there purpose was to be harvested. But what I don’t get is that in most other ways they seemed to experience the human condition, so why would they acquiesce so easily? I just don’t think Ishiguru really made the case.

[Dazrin]

Interesting thought. Maybe passivity is a selection criteria for who gets selected for cloning. As this is presented as a mature system maybe the early generations had the issues and they have since perfected the selection criteria to minimize the number of aggresive (?), motivated (?), rebelious (?) clones.

[Catlady]

Am I remembering correctly that all we're told about the "originals" of the clones is that they're from the dregs of society, including law-breakers. Seems to me that those who break the law would tend to be more rebellious than those who don't.

As for the program being mature and maybe deliberately selecting for passivity, it can't be all that mature if it started post-WWII (I think I remember that), considering that the first crop of clones would have needed some 20 years to grow up, and the story is set in the 1990s.

[issybird]

I think that they're cloned from the dregs is a theory of the clones, but they do seem to know things on some level, so I'm willing to take that as a given. Speculation: the process could be highly unpleasant for the donor, hence a form of societal punishment.

I think the Occam's Razor explanation would be that there was something about the cloning process itself that resulted in more passive entities.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by issybird

I think that they're cloned from the dregs is a theory of the clones, but they do seem to know things on some level, so I'm willing to take that as a given. Speculation: the process could be highly unpleasant for the donor, hence a form of societal punishment.

I think the Occam's Razor explanation would be that there was something about the cloning process itself that resulted in more passive entities.

Except that there's no science to indicate that.

It seems to be just another indication of how the author failed to have a coherent, consistent backdrop for the story he wanted to tell--whatever that story was.

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Except that there's no science to indicate that.

There's very little science at all in this book. As for the passivity, I think we have any one of several explanations, the simplest being drugging. Or some manipulation of the cloning process or the genes during the cloning process, or conditioning from birth/hatching/decanting (whatever it's called.) It doesn't really matter how it's achieved.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by CRussel

There's very little science at all in this book. As for the passivity, I think we have any one of several explanations, the simplest being drugging. Or some manipulation of the cloning process or the genes during the cloning process, or conditioning from birth/hatching/decanting (whatever it's called.) It doesn't really matter how it's achieved.

It does matter because the lack of coherent detail is a major distraction.

It shows laziness and/or disdain for the reader, neither of which this reader finds acceptable.

[CRussel]

I don't agree in a general sense, though I understand that might not work for you. The book isn't about the science, so any details on it is extraneous to the core of the book. Or, at least that's my perception of it. No, this isn't a science fiction book, though it's not set in our current world. Could he have written it as a pure SF book? Certainly. But it would have been a different book, with a different raison d'etre. Would I have liked it better? Hard to imagine I would have liked it less. But clearly that was not the author's intent, and I'm willing to grant that he didn't allow himself to get distracted from the main point.