Sign in with Facebook
Michelle's Reviews > Never Let Me Go
Never Let Me Go
by
by
** spoiler alert **
I can see Never Let Me Go being great for book clubs because it will generate a lot of discussion.
That being said, I didn't care for the book, for a couple of different reasons. The writing style is very conversational -- very much like you're having a discussion with the protagonist. The thing that annoyed me the most about this was the fact that the things that happened (so bob and I went walking to the store and we had a fight about the tree at school) and then the writer would tell you about the tree and why it was significant, then tell you about the fight. This sort of device is interesting the first few times you see it, but it started to annoy me over time. Maybe because I talk like that, and get off into tangents and anecdotes.
Also, at the heart of the store is the purpose/fate of the main characters. I get the impression that the author wanted to drop clues about it, and then reveal it so that it is a shocking twist (who's Kaiser Soeze? ;) The thing is, the references really aren't that subtle, so by the time the twist is reavealed, it's not all that exciting. Not only that, but I had so many questions at the end. Like -- these people know their fate, but they never think to question it, and, in fact, seem to be glad for it.
This was supposed to be a coming of age story. Generally "coming of age" involves people growing up and moving forward with their lives; often they need to overcome some obstacle to reveal their potential. However, the characters seem to be stagnate the whole way through; their fate doesn't change. The blurb on the back of the book mentions that the characters, Kathy, Ruth and Tommy, all have a shared background that's special, and implies that they're lucky. When two of the charaters confront someone to see if they can defer their fate (they don't even bother trying to change it), we find out a little bit of what makes their shared background special, but we aren't given anything to compare it to (we're just told that similar people have horrible existences, but not how). And they find out that they can't defer their fate, but they don't really seem to care; they don't even seem to be particularly glad that they tried.
I've seen a couple of reviews compare this to book to Aldous Huxley's classic "Brave New World" and Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale". Not even close. In both of these books we're exposed to an alternate reality, and we see how the main characters deal with their situations. Kazuo Ishiguro tries to sneak the alternate reality into the story, to take us by surprise.
I could go on, but I won't. Let's just say that I didn't care for this book and leave it at that.
That being said, I didn't care for the book, for a couple of different reasons. The writing style is very conversational -- very much like you're having a discussion with the protagonist. The thing that annoyed me the most about this was the fact that the things that happened (so bob and I went walking to the store and we had a fight about the tree at school) and then the writer would tell you about the tree and why it was significant, then tell you about the fight. This sort of device is interesting the first few times you see it, but it started to annoy me over time. Maybe because I talk like that, and get off into tangents and anecdotes.
Also, at the heart of the store is the purpose/fate of the main characters. I get the impression that the author wanted to drop clues about it, and then reveal it so that it is a shocking twist (who's Kaiser Soeze? ;) The thing is, the references really aren't that subtle, so by the time the twist is reavealed, it's not all that exciting. Not only that, but I had so many questions at the end. Like -- these people know their fate, but they never think to question it, and, in fact, seem to be glad for it.
This was supposed to be a coming of age story. Generally "coming of age" involves people growing up and moving forward with their lives; often they need to overcome some obstacle to reveal their potential. However, the characters seem to be stagnate the whole way through; their fate doesn't change. The blurb on the back of the book mentions that the characters, Kathy, Ruth and Tommy, all have a shared background that's special, and implies that they're lucky. When two of the charaters confront someone to see if they can defer their fate (they don't even bother trying to change it), we find out a little bit of what makes their shared background special, but we aren't given anything to compare it to (we're just told that similar people have horrible existences, but not how). And they find out that they can't defer their fate, but they don't really seem to care; they don't even seem to be particularly glad that they tried.
I've seen a couple of reviews compare this to book to Aldous Huxley's classic "Brave New World" and Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale". Not even close. In both of these books we're exposed to an alternate reality, and we see how the main characters deal with their situations. Kazuo Ishiguro tries to sneak the alternate reality into the story, to take us by surprise.
I could go on, but I won't. Let's just say that I didn't care for this book and leave it at that.
1787 likes · Like
鈭�
flag
Sign into 欧宝娱乐 to see if any of your friends have read
Never Let Me Go.
Sign In 禄
Reading Progress
Started Reading
March 1, 2007
–
Finished Reading
April 2, 2007
– Shelved
January 9, 2008
– Shelved as:
read-in-2007
Comments Showing 1-50 of 149 (149 new)
The reason the characters were not allowed to evolve and grow was because they were clones. They were never meant to have a future. That was the point of the novel.
I noticed your review today and I felt the same way about the book being a sort of poorly executed mimicry of Handmaid's Tale. Your comments made me feel validated among the group of my friends who really like this book, for whatever reason!
Forgive me for sounding harsh, but I kind of think you missed the point. I agree with Wendy. Part of the reason the characters are so trapped is because of their psychological conditioning. Their "coming-of-age" involves them becoming tragically aware that they will never have the chance to live their lives with the freedom allowed "human beings." They live in a glass cage, and when they realize the cage is there, they have to pretend they don't see it. Because if they accept its existence, then they must also accept the premise that they are soul-less... They would rather remember being special and dwell nostalgically on the times when their humanity was on full display. Been awhile since I read it though, so I'm kind of stretching here. But I'm definitely going to read it again... and love it again.
Yep, Wendy and Alex are spot on. No offense, but you missed the point.
You mentioned The Handmaid's Tale, which offers a more rebellious character and one who tries to cheat the system. Certainly, though, there will be those followers who are completely brainwashed, who go along with everything, who passively accept and don't ask questions. That is what Never Let Me Go offers - a perspective not normally taken in a dystopian novel. Ishiguru is resisting a trope (if not a cliche) of dystopian novel by writing from the perspective of a woman who never truly sees outside the system.
I must just have different taste, but I thought the book was very boring and had no climax. I would never recommend this book to anyone. It was very dull.
I'll admit that, during the early parts of this book, I didn't see why all the praise had been heaped upon this book. Like others, I felt that the "big secrets" were easy to figure out given the language and hints dropped along the way. And, once the secrets were all full revealed, I didn't get the lack of emotion or reaction in the main characters.It wasn't until I approached the novel's end that I saw the talent of the author's technique. I have to agree with others here who say that Ishiguro's genius is in treating us like we're one of the students: there are no "aha" moments because the knowledge has been building slowly from the beginning. This choice by the author might not be everyone's cup of tea.
I found the book's tone and characters- all a bit flat and lifeless- about such deep and complex subjects to be an important part of the book. Kathy and Tommy's acceptance and resignation of the state of the world feel haunting, and will give me something to think about.
Jill wrote: "I must just have different taste, but I thought the book was very boring and had no climax. I would never recommend this book to anyone. It was very dull."Or no taste at all.
I enjoyed your review and I completely see where you're coming from. I just finished reading it and I'm still unsure how I feel about it. I see the message and the beauty of the story but I'm also frustrated by the technique and style. One thing for sure is that this is a haunting book. Also to yeahiknow3, there's no need to troll here. If you're going to comment on a review make it something constructive or relative to the book - don't insult someone for their opinion.
Do not underestimate the potential good of acknowledging your shortcomings. And don't get mad at me about it. You are what you are, it's not my fault. Don't shoot the messanger.
I personally think you might have misunderstood the intentions of the author by making the book seem 'conversational'. The simplicity of Kathy's story is demonstrating her naivity, and that of all the characters. Ruth does seem to understand more than the others and the implications and limitations of their world, and I think this is why she manipulates the people around her, but Kathy is telling us about the trees and the insignificant scenery etc because to her, it is important to the story. She is a witness to life. It is not the author getting carried away, but a point being made to Kathy's child-like view of the world.
The reader too can be swept into this narrow view of their situation, and, even with preempting the ending of the story, can be surprised by what the author divulges at the end. I found myself surprised that I hadn't thought about how the world would have responded to the likes of Kathy, because all the time you treat her as human just like you. This in itself is a shocking twist, because it forces you to face the reality of the characters once and for all.
I agree with most of things that Michelle said, but I still really liked this book. Yes, as Mell said in her response message to Michelle, the prose of the book was pretty flat (as it was in The Remains of the Day). But I think what explains the flatness of the book is the repression of the main character Kathy. She is not an expressive person and a lot of the power comes from what is NOT said. Writing about repressed characters is not for every one. They can be pretty frustrating. You do want to shake the character and tell them to "get to it". And the highlight (for me) of this book were the several very moving (IMO) scenes in this book ("the stranded boat", "Ruth's confession", "Finding the cassette tape", "Ruth's double", "Vision of all of things that has been lost"). I think this book works for people that can feel it as a microcosm of their own and others' lives. The person with a lot of derring-do is more likely to dislike this book.
I think the movie was even better than the book, as it cut out the parts of the book that were least interesting to me and it handled the 'secret surprise' much better. But for the most part the movie was faithful to the book in story and in tone.
I'd like to thank everyone for their comments on my review. I'm amazed that people are reading and commenting three years later!That being said, at some point I will have to go back and re-read this book with all your comments in mind. It may not make me like the book anymore, but perhaps I will have a different understanding of it, and appreciate it more.
Thanks guys!
Mell wrote: "I'll admit that, during the early parts of this book, I didn't see why all the praise had been heaped upon this book. Like others, I felt that the "big secrets" were easy to figure out given the l..."i agree with almost everything you're saying, except the comment about lifeless characters. i do agree that the author could've went more in dept with the characeter development, but at the same time i felt like i knew the main characters--kathy, tommy, ruth--and understood what made them ticks.
some things, like all the sex talk and wanted to bang bang all the time, was just weird and seemed to be irrelevant.
but i do like the authors way of making you feel like you are the student. i like the style of writing. that being said, i could understand how it could be annoying for others. i can also understand why it could be a 'let down'for those expecting an climax.
i agree, the original poster, may be missing the point of the novel or rather, she was expecting something and was disappointed.
but even disappointed is better than indiffernce. so kudos to the author!
I think that Kathy is speaking to the reader as if you're conversing with her because the author wrote the book like you were a peer- you and Kathy shared the same fate. I don't think there was any "twist" Also, you mentioned the characters did not change their fate. I don't think they wanted too. To give up their life for another was what they had prepared for- to them and to this society it was a necessary thing and an honor, almost. They were "special." I don't think it ever occured to them because why would it? There are plenty of novels where characters run away to avoid fate- but few novels where the characters do the most logical and human thing to do- accept it. They've accepted death and were prepared for it. Simple as that.
In the Handmaid's Tale, the character saw the difference in her life from her previous one and hated it. She wanted to escape and have freedom. But if you've never had freedom than how can you know the difference?
We are given a very small, very small view of a world very different than our own. We are not really shown the teachers and how they feel. Miss Lucy is obviously a teacher who is disenchanted and frightened for her children- she feels they are very unprepared for their lives and wants to express to them their limitations. I think that was my favorite build-up. I would have loved to see more of Miss Lucy and her feelings, but alas, Kathy did not and so I will not. I think part of the beauty is that we really only do see one life- much like real life. I'm not sure if you missed the point, like others have said, but I don't think you read it the way it was meant to be read. I do hope you give it another try.
I didn't care for the book either, but there were still parts of the book I liked.
That's the beauty of the book surely_ that it's written in a conversational style so that the reader recognises the human"clones" as human! Moreover, this is called stream of consciousness style and is a tool wielded by many writers to make texts accessible and to suspend disbelief!!!
i think this is a very good review. i did not like the book at all exactly for the same reasons. the constant flashbacks were tiring and there was no real climax.
My review is very similar to yours. I really didn't enjoy this book.
I agree very much with your review as well. Having very much enjoyed The Handmaids Tale, The Road, Brave New World and other 'tilted reality' novels, I found this book very frustrating. Apart from the style of writing which I found very irritating, the characters were all two dimensional (including the guardians) and static. The ending reminded me of Scooby Doo, the whole wheeling the headmistress out of the darkened room to reveal their destiny and I laughed at much of the dialogue in this section. Like many others, I felt cheated of more depth in the reality he had created. The character of Miss Lucy, the guardian/agitator who felt morally justified in revealing more to the students was also flat and the little pieces of information she disseminated seemed clumsily handled but very convenient. I wanted to know why there was no resistance, no underground movement raging against the machine, both from the clones and humans perspective. I wanted to know more about the machine. How on earth was all this managed and run? With utter freedom to roam, how was it policed? These clones were obviously highly intelligent and emotionally mature so how come they weren't asking more of the world around them? There were parts of the book I really enjoyed but it fell short of a classic for me.
Totally agree with your review- I thought I was the odd one out for not thinking it was brilliant
I have to say I don't agree with you, especially when you talk about "twists". There is no intend to make a twist of the cloning and organ donor thing, since the characters are not told but quite aware of what's going to happen to them (and this is exactly why they don't rebel). It's precisely what makes me like this book so much, it's about the inertia of masses which is crippling our society.
I think what you miss in the reasons that the author feels the need to explain the significance of something like the tree is because he wants you to forget about him. He really wants it to feel like Kathy really is the one telling the story, which I personally believe he does a great job at doing.
I loved this book. It wasn't full of action but the writing style absolutely drew me in. And I questioned why Kathy and Tommy just didn't leave Madame's house and get in their car and drive to... well anywhere! There was absolutely nothing to stop them. There was never any indication that they looked any different than anyone else, but they were so conditioned that they accepted their fates and went back to their lives in spite of what Miss Emily told them. It was a very interesting concept that I thoroughly enjoyed. And it was very different from anything that I've read before. Maybe that's another reason why I liked it so much.
Can you recommend some sci-fi dystopian novels? I need a list to pursue my Ph.D. on the same. Thank you.
We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood,
Children of Men- P D James
Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep- Philip K Dick
The above are all ones I have read but might be obvious so you might already have them on your list :-)
Katie wrote: "We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood,
Children of Men- P D James
Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep- Philip K Dick
The above are all ones I have read but might be obvio..."
Thank you dear Katie.. Yes, I'm aware of these titles but still I'm glad you responded.. Have a nice day...
This review pretty much sums up my thoughts on this book. Flat writing, uninteresting characters, a rather annoying style of leaping around in time in a page or two. Not particularly sci-fi or dystopian in tone.
Alex wrote: "Forgive me for sounding harsh, but I kind of think you missed the point. I agree with Wendy. Part of the reason the characters are so trapped is because of their psychological conditioning. Thei..."It sounds like YOU missed the point. Everything you wrote here is off point.
i completely agree with this review. i never understood why the characters never 'questioned their fate' as you put it. i was also bothered by Kathy's lack of emotion. maybe that's just the way the author intended it, but i didnt like it all the same.
The whole point is that it麓s not surprising.
Think you kind of missed the point here...this novel is literary fiction, not a sci-fi pulp novel. The author is going for twists and action...the story is about the illusions we create to avoid dealing with death.
Roxane wrote: "I have to say I don't agree with you, especially when you talk about "twists". There is no intend to make a twist of the cloning and organ donor thing, since the characters are not told but quite a..."I love that last line. The "intertia of masses". Well put!!
I totally agree with you mate, I was shocked at how much I disliked this book. I hated the characters so much because of her 'discussion style' I didn't believe they would act the way they did in those situations. Also nothing interesting bloody happens the whole stupid book. The story was set up to go in a interesting direction but absolutely went nowhere.
Ugh, you thought A Handmaid's Tale was good? It's such a poor attempt at feminism I was almost laughing during that book. The twist isn't meant to be hidden; that's not the author's intention. Maybe you need to read a bit more carefully.
You are spot on. The book sucks. Stick to your guns.
Michelle - I agree with you; my reaction to the book was exactly the same. What a disappointment.
Spot on review, my thoughts exactly.
agree with you 100% you did not "miss the point" as some others have suggested. it was a very boring conversation I wish I had not had with Kathy H or any of them. I saw the nuances and the hints and understood all about how they were living in a bubble and 'the do they have souls or not'? interesting concept that generates great discussions that some suggest you missed & still found it dull
In a way, this novel creates a new genre of "snuff fiction" in that it is so obscene once you figure out what is going on that you still have to sit through all their adolescent drivel about the minutiae of their moment-to-moment. It is sort of a prefiguring of the Twitter universe.
Oh I agree so, so much with your review and you could not have put it better. I so, so hated this book. YUCK!
I agree with every neg review - to a point. In the end, this book was freaking MOVING!! Way too long, way too boring in parts, way too mechanical in parts, way too flat in parts, and on and on. But MOVING!!! I could see how it's frustrating that the characters did not 'act out' or show the 'requisite' emotion. But that does not have to remove the huge emotions for the reader, who attaches (possibly) to these repressed characters.
The movie is great (bring some tissue if you're the type) in the same way. PLUS it cuts out a lot of the boring parts of the book and the movie lets 'the cat out of the bag' (divulges the book's stupid secret) at the start.
Complacent characters..... no hero.... so much could've been done with such a great story line!
The book is trying to show that these people who society view as inconsequential and are in no way individual are human and are people in their own right. The beauty of it is that you see how human Kathy is by the way she thinks, remembers and tells the story. There is no real climax but that isn't what it is about and neither is it about spoon feeding the meaning or the "twist" to that readers. It's just about a girl remembering mourning and wishing that things had gone a better way than they did. No it doesn't follow the conventional story pyramid but that is also one of the best things about the book.
I think the book is very well written and effective. However it is so disturbing that I would never recommend it. Frankly I would almost classify it as a horror novel. It makes me afraid to read his other books even though he's a brilliant writer.
Yes, I don't understand the wealth of complaints about complacent characters. I can understand not enjoying the novel, or Ishiguro's writing style in general(which admittedly I do love), but this is not a sci-fi novel(which I also love). It is supposed to be hard, and literary, and spiritually frustrating; not about the absence of heroes, but the absence of the ability to even consider that heroes are possible. Of course a huge part of me wanted to see an uprising, a rejection of the system that kept these characters enslaved to an unjust system, but life usually doesn't end like that. Many people subjugated remain subjugated because it is an incredibly effective tool of oppression to make people feel as if it is natural for them to be subjugated. Just because a premise seems well suited for an action packed dystopian revolution doesn't mean that it is unsuccessful for that not being its intention. Like the way it's done or not, this novel explores who we are, what makes us feel different from others, and the lengths we will go to maintain our humanity while avoiding confrontation with that which tries to take it away. It's a good book.
Remains of the Day had elements of this knowing/not knowing thing, too.