Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Our theme for September was "school" and our winning school-related book is Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro.



As a child, Kathy � now thirty-one years old � lived at Hailsham, a private school in the scenic English countryside where the children were sheltered from the outside world, brought up to believe that they were special and that their well-being was crucial not only for themselves but for the society they would eventually enter. Kathy had long ago put this idyllic past behind her, but when two of her Hailsham friends come back into her life, she stops resisting the pull of memory.

And so, as her friendship with Ruth is rekindled, and as the feelings that long ago fueled her adolescent crush on Tommy begin to deepen into love, Kathy recalls their years at Hailsham. She describes happy scenes of boys and girls growing up together, unperturbed � even comforted � by their isolation. But she describes other scenes as well: of discord and misunderstanding that hint at a dark secret behind Hailsham’s nurturing facade. With the dawning clarity of hindsight, the three friends are compelled to face the truth about their childhood–and about their lives now.

A tale of deceptive simplicity, Never Let Me Go slowly reveals an extraordinary emotional depth and resonance � and takes its place among Kazuo Ishiguro’s finest work.

Reserved for discussion questions, etc.

I LOVE this book! It's beautifully written, and I love the slight mystery as to what's going on, and it's sweet and sad and serious and wonderful.

I liked this book but I didn't love it. It's beautifully written and mysterious, but I felt it that it could have dug deeper into some of the issues it was presenting. (view spoiler)[Why not question their fate as donors? or why not try to rebel? Why is the life of a student from one school to another school with some additional freedoms to carer to donation/death? With the carers having the freedom to drive around, what is keeping them from driving off to the countryside and hiding from their fate? I'm sure there is some behavioral/psychological training, but I feel like even with training, you would expect some retaliation. (hide spoiler)]

Chase wrote: "I liked this book but I didn't love it. It's beautifully written and mysterious, but I felt it that it could have dug deeper into some of the issues it was presenting. [spoilers removed]"

I loved this book. The beauty of this book is the understated way the subject matter is handled. Kazuo Ishiguro talks around the entire subject without really talking about what happens to everyone.

The real question is how can a society allow to happen what happens and how do the main characters think it is OK. The main premiss is never questioned and that is the beauty.

I had very mixed feelings on this book. It felt like both a wonderful literary novel and a terrible YA novel at the same time. The writing was spectacular, and Ishiguro managed to capture the voice a person incapable of challenging or seeing the injustice in the world she inhabits. He also conveyed a world infused with a sense of loss and sadness perfectly. However, the problem I had with it, and the reason I said it was a bad YA novel (or bad by any genre standards) is that the world building was insufficient to sustain the premise of the book. Without spoiling it the central idea of the book is quite flimsy and never explored fully until a third act vomit of exposition. While the book hints at what's going on it never states it, in part to leave much mystery. But when it is revealed, in a single scene, it falls flat because not enough pieces were put in place earlier to make it work. While the emotional reality of the characters and their action makes sense, the world of the novel is, while not unrealistic, not realistic enough without needing further exploration. The point, in part of the book, is that the characters do not seek this out and are happy to go along, a sort of anti-YA, which I think is an excellent move. But it presents a very dark world and pretends it's just a few moves away from the contemporary world, which it's not. I think it was a solid read if you can get past that, which, for reasons discussed below, I couldn't. There were many interesting questions that could have been asked by this book, but it didn't ask any of them, and instead focused the whole time on the characters. I can't judge the book on what it could be about, but what it was, in which case, there wasn't enough past the meticulous writing.

(view spoiler)[
So I have a particularly unique perspective on this novel because I run a bioethics Task Force which has done some work into the field of organ donation, so I'm aware of the many ethical questions in the field of organ donation and cloning as well as recent developments and the widespread abuses around the world. The novel, about children who are clones and raised to donate their organs to keep other people alive and healthy, seems unrealistic given the many unethical aspects of it. But also, and more so, because the clones were indistinguishable from the everyday people walking around England. They where also caucasian and healthy looking, as evidence by the fact that, unless told otherwise, no one in the real world seemed to notice they were different (i.e. their trip to Norfolk caused no problems). There are widespread abuses of the ethical rules about organs, including organ sales around the world. But these abuses often occur to "others" in society. That is, people are okay buying organs off of people they consider unlike themselves, or (in China) prisoners. Which is to say, like a character in that 3rd act exposition fest I mentioned said, people wouldn't want to give up their health and would do anything to survive, but they probably wouldn't do it to someone that looked like them.

In my view, for anything so ethically dubious as cloning people specifically to harvest their organs to occur, something awful would have needed to have happened in the world. This concept violates judeo-christian ethics (i.e. those in England) in that it is murder , is creating children not to value their life but for an ends to a means (not something anglicans or catholics would support, and this started in the timeline during a time where the church was a more powerful voice), and violates the Hypocratic oath of do no harm. Now, while the book doesn't explain it, there are just not enough organs to harvest from a person and have them come back healthy some of the time, so the clones are likely different in their ability to regenerate. Though no explanation of different anatomy is ever discussed. And again, they look and act exactly the same.

For a society to abandon such fundamental principles, they would need these clones to survive as a species. That doesn't seem to be the case. It just seems they are part of the medical establishment. And seen as less than human by many, though no reason is given why people think that. Perhaps, in addition, they are bred to be docile, because no one protests the treatment they receive.

I understand that in many ways the conceit of this book functions as an allegory for the shortness of life, fate, and everyones struggle with mortality. We all die, no matter how much we protest, and the hope of a happy life filled with love and friendship is the one salve we have. In addition, it helps ask the question why create art, if we all inevitably die and art will fade (i.e. the gallery). This clone-land provides a great way to ask these questions, but for it to do so, the universe in which they are asked need be complete. By having an incomplete universe, instead of the emotional moments and scenes hitting like they should have, most readers may end up wondering-why aren't you running away, why accept this fate-and trying to fill in the blanks instead of feeling the weight of the struggles the characters are engaged in.

In that regard it failed in my view, but just barely, and It was definitely worth reading.
(hide spoiler)]

The first time I read this book, I really didn't care for it. I was a little creeper out by the subject matter. I then re-read it for another book club and really enjoyed it. Beautifully written but overall a sad book.

Alex wrote: "I had very mixed feelings on this book. It felt like both a wonderful literary novel and a terrible YA novel at the same time. The writing was spectacular, and Ishiguro managed to capture the voice..."

I would never consider this a YA book. I can see this falling into a coming of age story, much like Summer of '42, but I do not consider that YA either.

I find it very interesting that issue you had with the book is the very reason I loved the book. It is the very fact that the premiss for the story is never questioned and accepted by all is why it is truly creepy. It leaves you wondering why and how it started, which is not explored and that is its very beauty.

I have seen a few people say that this alternate reality is not possible. But it is. This is all it would take for the alternate reality to come true:

(view spoiler)[
1. we can clone humans - this is definitely possible
2. we are willing to treat a subset of humans as if they are property and not humans (history has shown this is true)
3. people are willing to go to extreme lengths to extend life (again, history shows this to be true)

The power of this book is that it could easily come true. (hide spoiler)]

I'm now half way trough the book and I'm slowly seeing what the book is about. The beginning was to my taste not interesting at all but I'm nowe getting in to yhe book more and more :)

Loved this book. I read it a couple of years ago.

I am trying to stick with this book. I am in the first few chapters and I am bored to tears.

I loved this movie before I even knew it was based on a book. I'm looking forward to reading it but unfortunately I can't get my hands on a copy!!

I'm about halfway through - I didn't realize it was a movie also - interesting. I am liking the book, and I'm pretty sure I know what is going on, although not the details. I'm liking it - not LOVING it, but I'm definitely interested in seeing what happens.

Questions for Discussion:

1. Kathy introduces herself as an experienced carer. She prides herself on knowing how to keep her donors calm, "even before fourth donation" [p. 3]. How long does it take for the meaning of such terms as "donation," "carer," and "completed" to be fully revealed?

2. Kathy addresses us directly, with statements like "I don't know how it was where you were, but at Hailsham we used to have some form of medical every week" [p. 13], and she thinks that we too might envy her having been at Hailsham [p. 4]. What does Kathy assume about anyone she might be addressing, and why?

3. Why is it important for Kathy to seek out donors who are "from the past," "people from Hailsham" [p. 5]? She learns from a donor who'd grown up at an awful place in Dorset that she and her friends at Hailsham had been really "lucky" [p. 6]. How does the irony of this designation grow as the novel goes on? What does Hailsham represent for Kathy, and why does she say at the end that Hailsham is "something no one can take away" [p. 287]?

4. Kathy tells the reader, "How you were regarded at Hailsham, how much you were liked and respected, had to do with how good you were at 'creating'" [p. 16]. What were Hailsham's administrators trying to achieve in attaching a high value tocreativity?

5. Kathy's narration is the key to the novel's disquieting effect. First person narration establishes a kind of intimacy between narrator and reader. What is it like having direct access to Kathy's mind and feelings? How would the novel be different if narrated from Tommy's point of view, or Ruth's, or Miss Emily's?

6. What are some of Ruth's most striking character traits? How might her social behavior, at Hailsham and later at the Cottages, be explained? Why does she seek her "possible" so earnestly [pp. 159-67]?

7. One of the most notable aspects of life at Hailsham is the power of the group. Students watch each other carefully and try on different poses, attitudes, and ways of speaking. Is this behavior typical of most adolescents, or is there something different about the way the students at Hailsham seek to conform?

8. How do Madame and Miss Emily react to Kathy and Tommy when they come to request a deferral? Defending her work at Hailsham, Miss Emily says, "Look at you both now! You've had good lives, you're educated and cultured" [p. 261]. What is revealed in this extended conversation, and how do these revelations affect your experience of the story?

9. Why does Tommy draw animals? Why does he continue to work on them even after he learns that there will be no deferral?

10. Kathy reminds Madame of the scene in which Madame watched her dancing to a song on her Judy Bridgewater tape. How is Kathy's interpretation of this event different from Madame's? How else might it be interpreted? Is the song's title again recalled by the book's final pages [pp. 286-88]?

I agree with Chase - (view spoiler)[ I think there would have been SOME kind of rebellion or at least trying to hide. There would be some people willing to help besides just educate and leave them to their fate. (hide spoiler)] Although both of those would have totally changed the tone of the novel.

It was interesting how Madame and Miss Kelly both expressed a good deal of sympathy, etc. However they were both clearly repelled by Kathy and Tommy.

I just finnished the book. It was a ok read but I can not say I loved or liked it very much. The writing was good and the subject matter was interesting but I feel that the wrighter did not dive in to the subject deep enough and the rewell fell flat in my opinion. The boob would have been more interesting for me is the author would have dough deeper in to the socity the were living anf how the normal people saw the doners and their function.

Kristie wrote: "Questions for Discussion:

7. One of the most notable aspects of life at Hailsham is the power of the group. Students watch each other carefully and try on different poses, attitudes, and ways of speaking. Is this behavior typical of most adolescents, or is there something different about the way the students at Hailsham seek to conform?"

The beauty of this book is the ordinariness of the situation until you realize what is actually happening. These children sound no different than what you see in today's children with cliques and groupings. In every group, there is a subset of the ostracized for whatever reason and it is hard on them. Tommy is made fun of and Kathy comes to his rescue to help him blend in and become accepted. Sounds like a normal child to me. Kathy fancies Tommy and Ruth takes him away out of jealousy. Sound like anybody you know when you were kids?

Papaphilly wrote: "Kristie wrote: "Questions for Discussion:

7. One of the most notable aspects of life at Hailsham is the power of the group. Students watch each other carefully and try on different poses, attitude..."

That is a great insight. I heard this book described once as showing the banality of evil. That is a great example that you give.

Yikes, halfway through the month and my hold on the book finally came through! I only just started it last night but haven't gotten too far yet.

I read about 50 pages. It's bit of a slow read, I kinda have a hard time with the writing style, it doesn't really fit me. But I find the idea of the book interesting, so I'll try to speed up.

Kaya wrote: "I read about 50 pages. It's bit of a slow read, I kinda have a hard time with the writing style, it doesn't really fit me. But I find the idea of the book interesting, so I'll try to speed up."

No let it go slow. that is the intent of the book to drag you through so slowly.

Thanks for the advise. :)

I read it in school as a part of a book reading assignment and I LOVED,LOVED it.It's a keeper.

I hated this book. It was pointless and annoyed me the whole time I read it. Kathy is also a terrible narrator, who I felt never stayed on topic. Not enjoyable at all.

In the end, I wasn't impressed either. The writing is so emotionless and without any real conflict and resolution. I expected more considering the topic.

Heather wrote: "I hated this book. It was pointless and annoyed me the whole time I read it. Kathy is also a terrible narrator, who I felt never stayed on topic. Not enjoyable at all."

Kaya wrote: "In the end, I wasn't impressed either. The writing is so emotionless and without any real conflict and resolution. I expected more considering the topic."

This is the very beauty of the book. I expect that you two have missed the entire point. The reason that book is written the way it is because Kazuo Ishiguro used the very mundane to show they very banality of evil. Evil practiced by man is not always so forth coming. He used the narrative to show how something so terrible can be so normal. Kathy never questioned whether what is happening to them is wrong. the reasons you two hate the book is what makes the book so beautiful.

It is the emotionlessness that makes the book so beautiful. The idea of the mundane is what makes this so horrible. Kathy is not questioning what is actually happening, only that are they human. The idea that they should rise up is never a consideration and that is the beauty of this novel as well as what makes it so horrible. They never question their situation.

Papaphilly wrote: "Heather wrote: "I hated this book. It was pointless and annoyed me the whole time I read it. Kathy is also a terrible narrator, who I felt never stayed on topic. Not enjoyable at all."

Kaya wro..."

Yes, Papaphilly. That's what I think too. When I was reading it I wasn't sure how I felt. I didn't feel much. Then after I was done, there was a bit of a lag, and then it hit me what had happened in the book and I felt sick. I couldn't stop thinking about it. I think a great book does that to you, it changes you and sticks with you.

I think if something blocks that process between author/reader then it would be easy to think this book did nothing or had some other flaw. That is the point of the book, strangely enough: the banality of evil.

Alex wrote: "I had very mixed feelings on this book. It felt like both a wonderful literary novel and a terrible YA novel at the same time. The writing was spectacular, and Ishiguro managed to capture the voice..."

I disagree. Every single thing said before the revelation at the end was hinting at and building up to the end. And of COURSE they didn't explicitly state anything before then, because first of all, she was telling it from the perspective of the past when she didn't know, and second of all because if she went and gave it all away there would be no point in continuing to read. Like you said, she was building a mystery.

You said that there wasn't enough world building, and yet I thought that was what was so beautiful about the book. I thought it presented the world in a very skillful way. I felt like I understood what these children were like, and what it was like in their sheltered world within the walls of Hailsham. I can hardly believe you were reading the same book if you felt like it was left vague.

And the last issue I have with your comment is that it is absolutely not YA in any account.

The only thing I felt was particularly unrealistic or unbelievable, was how the heck do these people survive while missing whole vital organs? But if you can just accept that as a fact of the book, I think it was very well written, answered all questions built up throughout the first two parts, and in the end left you with additional questions about what it means to be human and the value of life.

Jenna wrote: "Alex wrote: "I had very mixed feelings on this book. It felt like both a wonderful literary novel and a terrible YA novel at the same time. The writing was spectacular, and Ishiguro managed to capt..."

I think they could survive because a donor can survive missing a kidney, a liver transplant, a lung, can donate their eyes, missing a spleen, missing other infrastructure like skin, bones, marrow, parts of the digestive tract, etc.

Michele wrote: "Jenna wrote: "Alex wrote: "I had very mixed feelings on this book. It felt like both a wonderful literary novel and a terrible YA novel at the same time. The writing was spectacular, and Ishiguro m..."

Good point. You're right. They specify in the book that it is vital organs, so I don't know about those last things, but kidney, liver, lung...then maybe the last would be the heart.

2. Considering Kathy doesn't have much interaction with people outside of her duties as a carer, she is probably telling her story to one of the donors she is caring for, someone who, obviously, did not go to Hailsham.

3. Now that Hailsham is gone, she's clinging onto the memory because it's not just a place, but a part of her, who she is. It's important for her to find people from Hailsham so she won't lose it, so it won't just disappear. Especially when you learn that it's not just a place, but an attempt at making life better for these unfortunate souls.

I wouldn't say it gets more ironic to be called lucky, her situation never changes. But what's revealed to the reader makes them realize that, just because she was treated humanely growing up, does not rescue her from her inevitable, painful end.

Kathy, as a Hailsham student, was given an opportunity to live a normal childhood life. She was more or less free from the worry of what was going to happen to her. In a sense, Hailsham gave souls to its students by treating them like they have one. Hailsham can't be taken away because it is Kathy's soul, and it is her memories which she has narrated to her audience in this book. Perhaps by speaking about it, she's raising awareness of the issue and something can come of it.

4. They associated creativity to expressing emotion, and emotion to having a soul. They wanted to show that donors were more than just inhuman test-tube clones, and they deserved to be treated humanely.

6. Ruth is constantly seeking approval, she wants not only to fit in, but to stand out and be popular. She tries so hard to surround herself with people who like her, and to make herself sound well-liked. I suspect it is because deep down she really feels lonely and unloved, and probably unlovable. She's not good with any kind of criticism, because she knows it's true and probably hates herself for it. I think she was looking for her possible because she wanted to feel like she wasn't alone, like someone out there was just like her, and maybe she wanted to see that that person was okay.

8. They seem upset because their project ended in failure, and that in the end regardless of how "educated and cultured" their students are, they still have the same fate awaiting them.

9. I don't know the significance of the animals specifically, but I think maybe he continues to draw them because he's proud of them, maybe he wants to leave something behind, maybe he wants to leave behind proof that he had a soul.

Some of you make such excellent points, I wish there was some kind of "like" system on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ lol. I don't want to just reply to everything like "Yeah I agree!"

Anyways, I agree that the beauty of the book lies in how completely emotionless everyone is about the situation, like they don't know what's going to happen to them...only they do, and somehow they just don't question it. In the end, Tommy even asks Kathy why she won't just quit being a carer and donate already. Like ending her life would be less torment than living it. They seem to have been raised with no value of life, which is so heartbreaking, and unsettling.

Papaphilly wrote: "Heather wrote: "I hated this book. It was pointless and annoyed me the whole time I read it. Kathy is also a terrible narrator, who I felt never stayed on topic. Not enjoyable at all."

Kaya wro..."

I understand that what happens in the book is terrible, but I do not see any beauty in the way he wrote it. You could almost visualize the main characters as robots. Also, the relationship the main characters had was very strange. It's a weird random concept to even write a book about.

I've always loved this novel. It was so beautiful, and truly makes you think about humanity, what sets us apart. What makes us human? These people were created, cloned, for a specific purpose, and it's not too far from what happens today, and we've seen similar ideas in 'My Sister's Keeper.' Okay, maybe it wasn't an issue about donating vital organs, but it's along the same track. I recently read 'Unwind' by Neal Shusterman and it reminded me of this novel: the idea that a person can be taken apart for someone else's benefit.


7. One of the most notable aspects of life at Hailsham is the power of the group. Students watch each other carefully and try on different poses, attitudes, and ways of speaking. Is this behavior typical of most adolescents, or is there something different about the way the students at Hailsham seek to conform?

While this is typically normal for adolescents, what occurs in the novel is quite different. The only adults they know are their teachers, who are authoritative figures rather than role-models. As we grow up, we tend to mimic our parents, trying to appear older and wiser. In the novel, it's almost as if the children aren't sure how to...be. It's not simply about them trying to fit in with the "in crowd" but fitting in with humanity as a whole.