Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

RJ from the LBC wrote: "OK Ed, I promised you my thoughts. Here they are ..."

Thanks RJ (and others). I pretty much agree with you. Before I turn on the spoiler tag, I'll raise a few issues that haven't been addressed yet:

Who was the narrator telling her story to?

As far as I can tell, race was never mentioned. Nor was any physical description of the children given. No hair color, eye color, skin color, etc. They might as well be green with blue hair. Am I wrong about that? If I'm right, then I can think of reasons why this choice might have been made.

I think Religion was never mentioned either. The concept of souls, yes, but nothing about religious groups or services. The novel would be much more realistic if that were addressed. (I understand that the goal might not have been to make a realistic story, but rather an allegory. Still felt weird, though.)

Earlier I mentioned that they never refer to any country existing outside England. I was wrong. They briefly mention a Nigerian man near the end.

Spoilery thoughts: (view spoiler)[
The kids never suggest running away. Why? One reason could be that they would be easily recognized and thus would have trouble hiding. This could be because they have green skin, or no noses, or no navels, or six nipples, or serial numbers on their foreheads, or whatever. But since the story gives us no hint about that, I couldn't understand why none of the kids even dared to speak about trying to escape.

RJ: I don't recall reading any previous story about kids being raised for this purpose. But I agree it doesn't seem like a terribly original idea. (Which is fine. Most stories are unoriginal.)

I'm reminded of the novel "Coma" by Robin Cook. I never read it, but it was popular when I was a kid, and I remember hearing about it.

Wikipedia has other examples including "A Gift from Earth" and "The Reefs of Space":


(hide spoiler)]

Btw, why do you think the author chose a female narrator/protagonist? Most often authors and their protagonists are of the same gender (there are a lot of exceptions though)

Oleksandr wrote: "Btw, why do you think the author chose a female narrator/protagonist? Most often authors and their protagonists are of the same gender (there are a lot of exceptions though)"

I thought it was a way to make the situation more sympathetic.

RJ, I agree entirely. Well put.

Ed, in your spoiler: (view spoiler)[ I don't think they could look weird because no one paid any attention to them when they were out & about that I recall. They didn't get weird looks or anything. The lack of anything odd makes me wonder why they didn't just fade away into the general population. If they had anything odd about them, they wouldn't be 'human' which would defeat the author's point.

The clones in Bujold's Vorkosigan books were raised for parts among other things & had no rights, except for the lucky few that got rescued from Jackson's Hole. Clone Catcher is about catching an escaped clone raised for parts.

(hide spoiler)]

(view spoiler)[...The protagonist is not evidently physically different. Recall their visit to art studio/shop, where:

Eventually the silver-haired lady came out from behind her desk and said to Tommy, who was the nearest to her: ‘That’s a particularly lovely work. That one’s a favourite of mine.�

Tommy turned to her and let out a laugh. Then as I was hurrying over to help him out, the lady asked: ‘Are you art students?�

‘Not exactly,� I said before Tommy could respond. ‘We’re just, well, keen.�

The silver-haired lady beamed, then started to tell us how the artist whose work we were looking at was related to her, (hide spoiler)]

Jim wrote: "...(view spoiler)[If they had anything odd about them, they wouldn't be 'human' which would defeat the author's point. (hide spoiler)]..."

(view spoiler)[First, I'm not sure what the author's point was. Second, there is something odd about them: they are sterile. Possibly a natural side-effect of cloning, possibly done later intentionally. So there could easily be other physical differences.

Oleksandr, the fact that the silver-haired lady thought they might be art students doesn't necessarily mean anything. We know these people are allowed to live fairly normal lives in the community after school and before donating. It might be odd for them to be students since they wouldn't have a long career....

I'm not saying they definitely have an unusual appearance. But it seemed very odd to me that nobody ever mentioned their physical appearance. No reference to color of skin, hair, eyes, etc. For young people in romantic situations, it is odd they didn't mention physical characteristics. (Unless I'm wrong and they did mention it.)
(hide spoiler)]

Oleksandr wrote: "Btw, why do you think the author chose a female narrator/protagonist? Most often authors and their protagonists are of the same gender (there are a lot of exceptions though)"

I expect because she is a care giver and generally speaking, women are the care giver role in the world.

Ed wrote: "As far as I can tell, race was never mentioned. Nor was any physical description of the children given. No hair color, eye color, skin color, etc. They might as well be green with blue hair. Am I wrong about that? If I'm right, then I can think of reasons why this choice might have been made...."

Because it does not matter. Would it matter if they were all White? Black?, Indian? The children represent an archetype. In this case, individuals do not matter. Yet they do have names.

Ed wrote: "(view spoiler)[The kids never suggest running away. Why? One reason could be that they would be easily recognized and thus would have trouble hiding. This could be because they have green skin, or no noses, or no navels, or six nipples, or serial numbers on their foreheads, or whatever. But since the story gives us no hint about that, I couldn't understand why none of the kids even dared to speak about trying to escape (hide spoiler)]...."

(view spoiler)[ That is a great question. There is mention of extending time, so that might hint at leaving or thinking about it. Yet, more to the point. I suspect it is much like slaves, the vast majority of them did not run away, no matter how bad the conditions. I would bet they are conditioned to not run. In the case of slaves either through intimidation or harsh punishment. (hide spoiler)]

If you know for sure that your faith is certain death. What would keep you from escaping? Or at least mention the option?

I don't think slaves are a good comparison, even in the simplified view we're taught in school. A lot of slaves ran away or tried despite harsh punishments & some rebelled. They also interacted with free folk a fair amount.

Maybe they did plot to escape. The story is being framed as being the main character telling her story to someone. Maybe she is leaving out the details about trying to escape. I can't see why she would do that, though. I'm not going to try to figure it out because I just don't care. The story fails for me because it doesn't feel plausible.

Jim wrote: "I don't think slaves are a good comparison, even in the simplified view we're taught in school. A lot of slaves ran away or tried despite harsh punishments & some rebelled. They also interacted wit..."

And the vast majority stayed right where they were for whatever reason.

Papaphilly wrote: "And the vast majority stayed right where they were for whatever reason."

'Whatever reason' seems to downplay the difficulties of escape or what happened to them if they were caught. There's also the matter of where they could run to & what they'd find there, if they even had an inkling. Most areas that didn't allow slavery still returned escaped slaves & they were usually marked as different by their skin color.

Jim wrote: "Most areas that didn't allow slavery still returned escaped slaves & they were usually marked as different by their skin color.."

Therefore it is more close to the serfdom in the Russian Empire than to the slavery in the USA. Even there were attempts to escape, but there were problems: escape to where? Geography knowledge of illiterate peasants wasn't great.

Returning to the book, I guess while there are no mentioned donor-hunters, the main problem was that donors don't know how to live otherwise. They don't have practical skills, they don't have money or assets, they fear to face the outside alone (recall the freight of woods).

They don't dare to go into the woods alone, but they don't fear death by donoring? Still sounds silly to me.
But maybe it's enough about that now. The writer intended to write about something else.

Leo wrote: "They don't dare to go into the woods alone, but they don't fear death by donoring? "

Women giving birth do fear to die during it, esp. in the past, but this hasn't stopped the majority of them. We actually don't know if any donor tried to escape, we only see a few of them and know that these few haven't tried

Actually we only know that Kathy didn't talk about that to whoever she was telling her story to. She could have left out, or altered, lots of facts.

Wow, so far this is a great story. The author is taking us inside Dick's What is human? question and discussing the commodification of humankind in the Capitalist system.

I am very happy we chose this example of Literary SF.

The reason the Internet is missing is that the author set it in a near future that lacked most of the Info Age innovations that William Gibson was predicting in Neuromancer.



This is an interesting choice that he made possibly related to the divide beginning to occur in SF at that time between the eclipse of Cyberpunk by Neo-Classical SF and Literary SF. It is as though Ishiguro chose to stay on the Dickian Blade Runner path.



Of course, Blade Runner has evolved along the path of Rossum's Universal Robots...



.

Gregg wrote: "... The reason the Internet is missing is that the author set it in a near future ..."

He set it in an alternative past, not the future.

Glad you are enjoying it. It seems pretty divisive here.

Ed wrote: "Gregg wrote: "... The reason the Internet is missing is that the author set it in a near future ..."

He set it in an alternative past, not the future.

Glad you are enjoying it. It seems pretty di..."

Are we splitting hairs here? One human's alternative past is another human's alternative future.

The divisiveness is not surprising, it is reflected in our genre currently, and in many respects has always been there. Literary writers have given us masterworks throughout the history and beginnings of the genre.

Gregg wrote: "Are we splitting hairs here? On human's alternative past is another human's alternative future..."

I don't think so since it's from our, the reader's, perspective. Of course, the author failed badly because he didn't bother with logic, so he may have felt that way.

I saw the movie adaptation and liked it. The movie was a commercial failure though.

In the movie, there is a scene where one of the clones opens a door with a wrist swipe--that is, the clone has a device in her wrist. An implication: the clones can be tracked electronically.

I too wondered, why don't the clones fight back? A writer such as Robert Heinlein would have the clones and their sympathizers resort to guerrilla warfare.

A group or an individual resisting oppression has been the plot of historical and speculative fiction. But the author chose not to tell that kind of story.

I doubt that I'll read the book.

Jim wrote: "Gregg wrote: "Are we splitting hairs here? On human's alternative past is another human's alternative future..."

I don't think so since it's from our, the reader's, perspective. Of course, the aut..."

What???

A continuum is a timeline no matter where you start. Otherwise, you are playing the 6000-year-old Creationist Earth game...

William Gibson's new trilogy is all about this concept.

Gregg wrote: ...William Gibson's new trilogy is all about this concept."

This book isn't.

Gregg wrote: "... Are we splitting hairs here? One human's alternative past is another human's alternative future. ..."

True, but I don't understand your point. The book was published in 2005, but it was set in the 1980's and 90's, which is the past from the point of view of both the author and the readers.

If it had been published near the same time as Neuromancer, I would understand why you are mentioning that book. But it wasn't.

In any event, I'm glad you are enjoying it.

Jim wrote: "Gregg wrote: ...William Gibson's new trilogy is all about this concept."

This book isn't."

Isn't what?

It is clearly a continuum at least inspired by Dick's Androids and Blade Runner more than Gibson's theoretical future. It is clonal based world instead of a cyberspace/AI world or robotic world.

In many ways the closest timeline that I know of is C. J. Cherryh's Union narrative surrounding the asi. Cloning was only the first step, development of "tape" programming was critical in her universe. I wonder how much of that is going on in this novel....I think it may explain some of the issues puzzling folks:



What are the pedagogical goals of Hailsham and The Cottages? These questions are being asked by the characters around the nature of Madame and other issues as the book moves to the conclusion.

Perhaps, I will find those answers tomorrow...

Ed wrote: "Gregg wrote: "... Are we splitting hairs here? One human's alternative past is another human's alternative future. ..."

True, but I don't understand your point. The book was published in 2005, but..."

Ed, I would say the rise of the various historically derived 'punks has made your hairsplitting irrelevant. This is also Gibson's point in his new work. SF stopped being future focused and instead is principally focused on creative worldbuilding and social criticism.

What authors are now doing is creating SF settings that enable their vision to be laid out. The more literary the work the more likely they are utilizing SF tropes as tools for literature not SF. Does Atwood write SF or social criticism? Huxley? Orwell? Burgess?

Now we even have for lack of a better term "Bestseller" writers like Bacigalupi who write commercial thrillers that are less SF-oriented than folks like Crichton.



We live in a time of tremendous SF writers and many of them - like in the past - reject the mantle.

Gregg wrote: "SF stopped being future focused and instead is principally focused on creative worldbuilding and social criticism. ..."

SF has never been exclusively about the future. The idea that SF is about the future is a widespread fallacy which I do not share in.

This book is set in an alternative past. I simply can't understand any reason to say otherwise.

I cannot tell whether your posts are in good faith or are an attempt at trolling.

Gregg wrote: "It is clearly a continuum at least inspired by Dick's Androids and Blade Runne..."

Are you actually trying to make any kind of point? I find myself also wondering if you're not just trolling.

Actually I take Greg's point. He is not saying that SF is all about the future, but notes it is William Gibson's point. I do agree that the previous wave that started in the 1980's moved more toward world building and social criticism than from the future. Yes, not all were about the future, but much of the genre was looking forward.

I do agree with Greg that this is not SF per se, but a literary piece that uses SF tropes to make his larger story. Many of the criticisms aimed at the story are irrelevant because Kazuo Ishiguro deemed them irrelevant when he wrote the piece and he noted that when asked.

I am a bit dismayed that many really did not enjoy this work because I loved it. However, to each his own and I am not the final arbiter of taste nor should I be either.

I will say that this work should be looked like Moby-Dick or, the Whale. if you think it is about finding and killing a whale, that is certainly one way to read the story. Yet, you will miss what the story is really about.

Papaphilly wrote: "... you will miss what the story is really about. ..."

That is exactly my problem. I do not know what this story is about.

I did enjoy reading it. The characters were interesting. But it seems to lack internal logic.

(I like Moby Dick, BTW.)

My issue with Gregg's posts is that he is saying that deciding whether the story is set in the past or the future is hairsplitting. I don't get it. It is set in the past -- an alternative past. There is no question about that.

The first line of my review for this was The author and I experienced a failure to communicate.

He may be saying interesting things. But for whatever reason, I'm not understanding him. The same may be true for me and Gregg. He may be making sense, but I am not understanding.

I realize that "Literary" SF, or non-SF that uses SF tropes, is often trying different things from "mass market" SF and that is fine. I like both. I even love the SF of Doris Lessing, another Nobel prize winner, though she doesn't get much love from SF fans. (And she claimed to not be writing SF.)

Ed wrote: "I did enjoy reading it. The characters were interesting. But it seems to lack internal logic.

(I like Moby Dick, BTW.).."

I find that statement wild because the internal logic is like a big neon sign to me. I wonder if this the case of either you get it or you do not.

Ed wrote: "The first line of my review for this was The author and I experienced a failure to communicate...."

On the Road and The Catcher in the Rye were both like that for me. I can see they are both extremely well written and are certainly important works, but I just do not get it. Maybe in these cases, I am not supposed to get it. Not all books are going to speak to all people.

Ed wrote: "Gregg wrote: "SF stopped being future focused and instead is principally focused on creative worldbuilding and social criticism. ..."

SF has never been exclusively about the future. The idea that ..."

No, Ed, it is simply a conversation between two lovers of SF.

However, there is no difference between an alternative history and an alternative future. It is merely a question of where the continuum splits off from our timeline.

Having finished the book and encountering the Morningdale Scandal, it is clear the work is set in the Blade Runner continuum. He has given us a prequel to the film within the 2019 timeline which is why the story was set in the 1990s without our tech and with clonal tech developing in the 1960s.

It is an homage to Dick and the movie, and human frailty.

Ed wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "... you will miss what the story is really about. ..."

That is exactly my problem. I do not know what this story is about.

I did enjoy reading it. The characters were interesti..."

I am not saying that, Ed. You said there was a difference but the "physics" of time no longer makes a distinction. Gibson spoke strongly to this in his seminal critique of SF and short story "The Gernsback Continuum".

I think you are just focused on the setting of the story and not the bigger concept of alternative realities.

Jim wrote: "Gregg wrote: "It is clearly a continuum at least inspired by Dick's Androids and Blade Runne..."

Are you actually trying to make any kind of point? I find myself also wondering if you're not just ..."

Jim, you should know better than that. I am a very direct person and don't play games. Try not to see Machiavellian motives in a friendly conversation.

Gregg wrote: "Ed wrote: "... It is an homage to Dick and the movie, and human frailty. ..."

Ok fine. We just don't understand each other.

Dick, as far as I can tell, never wrote any story related to cloning. You could maybe interpret the replicants in Blade Runner as clones, but I don't. Plus, that novel is set in an environmentally devastated future (2019) whereas this one is set in a bucolic past.

... it is clear the work is set in the Blade Runner continuum ...

Is this clear to anyone else? Has Ishiguro commented on it?

In response to the question "Are you a Philip K Dick fan?", he responded "I've never read a Philip K Dick book, .... " (He admits to being aware of the movie "Blade Runner" but didn't comment further on it.)

Ronald wrote: "I saw the movie adaptation and liked it. The movie was a commercial failure though.

In the movie, there is a scene where one of the clones opens a door with a wrist swipe--that is, the clone has a..."

Leo wrote: "They don't dare to go into the woods alone, but they don't fear death by donoring? Still sounds silly to me.
But maybe it's enough about that now. The writer intended to write about something else."

The author's ultimate statement is that we all face the certainty of death from the time of conception but how many of us ever learn to deal with it or even think about it.

He is juxtapositioning it with the do-gooders proving of the soul in clones' art. It is a What is human question? Does our artistic expression make us human? Our ability to love? Our ability to cry? Etc.

Are the humans craving for life less than human or more?

Papaphilly wrote: "Ed wrote: "As far as I can tell, race was never mentioned. Nor was any physical description of the children given. No hair color, eye color, skin color, etc. They might as well be green with blue h..."

We know they look like the rest of us because the gallery owner thought they were art students.

I am also thinking that their one letter last name are their cloning number. Richer folks would have more clones for back up and this would also explain why Kathy H was not yet called up for donation.

Papaphilly wrote: "Jim wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "This is one of the great dystopia novels. Yes the pacing is slow, but that was by design to drag the reader along with the mundane. When it hits what is actually happ..."

The other kids in other places are asi in pens or sheep awaiting slaughter....

Papaphilly wrote: "Jim wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "To answer your spoiler, no it does not bother me. It is the setting..."

I'm not getting the trinkets, I think. I get that it's a normal society & these kids are divo..."

Papaphilly wrote: "Jim wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "In this case, the premise must be accepted on its face as hard as that seems. The reader has to agree to the terms of the writing...."

I went to a boarding school. [..."

And capitalists exploiting labor....

Your analysis is spot on.

Ed wrote: "Anna wrote: "How is it a group read if some people are already done?! ..."

I started one day early. I rarely do that, but I had some time available. I enjoyed it so much I read 1/3 of it in one go..."

Because Blade Runner is set in 2019.

Ed wrote: "Ed wrote: "... One question I have is, why is this set in the 1990s? ..."

Great question, Ed!

One possibility is the lack of the internet. Would the kids have found more information on the net? M..."

No Internet in Blade Runner either...

Ed wrote: "Gregg wrote: "Ed wrote: "... It is an homage to Dick and the movie, and human frailty. ..."

Ok fine. We just don't understand each other.

Dick, as far as I can tell, never wrote any story related..."

Literature has a strong tradition of referencing especially Postmodernist literature. While the author never read Dick, he clearly understands the issues raised in Blade Runner that grew out of Dick.

Tyrell's replicants are biomechnicals built with genetic materials. They are technology developed twenty plus years down the road from this story. Nexus models have superior capabilities and lack empathy. Yet, they retain remnants of humanity which drives their rebellion in the film and previously resulted in their banning from the Earth.

In this book, the fear of the clones and superior clones is so strong that Emily and Marie-Claude's humanitarian movement is crushed just like Nate Turner's Rebellion crushed the liberalizing of slavery in the South.

Ed wrote: "Gregg wrote: "Ed wrote: "... It is an homage to Dick and the movie, and human frailty. ..."

Ok fine. We just don't understand each other.

Dick, as far as I can tell, never wrote any story related..."

Just so no one else has to search for the text. Note the question is not about Never Let Me Go:

"theorbys asks:

1) Is Unconsoled a novel about doubles, like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, The Double, William Wilson, are? If so what were you thinking of this inner double as? e.g. Hyde was the Id, William Wilson a moral consciousness. It seemed to me you did something astonishing with Ryder. His second temporary personality which sprang into being when he got to the Town seemed like a fictional correlate of the second ‘personality� any reader develops on opening a book and starting to read, a reading self so to speak. Ryder, the Town, and the Ryder’s inner double seemed to be all three fictional correlates of the Reader, the Book, and OUR double, (a temporary task specific double), that is our reading self: an inner self that willingly suspends disbelief, identifies itself with the novel’s characters, and which disappears when we close the book (but ready for a new experience the next time we open one). Did you intend to create a double who was the fictional correlate of the reading self?

2) Are you a Philip K Dick fan? I think if Unconsoled has a clear message it is about the unhappiness and destructive power of love without empathy. Brodsky’s desire for an animal, reminded me of Philip K Dick’s story Do Android’s Dream of Electric Sheep, which is also about empathy, and in its own way (as are other Dick stories) about dissociated personalities like the one Ryder seems to develop when he gets to the Town.

3) Did you think of the story of Ryder, Sophie, and Boris as a novel within the novel? Both ‘novels�, like Ryder’s two personae, intercommunicating, which in turn requires the oniric background of the novel.

User avatar for KazuoIshiguroGuardian contributor
KazuoIshiguro
20 January 2015 12:58pm
I don't think doubles. It's more like the way, once again in a dream, people who are of relative unimportance to you can inhabit your vision, looking like the shopkeeper you saw earlier in the day, the person you struck up a conversation with on the train, etc, but actually, they're standing in for much more significant people - an ex-spouse, your father, etc. Many of the characters in the book 'double' in that sense, rather than in the Dostoyevskian sense. And yes, many of these characters are aspects of Ryder himself: versions - sometimes loose versions - of himself as a child, himself projected forward in his fears; others are versions or variants of his mother, father, wife, son, etc. It's another way of telling a story about a particular character. A variation on the David Copperfield 'biography' way, or the looking back with flashbacks to key moments way often used in many novels (including many of my other novels eg Remains of the Day, NLMG and others).

Incidentally, if you're interested in doubles, you might have a look at a Patrice Leconte movie called L'Homme du Train, which is a good example of the anti-double in a story. I find anti-doubles more interesting than doubles at the moment. In the movie two strangers become friends because each represents to the other the life they didn't have, the life they missed out on, and now they sense is too late to have. (Both men - one played rather well by Johnny Hallyday the singer - know they're likely to meet their deaths in the coming few days, and can only wistfully flirt with the identity represented by the other - Johnny is a bank robber and womanizer, Jean Rochefort is a provincial retired schoolteacher. Anti-doubles are fascinating and make for poignant relationships.

I've never read a Philip K Dick book, though I know that the movie Blade Runner is based on this one you mention. But I think your comment about 'unhappiness and destructive power of love without empathy' is rather good. It's very interesting and rather well put."