Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Juushika's Reviews > Never Let Me Go

Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
616321
's review

it was ok
bookshelves: status-borrowed

As a child, Kathy H. attended Hailsham, an elite boarding school where children were raised to be both healthy and artistic and taught to believe that both their health and creativity were essential to themselves and to the world they would one day enter. Now an adult, Kathy reflects back on her life. She charts the very slow progression of her growth, her friendships with fellow students Tommy and Ruth, and her knowledge, as she herself gradually began to learn about her role in the outside world—and what this role dictates about her identity. A combination of heavy introspection and soft-scifi, Never Let Me Go has a thought-provoking premise and is brilliantly written, but fails to reach its potential, spending all its time in excruciatingly slow buildup and none of it in impact, theory, or debate. Enjoyable, but somewhat empty, and so moderately recommended.

This book's greatest strength is its writing style, but it is also one of the most irritating aspects. Kathy, the narrator, is intensely thoughtful and analytical, breaking down her personal history into eras, important moments, and developing themes. She walks the reader through the story of her life much in the way she lived it, slowly, very slowly, bringing to light her final realizations. In other words, there is a lot hidden in this book, and it takes the book's entire length—literally until the last fifteen pages—to reveal it all. In between are circuitous examples, where Kathy starts to talk about one event, goes back a bit to explain why the event was relevant, explains the event itself, and then goes on without having drawn a major conclusion—instead, she's just mapped another point on her gradual arc or argument. The resulting pace is excruciating, both artful, brilliantly thought-out and executed, and simply painful as the reader is lead along, disappointed, and lead along again. The book's pace bring the characters to life (although both Ruth and Tommy lack some dimension) and, with it, the life that they lived, through Hailsham and beyond. As such, it is the highlight of the book, worked like an artform, but it is also intensely irritating and makes the book (which actually reads quite quickly) seem longer than it is.

There are a near-infinite number of issues, from the ethical to philosophical, that could be brought to question and debate in this book. The very premise almost begs them—both the science of the base culture and the purpose of Hailsham itself. Unfortunately, however, none of these topics are brought to issue in the text. Instead, the book is consumed by the very slow progression of the story, the creep towards the "twist" revelations of who the children are and what purpose they serve. When finally revealed, these revelations are not all that big—not because they lack the potential to be, but because they pale in comparison to the immense buildup that leads to them. The characters just barely exceed the gradual revelation of the book's premise and are largely just passive carriers of the story, and so the other various issues, the possible debates, never enter into the text. So when other reviewers talk about the questions this book raises, what they're really talking about is the potential for questions—and that is not the same thing. The burden of meaning for this book, everything that the reader could take away and continue to think about, rests entirely on the reader, who must pull out the themes and ask the questions himself, carry on the debates himself. The author shirks his responsibility, and the book suffers for it, failing to live up to its potential.

My final complaint with this book is that the underlying concept seems, blandly, unrealistic. **SPOILERS** follow, so be warned: The fact that in the book's contemporary culture the clones are considered non-human despite looking, acting, and living like humans seems entirely impossible. Consider: Humans never viewed the first cloned animals as different than their original counterparts; indeed, we were amazed and drew attention to the fact that they were identical, that they were clones. So why would cloned humans be any different (especially that these clones pass in human society as normal and indistinguishable)? Outside of the huge wastefulness of cloning entire humans just to harvest their organs, the fact that the cloned humans were not considered humans seems unreal to me, no matter who the gene donors were, no matter what brief attempts Ishiguro (though Ms. Emily) makes to justify it. **END SPOILERS** This is the underlying basis of the book's conflict and plot, and so problems with this concept create problems throughout the book. They weaken the foundations, making it difficult to accept the book and, as a result, even more difficult to take on the work of finding and analyzing themes, which the author fails too do. In the end, Never Let Me Go has a thoughtful premise with heavy potential for thought, theory, and debate, and it is skillfully, even artfully written, but the book fails to live up to its potential: the author does not tackle his own themes, and no matter how interesting the premise, it is an unreasonable one. I wanted to enjoy this book, and I did, but I felt cheated at the end: the final product was surprisingly empty, with the burden of meaning placed entirely and unfairly upon the reader alone.
269 likes ·  âˆ� flag

Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read Never Let Me Go.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

Started Reading
September 27, 2007 – Finished Reading
April 23, 2008 – Shelved
April 23, 2008 – Shelved as: status-borrowed

Comments Showing 1-15 of 15 (15 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Jonathan (last edited Jan 30, 2011 04:56PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Jonathan Just to comment on the bit between the spoiler brackets: You ask why cloned humans would be treated differently when they are acting and living like humans.

During the story it was made clear that Hailsham wasn't the norm for clones, but an experiment to try to convince people that clones were not soulless organ farms. As Miss Emily told Kathy and Tommy, "The world didn't want to be reminded how the donation programme really worked. They didn't want to think about you students...they wanted you back in the shadows." Miss Emily alludes to the fact that by the end of the novel clones were being raised in horrid conditions that the Hailsham students wouldn't be able to believe.

Is it really so hard to imagine clones being treated like non-humans? Look to the animal rights movement for inspiration. Why do some people insist on humane animal treatment even though the animals will be slaughtered in the end? How can the opposition to animal rights even defend their position of keeping animals in squalor, pumped full of antibotics, marching them inexorably to their deaths without even thinking of them as living creatures? Yet this is exactly how it is done. In more horrid examples from our past, you only need to look at the Nazis or antebellum America. Weren't Jews and Africans "considered non-human despite looking, acting, and living like humans"? Indeed the Jews were exterminated as though they were insects, and Africans were stolen from their homelands, tortured, used for labor, and discarded.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I don't think that you should discredit this novel based solely on your inability to fathom how a person who is different could be treated differently by society.




Melissa Andrews Very well stated. The review was pretty good otherwise.


Alison I think this is actually brought up in the book. They were treated as non-human because society needed so much for there to be a cure for cancer etc, craved it and could not go back to the way it was without it, so they forced themselves to believe that the clones were non-human. Just as society forced themselves to believe that Jewish people were non-human, as the person above me has said.


Heather Totally agree. This book fascinates me as an allegory about racism and animal rights... and even environmental issues. As a society, we live in a state of permanent denial about our neglect and abuse and exploitation of the world around us, and it's amazing to read a book from the point of view of the exploited which is NOT a "rebel rebel" narrative.


Ilaria I loved this review so much as I felt the same but you said in such a more articulated way...pretty good...


message 6: by Roo (new) - rated it 3 stars

Roo I agree completely.


Sally W I enjoyed your review and agree with your commentary on Ruth and Tommy's characters being rather flat. However, in the recent past there had been controversy regarding whether IVF babies have souls. Although people believed these children to be human, they believed that the mechanisms of biology cannot create souls, and that only God can (from the Vatican's perspective). Since then people have dismissed the soul question as outdated and misinformed, but in this book Ishiguro portrayed a very real ethical issue.


Geraldine i agree with everything in your review.


Ettenig Sayam I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion. I was with you until the paragraph about the implausibility of the clone vs human debate. There is a long history of atrocities perpetrated by one group against the other because they were deemed not human. I'm not just talking about chattel slavery of Africans in America. Entire civilizations and populations have been wiped out with far more brutality, mercilessness and finality than what Ishiguro presents in this novel. Sometimes the dehumanizing doesn't have to require overt violence. We have case studies of governments and corporations essentially poisoning or treating people like guinea pigs as part of their cost benefit analysis. Even in the real world, resistance is futile. Sometimes destiny is fixed. Perhaps this is why all of your valid criticisms notwithstanding, Kathy's search for meaning and connection is poignant. Faced with that reality, how does Kathy and for that matter Ruth and Tommy find meaning in the scrap of existence that is given to them or to us as readers? For the author it seems to be "precious memories," the grind and excruciating minutiae of every day life and love.


Heather Westbrook agreed.


R Neil McDowell Totally agree. Also, organ transplants wouldn't cure cancer or motor neuron disease. The author's failure to flesh out his alternate universe also took away from my belief inn the story.


message 12: by AA88 (new) - rated it 2 stars

AA88 I have to say I have to disagree with your point about humans treating the clones differently. Admittedly, as soon as I realised that they were clones I thought of them differently. I don't know if anyone else feels the same but I have some preconception about clones just being brainless copies of their original counterparts. So many films, books and popular culture displays this idea of clones being mindless creatures and even just reading this book it was always somehow in the back of my mind that the people are this preconception of clones that I have. You see things like Star Wars where the clones are an expendable army and think no different of it. Yes, its a pretty ridiculous notion for it to cure cancer, but not such a ridiculous notion that clones would be treated the way they are in this novel. I honestly believe the reality of our reaction in the real world would not be dissimilar to that of this fictional world. Just look at history and the way we treat anything or anyone remotely different to us. It's programmed into our brains. I like to think the best of people and this seems negative but it's not plausible for you to say that the notion of mistreating clones is unrealistic. In fact, I think it is very realistic. What would be unrealistic is actually treating them and looking at them the same as us. Just look at history and racism. If we treat people with simply a different skin colour as inferior, I think we would treat these 'human copies' much the same if it meant that we would be able to live longer and prosper. We have a habit of telling ourselves that if it's not us then it's not happening. Imagine someone you love is dying. Would you not take any chance you have to save them? Would you not sacrifice an expendable object such as a clone which can simply be copied again from another person in order for your loved one to live? This is just my opinion and I know for sure that even though I'm not exactly a bad person, I just can't get over the fact that even the word 'clone' implies something so mechanical and inhuman to me which also followed me through the novel which is probably why I felt it was very impersonal.


message 13: by Kathy (new)

Kathy Prendergast I don't think the clones being treated as other than fully human is entirely implausible. Consider all the medical ethics issues we already disagree over as a culture, including abortion, euthanasia, IVF, stem cell research, and surrogacy. And also consider the times throughout human history when huge numbers of people WERE convinced that certain other groups of people were not human. The story seems to be a warning about the dangerous ethical waters we could be wading into if human cloning ever became common. (less)


Laura ageed 100%


message 15: by Joseph (new) - added it

Joseph Kawamura The computer you typed your review on contains raw materials that were mined with child labor. Switch out the computer for organs, children for clones, and you now know how people can just go about their lives without worrying about what happens to the humans being exploited for the comfort of others. It’s not that they don’t consider them humans, it’s that the exploitation of clones is an inconvenient truth that people simply ignore. The exact same way you and I ignore the fact that African children are slaving away mining semiconductors that will end up in our electronics.


back to top