Comments on: Book Club Discussion: Never Let Me Go

By: Jody

Jody — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:08:46 +0000

Re #4 – I think they cared about their lives because they were told that they had a purpose. They believed that their purpose was to become a donor and that it was a noble one.

On page 227 Ruth, Kathy and Tommy were having a discussion about what it was like to donate and Ruth says: “I think I was a pretty decent carer. But five years felt about enough for me. I was like you Tommy. I was pretty much ready when I became a donor. It felt right. After all, it’s what we’re SUPPOSED to be doing isn’t it?”

And Kath mentions that this is the sort of thing you hear donors say all the time. I guess if you have no choice, believing you’re doing something good and fulfilling your destiny is what you do to get by. I kinda think we all do that to some degree… whether it’s about our jobs, or our habits, or lack thereof… we all rationalize our lives.

By: Jody

Jody — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:58:35 +0000

You know, despite them going off to find Ruth’s possible, I really didn’t believe they were cloned from actual people… it just seems like such a recipe for trouble to have duplicates of living people around. BUT, the one theory that could fit is what if every person that was born was cloned at birth so that they’d always have a perfect match organ donor for when the time came?

But since the clones do seem to believe without question that they have possibles, perhaps my assumption that it was untrue was wrong?

On page 139, Kathy says: “Since each of us was copied at some point from a normal person, there must be, for each of us, somewhere out there, a model getting on with his or her life.”

But it’s actually that comment that made me feel that it wasn’t true. Almost like that’s too innocent and bizarre of a thought, so they must be mistaken about the possibility of possibles. Imagine what it would be like as the human to have a clone of yourself track you down?

By: Jody

Jody — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:51:11 +0000

Going back and looking at some of the pages I flagged as I was reading, it seems they were clearly told about the donations fairly early on in the book. Pg 81 – Miss Lucy: “You’re lives are set out for you. You’ll become adults, then before you’re old, before you’re even middle aged, you’ll start to donate your vital organs. That’s what each of you was created to do.”

So… you’d think that would have tipped me off to the fact that they were clones? Because reading it now, clones seems like the only possible answer, but at the time it just didn’t seem clear to me.

By: With a Good Book » Blog Archive » Read by Rae: 2009

With a Good Book » Blog Archive » Read by Rae: 2009 — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:36:11 +0000

[...] (Feb 23) 22. Evil in Carnations (Flower Shop Mysteries, No. 8 ) by Kate Collins (Feb 20) 21. Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro (Feb 18) 20. To Hell and Back (Dante Valentine, Book 5) by Lilith [...]

By: Amrie

Amrie — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:45:08 +0000

I had that thought too, before I read the review, that perhaps, they were just children without families!

By: Rae

Rae — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:24:31 +0000

Good point. I wasn’t really thinking any further than answer why they might encourage the sex. This is where not knowing anymore about the cloning process and the history of how they’ve treated clones makes it difficult to speculate. I could fanwank that originally they didn’t allow them to have sex but the desires were still there so they found a way to do it anyway. So then they took away their ability to reproduce and then encouraged them to have it so it wouldn’t seem like a forbidden fruit. (Adam & Eve anyone?) But maybe now they’re not realizing that it does add further complications.

Of course, if they see them as less than human, most would probably feel like they can’t possibly love… that that’s a human feeling?

By: Jody

Jody — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:21:07 +0000

I kind of suspected all the way along that they were clones, but without actual verification I also kept wondering if they were unwanted orphans. Which I think would have actually made it even more creepy, so I think I was happy with the clones reveal.

By: Jody

Jody — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:16:40 +0000

Re # 4 – It almost felt like society saw the clones in sort of the same way we see cows (for those of us who see them as dinner). We just accept what happens to them because that’s the way it is, and most of them wouldn’t be there in the first place if they weren’t there for our consumption. Or as Rae said – they are viewed as less than human. (Which is a much nicer way of saying it!)

By: Jody

Jody — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:11:36 +0000

Ah but see, I would think that creating human bonds and affection between the clones would just be more reason for them to want to rebel or escape. The sexual relationship seems to be what spawns the desire for a deferral in the first place.

By: Rae

Rae — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:48:05 +0000

The way that Madame shies away from them, almost “afraid” to touch them, it would seem like there are some folks out there who have issues with it, but not the majority.

I agree. I actually thought this reaction from her hinted at the fact that society actually sees the clones as something less than human. I also go that feeling when they were in the town and lied about where they were from. I can’t remember (sorry – returned my copy to the library!) if Kathy specifically notes that people act differently around them but there was definitely something she said during that sequence that led me to think it.

If so, it does explain why it’s become accepted as the norm. Or, perhaps, why we don’t see more people protesting their treatment. Perhaps society has also been desenitized to the whole thing at this point and doesn’t question their treatment partly because they don’t see them as human. It’d explain why Madame pulls away from them.