Anyone who asks 'Why don't they escape' is missing the point of the book. It's about human nature, we don't deviate from the expected, and these kids have been raised their ENTIRE lives to think it's their fate, their duty even, to donate their organs. They do what's expected of them and what they've been raised to do. Few humans would act differently or contemplate another path with such a limited experience as these characters have had- there are those one off individuals who would rebel but this book isn't about them. That's what makes it so tragic, all along these characters have been seeking an escape within the confines of those who created them; deferrals, the gallery etc- they didn't have the perspective to look beyond these boundaries, nor did they see them as boundaries.The final line of the book sums this up 'I drive where I'm supposed to be.'
I agree! There's also the practical matter of, where would they go? I mean, they're obviously chipped. Plus, there are those horror stories they all learned growing up, so... The question never occurred to me.
And the destination is always, sooner or later, the same. We all complete. Hold that realization close, o mortal. Make every moment count, and be the you to others that you want to be.
I think the fact that his characters don't escape speaks more to a realism about humans and their conditioning of a future set out for them. Yes, some could theoretically rebel, but we were told a more pointed story of the ones who didn't.
I just watched an interview where he was interviewed alongside Alex Garland who adapted the novel for the screenplay for the film version - I've actually only watched the film. I think you would appreciate Kazuo Ishiguro's deliberations upon what he was putting people through emotionally. He actually compared it to watching Bambi and Dumbo as a kid, in the sense it left him in tears and he genuinely wished he had never watched them. He said that he was worried that Never Let Me Go might inflict a similar trauma on audiences in search of escapism, which is what he established cinema audiences as always squarely in search of when seeking a cinematic experience. i think he worried that he had undercut an essential deal when it comes to the cinematic version (in which he was able to directly observe people's responses in screenings, as distinct from public reception to a privately read novel). That he had sort of aborted the viewer's wish for escape and he had left them involuntarily traumatised and worse off than when they had come into the cinema seeking escape from the troubles in their life. i thought that was really interesting. Because it actually doesn't pull its punches, which is why it remains mostly unforgettable. i say mostly because i technically forgot about it for a while but any reference to it would never fail to immediately remind me of the devastation of the ending. Carey Mulligan gave a cracking performance in that as well. i feel like in prolonged covid times, it might be pretty interesting to rewatch. Elements of the unfolding of the pandemic very quickly started to seem like unreal dystopian speculative fiction. For example, how quickly it simply became "The Virus" and part of an everyday lexicon, with normalisation of previously unthinkable routines. I'm no covid denier but i think this was a beautiful and elegaic piece of speculative fiction that was profoundly troubling as it was profoundly moving. At least the film version was. Almost as bad as the Snowman cartoon with the beautiful song where at the end of everything the Snowman just melts and that's the end. Existentialism for kids. A lot of children's stuff seems quite brutal actually, especially historically! One if the things i liked about this was it was spare and believable. Even if the concept was surreal. It drew you in and you felt the stakes and cared absolutely about what would happen. That's a process that begins long before the end and a lot of works fail to maintain our attention and suspense so that we half don't care what happens at the end anyway. i feel like Never Let Me Go is a masterwork in suspense and tragedy.
Throughout the book, I’ve always seen myself in Kathy, in Tommy, in Ruth, in all these children and later adults. Their "different" nature didn’t make me see them as less of a human. The relationships the formed, the feelings they developed, even the limited time they had on earth are only a little different than what we experience. I never really pitied them or found their story tragic, either. Unless we agree that life, the real life, is tragic as well.
I just finished watching this movie and I could not stop sobbing by the end. I’ll be thinking about this all night… and how did this movie get such poor google and tomatoes reviews?!? You’ve gotta be kidding me this is a beautiful work of art
The way the characters resigned to their fate IMO was probably the most realistic and natural (albeit nihilistic) response. I think the novel was less of a science fiction than psychological fiction. And that love and friendship can grow even amidst the most seemingly dehumanizing, helpless of situations - conditions that are so unreal and foreign, encompassed by boundaries only in our wildest dreams can we, the outsiders, "the masters" imagine of living in - to me, that was more or less what the story was about. I think it also meant to provide a warning about the implications of artificial intelligence, as well as an interesting analogy to the sacrifice of animals in the name of research and medicine. It is a reminder that life, be it of an animal or some other creature, is no less than ours, and whatever its purpose we or nature assign it to be, we ought to respect it. If there is any point in the future where we ever seek to synthesize sentient beings modelled after ourselves, it will be worth consulting stories such as this and reflect on the ethics behind our scientific practises where other lives can become a collateral.
Just finished reading the book, and searched for some videos. I was questioning this too, but not so strongly. Judging by the character of the protagonists, they were kind and accepted their fate; especially Kathy remained calm throughout all and tried to bear it all. After all, they were fed with the thought that this was their aim of living, and the life they lived was isolated by the realistic human being expectations. Everything was set for them, was planned, even their job. They lived getting used to this and they got raised actually becoming good people. I absolutely go with the author's answer and I think the strong effect the book had on me personally, is only because it was treated this way. Book was amazing, thanks to the author for this masterpiece!
@@muhammadmasood3303 it appears the speculative fiction elements (per "magical realism") were actually intended by the author only as a means to an end to examine the human condition.
@thisdeepwell I agree with you. For me the first reason they don't escape is the education they received in that school, in that parallel society. They are raised in this remote environment and are told that they absolutely need to stay healthy, not to smoke, drink alcohol... In our society we receive a different kind of education, we are told different things and in the end we work just to pay our taxes and feed our leaders, and in the end... we die. Just like them. And, escape... to go where?
When we dealt with this book at school, I already thought that it was a metaphor for life but we never really discussed that. My teacher more or less said that the book was written to show us how bad a world like that could be and that it's therefore a dystopian novel like 1984..
Mighty Man Your teacher really taught you the book badly... I didn't read the book for class but it's quite clearly nothing like 1984 except for maybe the genre
Different people have different interpretations. That’s the magic of art! Thus, I don’t blame your teacher for her seemingly "wrong" interpretation as much as I blame the fact that she tried to shove this interpretation down your throat lol. Unfortunately, literature in schools is mostly taught this way, closed off from different perspectives and discussions. That’s why we end up not liking it or not being able to comprehend it either.
As Aliki mentioned there's no one correct interpretation and i may add given what I'm about to say that also authorial intent need not be relied on for interpretation. But according to an interview i just saw Kazuo Ishiguro give alongside Alex Garland who adapted the novel for screen, the dystopian implications were definitely not an intentional focus in and of themselves, but purely a means to an end, which i ultimately found very interesting to consider. He elaborated more clearly on what he say here in some respects about what he was motivated to write about (although in that interview i remember less about him discussing the relationships of characters when faced with a finite existence). He said he knew he wanted to write about young people whose lives would be cut short, but he didn't have the how or the why, and i think previously had only written literary fiction rather than ever using any plot devices that might be characterised as speculative fiction (i think he says science fiction, so that's my take on subgenre rather than his). He just didn't know how their lives would be cut short and ultimately this is what came to him but as a means to an end (a scaffolding by which to hang a study of human beings in such precarious circumstances) rather than the dystopia being either the driving concept or even a social comment. If i understood him correctly. That said, it wouldn't be untrue to suggest it might have some themes in common with various utopian classics but i actually think the screenplay at least retains what i might think of as literary fiction style. That's one reason i referred to speculative fiction as it can straddle boundaries between literary and science fiction. Literary fiction is often more sparing than genre fiction and it seems clear to me that he kind of wrote from outside the genre using speculation to enable release of ideas about the human condition. This may arguably differ from work in which "world building" as it often gets referred to quite recently is a significant focus. i think perhaps for Ishiguro...... the dystopia is just a stage on which his characters can move about, as opposed to the details of the world being a key thrust of the narrative. The details of the world don't matter too much, perhaps, in some way; the human condition of the individual placed under unthinkable pressure is perhaps the real story. I'm not saying straight science fiction doesn't do some similar things or even 1984 which is a great book (disclaimer - only familiar with the screenplay for Never Let Me Go). It's just that some of those works do set out to deliberately explore the implications of certain technologies etc. Where by contrast for whatever it's worth it appears that wasn't the intention here, which i actually found really flipping interesting alongside the process described for how Kazuo Ishiguro developed the story. Hope that makes sense. Edit: super tired! Seem to have repeated myself a few times here and there so will try and patch this up later.
I watched the movie just before sleeping. Big mistake. It’s keeping me awake and it’s devastating. The story is so greatly written that it keeps me awake all the time.
I wanted to finish the book tonight and sleep before midnight... I finished the book by midnight but it's already been an hour, and I know I'm not sleeping anytime soon :,)
Do you guys want to talk about it? I'm only familiar with the screenplay and haven't watched the film for ages, but i got massively intellectually stimulated a few days ago watching an interview of Kazuo Ishiguro alongside Alex Garland who adapted the screenplay. i think during a pandemic might be a particularly haunting and interesting time to contemplate these themes concerning the human condition! Aaaand, i also haven't slept...
I think that they didn't escape because they felt in some way that they owe people who were prototype to create them because without them they wouldn't have a chance to exist even for this short period of time. It's like a deal you give me life, short but life, and i'll help you to live longer. It seems to me like metaphor of God or even gods at any religion. Even if it isn't what author of the novel intended to say i feel free to interpret it in my own way like main character interpreted the never let me go song. It's what makes art magic that everyone can feel it in other way and there's not wrong way it shows our souls
Don't we all think we owe our parents who loved us unconditionally, cared for us, supported us financially, worry about us every single day? They're our God. They would be happy if we are doctors and engineers. (Rings a bell? Lol) They really want it. But are we able to wake up exactly when they want, do exactly the chores they want us to do and when? Marry where they want us to and when? These are way smaller things than giving up all your organs and simply dying just because they supported your existence (and these clones don't get the pure love we get). So, supporting existence - love Although we do owe them everything, how often have you heard a child say I dont want this to perfectly good parents? Humans are born selfish and weird. Human emotions are way more complex!
Granted, some of us do rebel, but most of us don’t; and while some decide to write about the former, some choose to write about latter, it’s simply an artistic choice, one that’s entirely up to the creator to make, as long as it aligns with his belief and vision.
The book left me with the idea that even though we have more chances and hopes for the future than others..we end up not value them and die with the idea we could do more..just like the donors..So how is their life different from ours? Even though we can do more we only do what is given to us and we don’t take chances and risks to do what we want and love.So this leaves me with the question that we all ask ourselves From time to time:Why do we live ?What is our purpose in life?
Yes, the human condition. I hope you are safe and well as the world descended into a surreal temporal dystopia of sorts since your comment where i certainly feel myself to be haunted by these questions. i also like the idea of honouring and paying homage to a person unable to live a full existence taken for granted by others - if it is taken for granted. And to try and show some value in such a life even though it will be cut short.
Why do people keep fixating on the scientific plausibility and "why don't they escape"? It is NOT intended as a sci-fi or dystopian book. Though you can certainly read it that way and ask questions about the ethics of cloning for organ-harvesting, I doubt the book has much to offer in that respect. It is the dynamics of the three protagonists that is at the heart of this book, not the setting or the social institution. It is a story about the fragility of life and how one navigates friendship and love in a world that is destined to end. It is about how one comes to terms with his/her memory by retelling the stories. It is about our illusory sense of the past, how our memory tricks us, and how we sometimes want our memories to trick ourselves. The structure of the book is so well planned and the details so well conceived, making the story heartwrenching and painful to read.
If it's a metaphor for human mortality, what does the rest of the population in the story stand for? The ones that get to live past 100 and don't have to donate their organs?
@@WhiteSlift Exactly, I would rather read it as a methaphor for facism, sorting people into groups, designating one group as sub human, and using them for the benefit of the majority group
I was very disappointed in this book. The character's actions are not credible without addressing some of those questions. Everyone rebels in their own way in adolescence. Everyone chafes at societal restrictions and seeks to circumvent them. What about the characters' upbringing exactly interrupts this seemingly universal trait of humanity? The answer "they had a strict upbringing isolated from other possibilities" is hollow because those conditions exist and have always existed in our society and people still regularly "go off the reservation" despite all the safeguards. Why are these kids so docile? Why do they never seek interaction with the outer world even with no visible constraints preventing them? And furthermore, the "emotional drama" of their relationships is pretty bland-- just banal teenie clashes and butthurt. The only "take" that makes sense to me is that these kids are not human at all in any sense. They are cardboard cutouts.
whenever i hear the word "metaphor" now, i can only now think of that alan partridge scene "gremlins in the system,ghosts in the machine,perhaps a metaphor for.........good evening!2
I think for me you probably nailed it even though i remember little about the details of the romance. I feel that Kathy loved so purely and unconditionally and it was as romantic as hell (so to speak). I am only familiar with the screenplay.
Would anyone be interested in discussing this story outside of the focus on "why don't they escape" and the bittersweetness (or just bitterness) of the ending? :) (Not that there's anything wrong with that, these are just notably the predominant themes in the comments on this page.) Also, was anyone forced to read this in a school curriculum and did anyone have an experience of it leaving them cold in that context but coming back to it and enjoying it? If so, i would be interested to know what age you were required to read it initially, how it was treated in the curriculum, and what changed when you came back to it later. Cheers!
I've just read it for the second time and was desperate to have literary discussion about it - dumbfounded at the type of comments on various YT. I never read books twice and so glad I did. Kazuo Ishiguro is an outstanding writer and I could nearly weep with the sheer elegance, gentleness and precision of his writing. in his work there is an exquisite grief that touches me deeply. I always feel privileged reading one of his books, like I got to glimpse inside another dimension where words become energy forms of observation and beauty.
@@EvangeliseGood i would love to chat with you. i did manage to have a good chat with at least one other person somewhere on YT about this. i just had to have emergency surgery so I'm feeling generally horrible about everything, so right now I'm not very articulate, but once i heal up a bit, it would be my pleasure to have a chat with you. When i wrote my comment, i remember that watching an interview with Kazuo had caused a number of cogs in my head to start whirring about writing. That was amazing. It hadn't happened in a really, really long time, at least a couple of years and certainly not throughout the pandemic. i remember the moment of enthusiasm and yearning to seize the day and to expand on this sense pf epiphany with likeminded people. Now your message has reached me at a moment where unfortunately I'm feeling so ravaged by life circumstances that i couldn't feel more distanced from that moment. It's become obscure again, as though i can only look back at it now through a semi-opaque barrier, like a thick pane of glass filthy with soot and cobwebs. But what this actually means is that your message of desperate urge has reached me at a perfect time. I'm not sure it would be an exaggeration to say I'm having a long drawn out moment of existential horror but from experience the best possible prescription for this in the end includes literary ideas and the search for meaning about the human condition in literature. To return to the ideas underlying this book right now would be perhaps different from even some months ago. I've probably never thought or felt about human beings in quite the way i am starting to think and feel right now and this might well connect with some of the themes i. this work.. I'm not sure as i haven't examined this yet. Humans are so cultural i have never really perceived us as being animals ourselves. i used to think discourse of that sort was a kind of biological determinism and this was undesirable especially where views of women were concerned. Currently, well beyond any frame of gender though including it, I'm not only thinking of human beings as a form of animal, but I'm perhaps haunted by it, because we are both animal _and_ afflicted by the human condition simultaneously. i seem to be acutely aware of our mortality. These seem to be depressing things to raise in a conversation but they are not new ideas and I've seen them dealt with so beautifully in literature in the arts. There's a very bittersweet power concerning our mortality. i think that's one of the things that Kazuo has drawn on somewhat obliquely in this work, alongside romanticism. The plot of this book is in some ways as unromantic as it comes and it deals with biology and mortality directly, but somehow, the powerful emotion it can evoke concerning these themes is nuanced, understated, indirect, abstract. It's like it has something incredibly important to tell us about the human condition but this is impossible directly and can only be reached for obliquely. For myself, especially as it actually partly reminds me of another, earlier story written by Peter Hoeg ("Borderliners") which doesn't quite manage to conjure up the same effect, if the ability of the story to do this can be attributed to a device, then the device works, like a charm, because it doesn't feel like a device. It feels as though this story contains some kind of shocking yet redemptive truth about what it means to be human and the power of illusion and the power of love in even the most grim of circumstances. Thank you for coming from the future and finding my message floating here waiting for a response like yours. Previously i had asked for some recommendations about some of his other works and perhaps this is also something we can discuss soon enough, although i fear i may be a bit of a quiet or unreliable correspondent in the next few weeks. i know i read a quote from another book of his in a review which again got all my cogs whirring about writing and ideas, but I'll be damned if i can remember the name of the book. The quote concerned an abandoned car with the back seat covered by spreading branches of orange fungus and this was linked allegorically to the function of memory in a way which made me immediately want to read the book. Sometimes it can be hard to stumble across a stimulating discussion here. Some people will consider a paragraph to be War and Peace. (Edit: i will say i followed this sentence with a stupidly long paragraph, but hey.) And sometimes CZcams won't even notify me of responses to my comments. So all things considered, i feel very lucky, at a most unfortunate time, that your message made its way through to me. It was nothing short of magical for me to be caught up in a sense of an epiphany concerning writing, as i was when i last commented here.. Few things that are realistically possible in the stretch of my particular existence would give me as much of a sense of meaning, pleasure and gratification as to return to such a state. Imagination can be a form of deliverance from the worst the world has to offer Sometimes even in dealing with extremely grim subject matter, catharsis can be found. i think perhaps this story is so gripping, sad, unforgettable partly because it is so cathartic. One of the things i was wondering was: do we wish to be haunted by a story, and if so, why? What does this haunting offer us? Does it offer any respite from the experience of being a human being? Or could it be problematic for one's state of mind? Even in only the past few days i have been revisiting the concept of catharsis.. What is it really, why does it help us, does it really help us? As a writer, making decisions about whether to use certain devices.. what outcomes for readers should be contemplated? i remember Kazuo talking about going to the cinema and watching people see the end of the film and feeling sort of guilty and questioning himself. Indeed he said the funniest thing about this, it was really interesting and perhaps somewhat contradictory, that he had been traumatised by Bambi and Dumbo as a child and in a way, if he could have known what he was getting himself into as a viewer, he would never have signed up for the traumatisation, and in fact in a way, would have undone the viewing if possible. So he was acutely aware of forcing upon people a sort of visceral trauma they couldn't relinquish, and he did actually realise it was almost a hypocritical process of inflicting certain pain through the manipulation of emotion concerning tragedy. But i think this raises a lot of really interesting questions about why we watch or read things like drama or horror and why or how we find pleasure in this or feel in any way motivated to do so. i know this is the most basic crux underpinning literature but listening to the account concerning Bambi and Dumbo, i find myself stumbling upon a great mystery of this nature as though it has never been heard of. Why be compelled to tell a sad story and why be compelled to suspend disbelief and immerse oneself? What is the implicit contract between the storyteller and the audience and did Never Let Me Go breach this for some people and if so why and how?* What makes a storyteller feel able to take such a risk and decide to do so? Can a plot device that the author espouses as pure artifice to prop up a theme come across as fundamentally meaningful in itself beyond the authorial intention? Should Kazuo Ishiguro have pulled his punches and what sort of story would we have left if he had, if he had tried to spare us the worst of the blows? Can we do without writing like this - does it change us and if it does, does it change us for the better? In an oversaturated world, do we need more work like this, will we always need it, does it serve any purpose? *Edit: i remembered that one reason i am prompted to ask this alongside some of the other rhetorical questions (apologies there are so many, i am basically thinking out loud) is that KI said, of the cinema in particular, that there has always been an incredibly explicit contract between filmmakers and filmgoers, and what the contract pivots around is _release_ . I think he himself found himself wondering if his tale had breached this unwritten contract when he saw people's reactions in the audience to the end of the film in test screenings. I'm not sure if he was applying the same thought to literature, but i think it's interesting to consider. Especially given the nature of responses in the comments where i ended up feeling many must be from people who were required to read the book as part of a curriculum before reaching adulthood. i also wondered about the effects of that on the reception of the story.
@@EvangeliseGoodEdit: it turns out wrote a wall of text with loads of rhetorical questions and i had to divide it into two. Sorry! i could make a connection to another haunting story i was reminded of recently, which i remembered as i was thinking about Kazuo Ishiguro's description of Bambi and Dumbo - that is, Watership Down. Ostensibly for children! Can we consider these parables of sorts? And if so, would Never Let Me Go fit into this category? And how do these stories work to make us willing to suspend or surrender disbelief? Some of the most tragic stories i can remember actually seem to be children's literature! So yeah, even though the subject matter is haunting and I'm not very articulate right now, funnily enough, i suspect thinking further along these lines might cheer me up no end (haha, honestly) at a very bleak time. In the meantime, in case you do respond further, i might try to seek out some things on the original Greek concept of katharsis. i was actually looking this up on CZcams literally just yesterday..What i saw mainly looked a bit mediocre, unfortunately. However right now I'm gripped by the idea that catharsis is fundamental to the relief of suffering caused by the human condition. And i feel like this is probably central to the capacity of Kazuo Ishiguro to cause us to feel uncannily moved. And perhaps this tendency speaks to a potential drive on our part to volunteer our souls to certain authors as receptacles, ripe to be haunted by their devices. Other stories come to mind as i write these lines, like The Happy Prince by Oscar Wilde, or the animated 80s Christmas classic The Snowman, or in a similar vein, The Bridge to Terebithia. What do stories about tragic loss give us? On the surface, they could only traumatise us. Beneath the surface, what is it? Do they provide existential company through the imagination when the real lot of humans is to be born alone and die alone? Can stories that deal with suffering make it easier to deal with suffering? Is it ever a betrayal of the audience by the storyteller to expose them to pain with no cushion to catch their fall at all? Or is this in some way the ultimate loyalty on the part of the storyteller to his or her audience? - to expose us to a carefully controlled source of pain with no cushion but only a conduit into the realisation of our humanity, our vulnerability and our limited time on earth? i look at this from at least two perspectives - as part of an audience seeking immersion and a willing contract with a storyteller to suspend disbelief; and as someone interested in the craft of storytelling, including the use of devices to particular effect. I'm not sure that last time around i was quite so down the rabbithole of human-beings-as-animals (albeit cultured animals). i think i would already have been having an existential moment, no doubt, but it's fair to say that the space I'm in now due to recent experience is probably a lot closer to aspects of the subject matter of this book. i know that when Kazuo Ishiguro first set out to write this book, he wasn't guided by any ideas about organ donations or any speculative fiction framework. What he wanted to do was tell a story about young people whose lives would artificially be cut short. He just didn't know why or how that shortened lifespan would come about. So what came later (which is what is most memorable for some people, ie the plot) was in his own words purely a device on which to hang the themes of the story he wanted to tell, which i think included a certain heightening of emotive experience in a context where the protagonist already knows they are never going to experience a natural lifespan and to look at the implications for this in respect of one's personal character and relationships among other things. I keep asking rather simplistic rhetorical questions, but i guess, among all this, what kind of altered expectations might you have in such a scenario about your lifetime and purpose? And then, would these alterations align with what others might expect on first pass? i think potentially one of the reasons NLMG is so devastating is because of what KI is able to imagine that doesn't necessarily align with our expectations. This occurs alongside things i guess we might expect, like focussed and concentrated meaningfulness of one's connections with others one feels close with.. There's a dissonance and a schism but it "works" so well because he wraps it up in discourse (in the Foucauldian sense, if i can get away with that shorthand) of the kind we use to address equally devastating subject matter that "goes without saying", in "real life", if that makes any sense. So there's a potential revelation that it's precisely what goes without saying, what is flying straight under the radar, that goes unexamined, that is setting one up to fail. Not only in the story. And then there's the dissonance, from one perspective, off the top of my head, of the storyteller never fixing this oversight, never allowing the audience a payoff of relief, and allowing the character to realise their ultimate fate. It's incredibly jarring to not be spared as the audience. i think on one level convention would lead us to expect and hope for Kathy's salvation but we, like Kathy, are not spared, and as the audience, we not only feel for her, we feel the loss of her. (Editing: Which, more clumsily, has a direct connection to her own beliefs, which in turn connect to hegemonic discourse she has been exposed to, and therefore her demise genuinely passes to her as natural. While we feel the liminal gap between her discourse and the perceptible reality of the matter as the audience, which is at best uncomfortable and haunting and at worst horribly devastating.) I think KI is actually doing something very interesting there. i don't feel it's like a bleak outcome for the sake of it. (Edit: It doesn't feel like a device, at least if it works for you, but like a truth for the character about their fate in life.) It's also rather too oblique and in some ways unpredictable to be an obvious parable. There should be nothing heroic about Kathy's march to her demise. And that wouldn't be the right word to describe it. And yet there's something obtuse there, halfway between romanticism and stoicism, of a person faced with their fate. I'm half reminded of "tears in the rain" (Bladerunner soliloquy) but this is very different. It's kind of hegemonic, the opposite of rebellion. And it's rendered believable, which seems like a very difficult thing to pull off. The yielding to the perverse fate, the discourse of acceptance, despite everything at stake - it's unusually confronting. i feel like whatever else might be gleaned from it, it's a lot harder to pull off a denouement of this nature, than a character who intuitively struggles and rebels.. And sometimes i think stories that are harder to write take us closer to stories that are less told and subject matter that is less entertained. Or certainly less easily entertained. And it seems to me that KI was far less concerned with the plot, the whys and the hows, but what he keenly wanted to imprint upon us was the loss of a person like Kathy, clearly seeming to imagine that something about a story about her sort of character or fate would elude its being told. Yet the story now appears to have achieved a sort of canonical status, with high school students required to study it. i would have actually thought this was beyond their remit. i wouldn't really suggest people go there until they're in their 20s. But perhaps this is not unlike exposing young kids to Watership Down? i might try and come back and edit for clarity later but these ideas helped keep me afloat for the evening! i hope and trust this missive finds you well!
@@mothratemporalradio517 sorry for delay, trying to figure out how we get in touch, what Social media you have?? I'm on Telegram but not much else. Any ideas? Sorry to hear about your current woes, and yes it's a woeful time. Get back to me when ever suits you. I haven't seen the movie, they never reach the depth of the book. the only movie that worked in that way for me was The Golden Compass, have you read/seen that? I don't think Ishigoru punches at all, it's more like having veils gradually removed as you follow the path unfolding before you, all with a dawning sense of unease and so many off shoot thoughts, of things that you try to grasp, but remain out of reach. Hope you can find some joy in small victories that help to keep your spirit raised. wishing you well. C
@@willf4718 Will, i replied to you in another comment, but i wonder whether you have read any books by Peter Hoeg? There's one set in a sort of dystopian schoolhouse which reminds me a lot of Never Let Me Go and may have been written beforehand (although I'm not too sure about that). The endings are different and the protagonist is a male child but i think his (edited to avoid spoilers) child companions ultimately perish. It's hard to pinpoint exactly but the similarity in atmosphere and other aspects seemed uncanny to me, to the extent that at one stage I wondered if it had been a basis for the film (presumably lacking awareness of Kazuo Ishiguro's novel which I've yet to read). Peter Hoeg also wrote The Woman and The Ape which i wonder if you might enjoy.
@@willf4718 FWIW, that book by Hoeg I'm referring to is called Borderliners and was apparently published in 1993. I'd be so interested to know what you would make of it in contrast to Never Let Me Go, including in terms of the angle you have taken with Ishiguro's devices. One reason i put this to you specifically is because you are interested in Ishiguro's intended manipulation of the reader and the ploys he makes use of. i wish i could phrase this perhaps a bit more elegantly and substantially but that's the thrust of it. My sense of it is that if i was Hoeg (based on the NLMG screenplay), I'd be ambivalent about Ishiguro's story if it came later and surprised if he hadn't read Borderliners At the same time, as not-Hoeg, and considering storytelling as an art and the structure and payoff of stories for the reader/viewer/listener, i feel like Ishiguro's text managed to do something or set up something more haunting that would stay, unbidden, with those who consumed the story long after its telling (i suppose this is the kind of story i like). As you are thinking about devices in explicit terms...if it was the case that despite stories sounding roughly similar on one level, that Ishiguro had managed to somehow elevate his tale as a structure that may be comparatively more captivating or memorable than Hoeg's... i am wondering whether in comparing the similarities and differences of the stories, it might be possible to identify which devices Ishiguro has employed to the advantage of his narrative? I think if you happened to read Borderliners, you might see what i mean. i think a couple of key points may be apparent. i think perhaps Borderliners has strengths at the outset that Never Let Me Go may lack - in its screenplay version. It also allows for lacunae. But, there is a significant difference. i am not sure if i should in fact hammer out all the perceived differences in case you would like to read it! i think while certain events and themes seem very similar, there is ultimately a key plot difference which relates to the unasked question identified and the denouement also substantially differs. i think Never Let Me Go (screenplay) continues to build suspense whereas very sadly because i thought it was great, the pacing in Borderliners began to suffer and it had a comparatively weak final third as i remember it.
@@mothratemporalradio517 I don't read a lot of that kind of fiction, but I'll seek it out. Ishiguro, as I implied above, has a way of transforming genres into something different. His work seems to use one's preconceptions of genre and fantasy as a catalyst for his ideas. The Buried Giant is a good example of that, and actually When We Were Orphans does it too. Both are plays on genre that seem to be going in a stylistic direction that ultimately is subverted, and in doing so, he ultimately forces us to re-examine the shape of the story as a whole. Hard to describe until you read them, but I'd especially recommend TBG for that. The genre is less the canvas and more a device.
@@willf4718 this comment reminds me a bit of the likes of Angela Carter. i just saw someone diss When We Were Orphans but in a non-specific way - it was referred to as "drek". May i ask what you liked about it besides what we are touching upon with regard to literary devices? Also, may i ask whether you have read The Unconsoled, i think it's called? I saw mixed reviews on that, but i suspect i might like it. Including the fact that you mentioned you don't generally gravitate towards "that kind of fiction"* (does this mean speculative or literary fiction?), i have a bit of a random question. i was looking over some comments on a 2011 Guardian review of NLMG. i noted that approximately a quarter of them all used the word haunting. The same people tended to describe NLMG as a book that had affected them as no other had; it also appeared they had some difficulty articulating why. The review itself was actually not quite so generous, suggesting it left them cold. The issue of "why didn't they escape" made only a brief appearance compared to the comments here where it seems to account for the majority. i found myself thinking about the word "haunting" and whether or not it describes an experience people want from literature. Partly because i saw Ishiguro appearing to wrestle with this effect and whether it was a good thing or not. I'd say it is perhaps the best thing you could hope for as a writer in some ways. On the other hand, at least one comment noted that while they would strongly recommend it, they'd never read it again because it was too painful. Please excuse the slight rabbitholing: in lockdown with exploding infection rate all around and seeing the interview with Ishiguro suddenly offered leverage back into the world of ideas. If you don't find much enthusiasm to discuss it, that's fine, but i was looking at these comments just earlier today. Perhaps i might ask whether you found the denouement of NLMG to be devastating and/or haunting and if so, whether this was unhappily painful in a way you'd rather not have the experience (don't get this impression) or are you able to take it in stride, even if moved, perhaps by contemplating the story as allegory or exploration? If the latter, do you think your ability to recognise how a writer is manipulating you as a reader assists in taking in devices with a pinch of salt as it were, so that you are simultaneously moved but also able to recognise yourself as within a masterful grip, with all as it should be? Hopefully that last part made sense. I think after reading all these comments i decided Ishiguro had taken a risk by using certain devices to tell the story he wanted to tell (which originally didn't includ anye SF plot device) - and that it had both worked and not worked, in that it was divisive. i thought he was successful in what he set out to do even though a certain quantity of folk will baulk at the device; and i figured he knew that was a possibility but was loyal to his story. Thanks for touching upon those other books; for various reasons it's been difficult to get my hands on books for some time, certainly since the pandemic began, and my attention span had somewhat diminished. But i feel like now could be the perfect time to dive headlong back into fiction. i think i really need it, haha, as you might be able to tell. Cheers! *good on you if you will give Borderliners a try; i remain interested in seeing what you would make of it compared to NLMG including in terms of devices
You're very, very wrong. Just look around you at how people live. So many live lives of quiet desperation -- in soul numbing jobs, in miserable marriages, etc, etc, And how many ever "escape"? This a story about how one chooses to live -- /with/ the hand we're dealt, and /with/ the many, many things we can never change or escape. I honestly feel that the only flaw here is your own failure to understand this.
The difference is that some people do quit soul numbing jobs and some people get out of miserable marriages, and the ones that don't at least entertain the thought of doing so.
It is not a comparable situation. Normal unpleasantness of live are one thing. I don't mind working etc and donig things I don't like. What I would hate if I had a significantly worse fate than the majority population of where I live. If I was simply by fate of birth choosen to have no or less rights. I think this movie is not comparable with doing a boring job etc but rather with things like slavery, racial oppression, genocide etc, where one group in society is systematically stripped of their rights while others have rights.
And even if you were correct, which you partially are, even in extreme situations like slavery, many people do not escape, especially if they were born into the situation, if a group previously enjoyed rights and had a better status, and is then stripped of rights, attempt of escape, even if rather by something like emigration rather than open rebellion is more common than if people are second, third, fourth or more generation in the situation I think. However, soooner or later revolutions and revolsts do happen, because even though humans tend to be compliant, they also tend to be jealous, resent unfairness etc. If one is short changed, this can create anger at some stage
Also, appart from the question if the premise of the movie that most comply is correct, it just makes for a boring story, the normal the compliant is inherrently boring, only the special, the unusual is intersting and has artistic value, normal is worthless
@@janinaschmaedeke6264 completely disagree that this scenario is boring and that only the exception can ever be of interest. Very ordinary and even banal things can be rendered incredibly fascinating through narrative or camera work or other means of creating interest. The essential concern here is the human condition, not plot devices. i do get the impression that perhaps a lot of people were forced to engage with the text, in a particular way, at a particular age, for a class.
The possibility also exists that escape wouldn't have been easy. Remember how they have some sort of computer chip implanted in their hands and they scan their hands every time they enter a building or open doors? Chances are they could probably be tracked that way as well, hence no means of escape.
@@WhiteSlift better the devil you know. A death that will come at a certain point rather than immediately and in traumatic circumstances. I'm guessing you're not a woman but a lot of women stay in relationships where they are abused (and some men too). Since your insistence has been focussing on the motivation of people in real life in dissimilar circumstances, why do you think those women don't "simply" leave? Or as another example, if it is true that there are people in North Korea but know they are likely to be shot in the attempt, how do you explain the fact that these attempts are few relative to the greater population? isn't it the case that the archetypal hero's journey you are presenting as reality is just that - a fictional construct to help people escape their actual everyday reality in many cases? When people are between a rock and a hard place, like a hot air balloon that caught on fire far above the ground with no parachutes, some are good to jump perhaps in an effort to preserve life and some will cling on for dear life. Who will survive the longest or suffer most - much of this may depend on chance. Neither form of effort necessarily is better than the other. For example i bet there's people who don't make a break for it in North Korea who are very brave and not stupid. I also feel like it's very unlikely you've experienced say, water torture, and that you would be so cocky with what feels like macho posturing if you had actually been in situations where you fear for your life. A lot of people freeze in response to fear. This is just dwelling on what you insist is natural for humans under threat. Anyway, go watch the original Bladerunner. Maybe you romanticise rebellion but.. have you experienced untold loss in taking risks to honour your values? i mean maybe you have but you sound pretty laissez faire about it as though it's more like a first person shooter scenario. Putting it another way, if you were in North Korea, would you definitely make a break across the river to China where your chances of getting shot are high and you'd be sent back if officials found you? You might but i feel like this is just bluster. i think the average person after experiencing torture and/or threats to their loved ones has a breaking point.
@@gorgeousbeauty7347 how if it's embedded in say their brain (I've no idea) and they have no surgical equipment or knowhow? Can a cat get rid of its chip?
There were tons of slave rebellions, most of them crushed... I remember watching our Ukrainian movie Chervonyi about prisoners in GULAG rising up... it ended like usually. We remember the heroes who died fighting back, not those who just accept without fighting back. Like modern day russians.
It's the idea that we accept the reality that we've been given, we accept that we go to school, grow up to get jobs and eventually die, y'know? We never put much thought into deviating from those 'facts of life', just like the children at Hailsham, they're not particularly rebellious, even with small things, they just accept.
He means exactly what he says. Many people just don't see how they might be able to escape their situations. For example, even in the the context of NLMG, where would these young people run to, exactly? What would they do and how would they survive? In any event, you're quite missing the point. The story is about mortality and how we act in the face of that. Tell me, please, how do we escape from our mortality?
@@paulparanoid I think it is not about general mortality, because eventually dying or having a boring job is not comparable. I think this more resembles a facist society of sorting people into groups based on an inherrent characteristic you have no choice over and giving one group no rights so that the majority group can use them for their benefit. Like free white people/black slaves in the past. Even then, yes many people don't rebell if they are born into the oppressed group. However, those who don't rebell don't make interesting characters, precisely because they are not special, only the special is interesting, the ordinary has no value in art. No one can escape from mortality, but one group being artificially killed earlier is not the same as accepting natural mortality. It is precisely because the other humans attempted to escape mortality that these clones were created. Tell me, should a group who is targeted for forced labour followed by genocide as soon as they can't work anymore just accept their fate? Yes many do, but there are always those who rebell, that's how prisoners blew up buildings etc. And as soon as one starts, more people join in, especially if you have nothing to lose. Those who benefit form an oppressive/facist system are of course even less likely to rebell than those who suffer under it, which is why one should not be angry at the victim's passivity (although this passivity makes the story utterly boring), but at the one who set up and benefitted from the system. Just like slave holders were the bad guys, not the slaves, even if they did not rebell
@@janinaschmaedeke6264 This is exactly what I thought. Art is usually about the extraordinary. But this is about the majority of people in a system that has no discernable way out. Being a descendant of enslaved people made me feel a deep connection and understanding of that type of person who is stuck in an evil system that poses as normality. Also it should be considered that these people are clones. Would they even contain the strength of a human spirit or the will to survive above all else? As they were made for organs do they genetically have inbuilt compliance? (Those are the questions I would ask the author)
Il libro e' commovente, stuggente, a tratti malinconico, ma poi scorre bene con scrittura chiara. L'autore, inglese ma nato nella Nagasaki gia' devastata dalla bomba atomica, padroneggia tutti tempi verbi e le regole della consecutio temporum con maestria e come un pittore con pennello e calamaio riesce a dipingere quadri magici di pura immaginazione e fantasy.
ruth is such an interesting character. She is so dastardly, but at the same time, it feels a little bit wrong to condemn a person in her predicament. We have all been around a person like that, and it can be exhausting. Tommy and Kathy submitting to her control is a microcosm of how all of them ultimately submit to their incredibly unfair fate
Didn't see the movie but read the book. And yeah the fact that the protagonists never consider run away nor resolutely fight for their rights to live is a bit unconvincing. After all survival instinct is innate to EVERY living being. Or... maybe they were genetically deprived of it? But I got the author's point: he didn't want to dig into the scientific side of the matter (that would be too Michael Crichton.) Sublime book anyway (very sad though but not exactly depressing.)
@STD092812 well said, it's very easy to point out what "goes without saying" when you are in a position to point to it. I found myself posing similar questions and analogies not only here but in some other context recently. Why do we eat cereal from a bowl and not from a mug? Why di we not use the floor of a public phone booth as a place to release our stools? (Not meaning hard furniture!) In this context i am only familiar with the screenplay and if i am honest, this may have felt like an itch that i needed to scratch but i also accept it being a deliberate oversight on some level. i haven't read the book and it would be interesting to know if there is more nuance to this lacunae in the text than on the screen. i do think this criticism is slightly better phrased than similar criticisms I've seen on this page, contingent on the word "convincing". Others are arguing real humans would be motivated to do X in our world, therefore fictional characters in a speculative world must automatically have the exact same motivations and mindsets. Among other things this ignores the whole "what if" premise of speculative fiction. What if they didn't run away? What if they even openly accepted or embraced their fate? But, what i do recognise is that even within a fictional setting not obligated to observe all conventions of realism, a reader or viewer or listener still wants satisfying immersion and payoff. i think some of these critics are lacking in imagination, life experience and haven't read that widely. But fair play about immersion - even though i definitely don't see the dearth of escape as a deal breaker, in fact i see the point including the exploration of this, which is indeed lacking in certain comfort. i do think this aspect of the script may be a double edged sword in some ways. This lack of escape from a grim fate is at the heart of the story but where this device seems unconvincing to people even at a stretch it will pull them out of immersion. For me personally i think the substance of the story certainly manages to transcend this plotting "difficulty or weakness" or astute but calculated machination. It could be argued, rightly or wrongly, that the story is more powerful for its silence and gap in this respect in which the reader or viewer is required to fill in the gap with their imagination. But perhaps the inherent risk of such a device is breaking immersion (and not in a "good" way). i actually think this story feels very similar to a 1993 story by Peter Hoeg. i can say that it does try eventually to tie up certain loose ends here and there - and that perhaps, unfortunately, in that case, it actually somewhat irretrievably undoes the air of mystery which somehow was also important in remaining immersed. An interview of Kazuo Ishiguro alongside Alex Garland, a long time friend of his who later adapted the novel for the screen, reveals that what compelled him to write this story actually began with an idea based on young people prematurely losing their life. But, he didn't know the why or how. He was honest and explicit that the speculative fiction part was purely a device to create scaffolding on which to hang the rest of the story. i think suspending doubt is worth it for a cracking story that is terribly moving, but it is possible that just like tastes vary with regard to specific vegetables, some people just react to the device poorly. i think for those of us moved by the tragedy this seems like a bit of a travesty but there it is, i guess that's a risk Ishiguro took in order to be able to tell the heart of the story he wanted to tell. And i think that essence is worth it. i would however be very interested in the various waves of feedback he received prior to publishing. In particular, I'm interested if he was pushed about that, especially when it came to the film. i think possibly Alex Garland might have had to field this somewhat on Ishiguro's behalf and then he wheeled out Ishiguro himself as the authoritative expert. Which was very nice and unusual to hear :) Usually the original writer is the last figure to have any say about the interpretation of their work in film productions, from what I've heard. i wonder if it related to this factor. If so, it's nice that Garland honoured his friend's intentions.
Based on what evidence and life experience? "my experience is that no matter what, people grow bored with each other" etc - could that be why stories that involve loyalty, for example, are powerful? It's speculative fiction but i don't think that means that unconditional, redemptive love is always an illusion, even though aspects of this are a cultural construct You're probably not wrong that it's atypical, except that you didn't allow for its existence at all. i basically think that you are a) mistaken and b) probably a person with the cultural conditioning of a young man.
Can't argue with that.. If you can still see this, may i ask if alongside that depression, this story left you with any other form of substance that may have helped compensate for or round out the bleakness? Was it haunting in a romantic way that stayed with you or do you feel like it was something traumatising that you wished you hadn't encountered? Did it offer you some kind of payoff for shaking you emotionally - were you able to take anything constructive away from the experience or did it just leave you feeling bad? Has it caused you to think somewhat differently about anything?
I think the author is not being totally honest about his goals and why he wrote this type of story! I think he has classified information concerning cloning farms and wrote ‘truth in fiction’ story about true events…
There's no need to clone people to harvest organs, Chinese do organ harvesting from Uyghurs and dissidents without ANY cloning needed. When it comes to science there's also no need to clone entire human to get their organs, it's way easier to clone organs separately. Again, nobody does that, instead they just put undesirables into camps and take away their hair, their organs, everything. No science fiction needed, world just closes its eyes on what China is doing to people they deem "lesser".
When we dealt with this book at school, I already thought that it was a metaphor for life but we never really discussed that. My teacher more or less said that the book was written to show us how bad a world like that could be and that it's therefore a dystopian novel like 1984..
It is not a metaphor for live in general, it is a methaphor for how people react to oppression and that most don't rebell, it is comparable to slavery, racial oppression, etc. It is a story of one group of people being given no rights and being used for the benefit of the majority group.
So in a way it is about a dystopian totalitarian society, sorting people into groups, and stripping one group of all rights, using them, whether for labour, medical experiments, their organs etc does not matter, this is how facism and similar systems operate
Anyone who asks 'Why don't they escape' is missing the point of the book. It's about human nature, we don't deviate from the expected, and these kids have been raised their ENTIRE lives to think it's their fate, their duty even, to donate their organs. They do what's expected of them and what they've been raised to do. Few humans would act differently or contemplate another path with such a limited experience as these characters have had- there are those one off individuals who would rebel but this book isn't about them. That's what makes it so tragic, all along these characters have been seeking an escape within the confines of those who created them; deferrals, the gallery etc- they didn't have the perspective to look beyond these boundaries, nor did they see them as boundaries.The final line of the book sums this up 'I drive where I'm supposed to be.'
I view it as an example of Plato's cave.
Becki P Exactly, none of the three saw it as a boundary. It wasn't something they had to escape, but merely live.
I agree! There's also the practical matter of, where would they go? I mean, they're obviously chipped. Plus, there are those horror stories they all learned growing up, so... The question never occurred to me.
And the destination is always, sooner or later, the same. We all complete.
Hold that realization close, o mortal. Make every moment count, and be the you to others that you want to be.
When i finished watching the movie this was the only thing i was mad about "why the fuck would you not escape goddamn it ?"
I think the fact that his characters don't escape speaks more to a realism about humans and their conditioning of a future set out for them. Yes, some could theoretically rebel, but we were told a more pointed story of the ones who didn't.
The end of the book and movie just devastates me.
Devastating is the perfect word to describe this book
PRECIOUS and the KID seem to be devastating too. I've heard. ;)
So very sad!
I just watched an interview where he was interviewed alongside Alex Garland who adapted the novel for the screenplay for the film version - I've actually only watched the film. I think you would appreciate Kazuo Ishiguro's deliberations upon what he was putting people through emotionally. He actually compared it to watching Bambi and Dumbo as a kid, in the sense it left him in tears and he genuinely wished he had never watched them. He said that he was worried that Never Let Me Go might inflict a similar trauma on audiences in search of escapism, which is what he established cinema audiences as always squarely in search of when seeking a cinematic experience. i think he worried that he had undercut an essential deal when it comes to the cinematic version (in which he was able to directly observe people's responses in screenings, as distinct from public reception to a privately read novel). That he had sort of aborted the viewer's wish for escape and he had left them involuntarily traumatised and worse off than when they had come into the cinema seeking escape from the troubles in their life.
i thought that was really interesting. Because it actually doesn't pull its punches, which is why it remains mostly unforgettable. i say mostly because i technically forgot about it for a while but any reference to it would never fail to immediately remind me of the devastation of the ending. Carey Mulligan gave a cracking performance in that as well.
i feel like in prolonged covid times, it might be pretty interesting to rewatch. Elements of the unfolding of the pandemic very quickly started to seem like unreal dystopian speculative fiction. For example, how quickly it simply became "The Virus" and part of an everyday lexicon, with normalisation of previously unthinkable routines. I'm no covid denier but i think this was a beautiful and elegaic piece of speculative fiction that was profoundly troubling as it was profoundly moving. At least the film version was.
Almost as bad as the Snowman cartoon with the beautiful song where at the end of everything the Snowman just melts and that's the end. Existentialism for kids. A lot of children's stuff seems quite brutal actually, especially historically!
One if the things i liked about this was it was spare and believable. Even if the concept was surreal. It drew you in and you felt the stakes and cared absolutely about what would happen. That's a process that begins long before the end and a lot of works fail to maintain our attention and suspense so that we half don't care what happens at the end anyway. i feel like Never Let Me Go is a masterwork in suspense and tragedy.
Gosh, me too.
Throughout the book, I’ve always seen myself in Kathy, in Tommy, in Ruth, in all these children and later adults. Their "different" nature didn’t make me see them as less of a human. The relationships the formed, the feelings they developed, even the limited time they had on earth are only a little different than what we experience. I never really pitied them or found their story tragic, either. Unless we agree that life, the real life, is tragic as well.
I mean you're both right.
I just finished watching this movie and I could not stop sobbing by the end. I’ll be thinking about this all night… and how did this movie get such poor google and tomatoes reviews?!? You’ve gotta be kidding me this is a beautiful work of art
It's so endearing that Carey is watching Kazuo Ishiguro so intently, he must be like her idol. She loves the book so much!
Yes, she does. She wanted Hollywood to wait to make the movie so she could play Kathy. She actively campaigned for the role.
The way the characters resigned to their fate IMO was probably the most realistic and natural (albeit nihilistic) response. I think the novel was less of a science fiction than psychological fiction. And that love and friendship can grow even amidst the most seemingly dehumanizing, helpless of situations - conditions that are so unreal and foreign, encompassed by boundaries only in our wildest dreams can we, the outsiders, "the masters" imagine of living in - to me, that was more or less what the story was about. I think it also meant to provide a warning about the implications of artificial intelligence, as well as an interesting analogy to the sacrifice of animals in the name of research and medicine. It is a reminder that life, be it of an animal or some other creature, is no less than ours, and whatever its purpose we or nature assign it to be, we ought to respect it. If there is any point in the future where we ever seek to synthesize sentient beings modelled after ourselves, it will be worth consulting stories such as this and reflect on the ethics behind our scientific practises where other lives can become a collateral.
Just finished reading the book, and searched for some videos. I was questioning this too, but not so strongly. Judging by the character of the protagonists, they were kind and accepted their fate; especially Kathy remained calm throughout all and tried to bear it all. After all, they were fed with the thought that this was their aim of living, and the life they lived was isolated by the realistic human being expectations. Everything was set for them, was planned, even their job. They lived getting used to this and they got raised actually becoming good people.
I absolutely go with the author's answer and I think the strong effect the book had on me personally, is only because it was treated this way.
Book was amazing, thanks to the author for this masterpiece!
Plz guide regarding to examine magic realism in this novel.v thanks for logical comment and discussion.
@@muhammadmasood3303 it appears the speculative fiction elements (per "magical realism") were actually intended by the author only as a means to an end to examine the human condition.
@thisdeepwell I agree with you.
For me the first reason they don't escape is the education they received in that school, in that parallel society. They are raised in this remote environment and are told that they absolutely need to stay healthy, not to smoke, drink alcohol... In our society we receive a different kind of education, we are told different things and in the end we work just to pay our taxes and feed our leaders, and in the end... we die. Just like them. And, escape... to go where?
Such an insightful interview. I use the quote telling a story of brave slaves who don't escape their fate whenever I teach the novel.
I’ve read the book twice and watched the movie more than 20 times. It just doesn’t become boring. The meaning behind it becomes deeper every time
In that case could you please elaborate: what is the meaning of this novel for you personally?
Simple and to the point. Mark of greatness.
Thank you, Kazuo, for being one of the few authors to revolutionize how we all view the truly best in science fiction.
When we dealt with this book at school, I already thought that it was a metaphor for life but we never really discussed that. My teacher more or less said that the book was written to show us how bad a world like that could be and that it's therefore a dystopian novel like 1984..
Mighty Man Your teacher really taught you the book badly... I didn't read the book for class but it's quite clearly nothing like 1984 except for maybe the genre
did your teacher even read the book
Different people have different interpretations. That’s the magic of art! Thus, I don’t blame your teacher for her seemingly "wrong" interpretation as much as I blame the fact that she tried to shove this interpretation down your throat lol. Unfortunately, literature in schools is mostly taught this way, closed off from different perspectives and discussions. That’s why we end up not liking it or not being able to comprehend it either.
As Aliki mentioned there's no one correct interpretation and i may add given what I'm about to say that also authorial intent need not be relied on for interpretation. But according to an interview i just saw Kazuo Ishiguro give alongside Alex Garland who adapted the novel for screen, the dystopian implications were definitely not an intentional focus in and of themselves, but purely a means to an end, which i ultimately found very interesting to consider. He elaborated more clearly on what he say here in some respects about what he was motivated to write about (although in that interview i remember less about him discussing the relationships of characters when faced with a finite existence). He said he knew he wanted to write about young people whose lives would be cut short, but he didn't have the how or the why, and i think previously had only written literary fiction rather than ever using any plot devices that might be characterised as speculative fiction (i think he says science fiction, so that's my take on subgenre rather than his). He just didn't know how their lives would be cut short and ultimately this is what came to him but as a means to an end (a scaffolding by which to hang a study of human beings in such precarious circumstances) rather than the dystopia being either the driving concept or even a social comment. If i understood him correctly.
That said, it wouldn't be untrue to suggest it might have some themes in common with various utopian classics but i actually think the screenplay at least retains what i might think of as literary fiction style. That's one reason i referred to speculative fiction as it can straddle boundaries between literary and science fiction. Literary fiction is often more sparing than genre fiction and it seems clear to me that he kind of wrote from outside the genre using speculation to enable release of ideas about the human condition. This may arguably differ from work in which "world building" as it often gets referred to quite recently is a significant focus. i think perhaps for Ishiguro...... the dystopia is just a stage on which his characters can move about, as opposed to the details of the world being a key thrust of the narrative. The details of the world don't matter too much, perhaps, in some way; the human condition of the individual placed under unthinkable pressure is perhaps the real story.
I'm not saying straight science fiction doesn't do some similar things or even 1984 which is a great book (disclaimer - only familiar with the screenplay for Never Let Me Go). It's just that some of those works do set out to deliberately explore the implications of certain technologies etc. Where by contrast for whatever it's worth it appears that wasn't the intention here, which i actually found really flipping interesting alongside the process described for how Kazuo Ishiguro developed the story. Hope that makes sense.
Edit: super tired! Seem to have repeated myself a few times here and there so will try and patch this up later.
I watched the movie just before sleeping. Big mistake. It’s keeping me awake and it’s devastating. The story is so greatly written that it keeps me awake all the time.
yeah...it's 2 am for me right now and i just finished the book. i couldn't stop thinking about it
I wanted to finish the book tonight and sleep before midnight... I finished the book by midnight but it's already been an hour, and I know I'm not sleeping anytime soon :,)
Do you guys want to talk about it? I'm only familiar with the screenplay and haven't watched the film for ages, but i got massively intellectually stimulated a few days ago watching an interview of Kazuo Ishiguro alongside Alex Garland who adapted the screenplay. i think during a pandemic might be a particularly haunting and interesting time to contemplate these themes concerning the human condition! Aaaand, i also haven't slept...
I've read the book months ago and it always pops up in my head.
Same here, I’m not sure about you but this movie left me with so many feelings on life! Now I think I am going to give the book a go.
I think that they didn't escape because they felt in some way that they owe people who were prototype to create them because without them they wouldn't have a chance to exist even for this short period of time. It's like a deal you give me life, short but life, and i'll help you to live longer. It seems to me like metaphor of God or even gods at any religion. Even if it isn't what author of the novel intended to say i feel free to interpret it in my own way like main character interpreted the never let me go song. It's what makes art magic that everyone can feel it in other way and there's not wrong way it shows our souls
Don't we all think we owe our parents who loved us unconditionally, cared for us, supported us financially, worry about us every single day?
They're our God.
They would be happy if we are doctors and engineers.
(Rings a bell? Lol)
They really want it. But are we able to wake up exactly when they want, do exactly the chores they want us to do and when?
Marry where they want us to and when?
These are way smaller things than giving up all your organs and simply dying just because they supported your existence (and these clones don't get the pure love we get).
So, supporting existence - love
Although we do owe them everything, how often have you heard a child say I dont want this to perfectly good parents?
Humans are born selfish and weird. Human emotions are way more complex!
their donations don't go to their originals, they go to anyone. Their originals were not respected.
This book tore my heart out thanks to
One of my favorite 📕📕📕
Fantastic book from a fantastic author
Granted, some of us do rebel, but most of us don’t; and while some decide to write about the former, some choose to write about latter, it’s simply an artistic choice, one that’s entirely up to the creator to make, as long as it aligns with his belief and vision.
The book left me with the idea that even though we have more chances and hopes for the future than others..we end up not value them and die with the idea we could do more..just like the donors..So how is their life different from ours?
Even though we can do more we only do what is given to us and we don’t take chances and risks to do what we want and love.So this leaves me with the question that we all ask ourselves
From time to time:Why do we live ?What is our purpose in life?
Yes, the human condition. I hope you are safe and well as the world descended into a surreal temporal dystopia of sorts since your comment where i certainly feel myself to be haunted by these questions.
i also like the idea of honouring and paying homage to a person unable to live a full existence taken for granted by others - if it is taken for granted. And to try and show some value in such a life even though it will be cut short.
This dude is so smart
Just finished the book. Have a lot of crying to do now.
Watching the movies is really nothing compared to reading the book
i feel like i wouldn't have understood the movie as well if i hadn't read the book first, but i was much more impacted by the movie
@@SailorSabol but u dont really feel the emotions watching the movie
I agree, the ending of the book really hit me emotionally
@@Alex-yo9xt Ik I felt so isolated with her :(
The movie game me almost nothing emotionally. It only helped me visualise the characters while reading the book, which is insignificant.
Why do people keep fixating on the scientific plausibility and "why don't they escape"? It is NOT intended as a sci-fi or dystopian book. Though you can certainly read it that way and ask questions about the ethics of cloning for organ-harvesting, I doubt the book has much to offer in that respect. It is the dynamics of the three protagonists that is at the heart of this book, not the setting or the social institution. It is a story about the fragility of life and how one navigates friendship and love in a world that is destined to end. It is about how one comes to terms with his/her memory by retelling the stories. It is about our illusory sense of the past, how our memory tricks us, and how we sometimes want our memories to trick ourselves. The structure of the book is so well planned and the details so well conceived, making the story heartwrenching and painful to read.
I cannot recall crying upon reading the end of a novel. My heart just broke reading this masterpiece.
If it's a metaphor for human mortality, what does the rest of the population in the story stand for? The ones that get to live past 100 and don't have to donate their organs?
@@WhiteSlift Exactly, I would rather read it as a methaphor for facism, sorting people into groups, designating one group as sub human, and using them for the benefit of the majority group
@@WhiteSlift The "slaves" sacrifice themselves for the non-slaves.
I was very disappointed in this book. The character's actions are not credible without addressing some of those questions. Everyone rebels in their own way in adolescence. Everyone chafes at societal restrictions and seeks to circumvent them. What about the characters' upbringing exactly interrupts this seemingly universal trait of humanity? The answer "they had a strict upbringing isolated from other possibilities" is hollow because those conditions exist and have always existed in our society and people still regularly "go off the reservation" despite all the safeguards. Why are these kids so docile? Why do they never seek interaction with the outer world even with no visible constraints preventing them? And furthermore, the "emotional drama" of their relationships is pretty bland-- just banal teenie clashes and butthurt. The only "take" that makes sense to me is that these kids are not human at all in any sense. They are cardboard cutouts.
whenever i hear the word "metaphor" now, i can only now think of that alan partridge scene "gremlins in the system,ghosts in the machine,perhaps a metaphor for.........good evening!2
The story is one of the best Love stories ever.
I think for me you probably nailed it even though i remember little about the details of the romance. I feel that Kathy loved so purely and unconditionally and it was as romantic as hell (so to speak). I am only familiar with the screenplay.
The writer and the actress
Plx expain, never let me go, falls magic realism? Its humble request to examine maic realism in novel.v v thanks
Would anyone be interested in discussing this story outside of the focus on "why don't they escape" and the bittersweetness (or just bitterness) of the ending? :)
(Not that there's anything wrong with that, these are just notably the predominant themes in the comments on this page.)
Also, was anyone forced to read this in a school curriculum and did anyone have an experience of it leaving them cold in that context but coming back to it and enjoying it? If so, i would be interested to know what age you were required to read it initially, how it was treated in the curriculum, and what changed when you came back to it later.
Cheers!
I've just read it for the second time and was desperate to have literary discussion about it - dumbfounded at the type of comments on various YT. I never read books twice and so glad I did. Kazuo Ishiguro is an outstanding writer and I could nearly weep with the sheer elegance, gentleness and precision of his writing. in his work there is an exquisite grief that touches me deeply. I always feel privileged reading one of his books, like I got to glimpse inside another dimension where words become energy forms of observation and beauty.
@@EvangeliseGood i would love to chat with you. i did manage to have a good chat with at least one other person somewhere on YT about this. i just had to have emergency surgery so I'm feeling generally horrible about everything, so right now I'm not very articulate, but once i heal up a bit, it would be my pleasure to have a chat with you. When i wrote my comment, i remember that watching an interview with Kazuo had caused a number of cogs in my head to start whirring about writing. That was amazing. It hadn't happened in a really, really long time, at least a couple of years and certainly not throughout the pandemic. i remember the moment of enthusiasm and yearning to seize the day and to expand on this sense pf epiphany with likeminded people.
Now your message has reached me at a moment where unfortunately I'm feeling so ravaged by life circumstances that i couldn't feel more distanced from that moment. It's become obscure again, as though i can only look back at it now through a semi-opaque barrier, like a thick pane of glass filthy with soot and cobwebs.
But what this actually means is that your message of desperate urge has reached me at a perfect time. I'm not sure it would be an exaggeration to say I'm having a long drawn out moment of existential horror but from experience the best possible prescription for this in the end includes literary ideas and the search for meaning about the human condition in literature.
To return to the ideas underlying this book right now would be perhaps different from even some months ago. I've probably never thought or felt about human beings in quite the way i am starting to think and feel right now and this might well connect with some of the themes i. this work.. I'm not sure as i haven't examined this yet. Humans are so cultural i have never really perceived us as being animals ourselves. i used to think discourse of that sort was a kind of biological determinism and this was undesirable especially where views of women were concerned. Currently, well beyond any frame of gender though including it, I'm not only thinking of human beings as a form of animal, but I'm perhaps haunted by it, because we are both animal _and_ afflicted by the human condition simultaneously. i seem to be acutely aware of our mortality. These seem to be depressing things to raise in a conversation but they are not new ideas and I've seen them dealt with so beautifully in literature in the arts. There's a very bittersweet power concerning our mortality.
i think that's one of the things that Kazuo has drawn on somewhat obliquely in this work, alongside romanticism.
The plot of this book is in some ways as unromantic as it comes and it deals with biology and mortality directly, but somehow, the powerful emotion it can evoke concerning these themes is nuanced, understated, indirect, abstract. It's like it has something incredibly important to tell us about the human condition but this is impossible directly and can only be reached for obliquely.
For myself, especially as it actually partly reminds me of another, earlier story written by Peter Hoeg ("Borderliners") which doesn't quite manage to conjure up the same effect, if the ability of the story to do this can be attributed to a device, then the device works, like a charm, because it doesn't feel like a device. It feels as though this story contains some kind of shocking yet redemptive truth about what it means to be human and the power of illusion and the power of love in even the most grim of circumstances.
Thank you for coming from the future and finding my message floating here waiting for a response like yours.
Previously i had asked for some recommendations about some of his other works and perhaps this is also something we can discuss soon enough, although i fear i may be a bit of a quiet or unreliable correspondent in the next few weeks. i know i read a quote from another book of his in a review which again got all my cogs whirring about writing and ideas, but I'll be damned if i can remember the name of the book. The quote concerned an abandoned car with the back seat covered by spreading branches of orange fungus and this was linked allegorically to the function of memory in a way which made me immediately want to read the book.
Sometimes it can be hard to stumble across a stimulating discussion here. Some people will consider a paragraph to be War and Peace. (Edit: i will say i followed this sentence with a stupidly long paragraph, but hey.) And sometimes CZcams won't even notify me of responses to my comments. So all things considered, i feel very lucky, at a most unfortunate time, that your message made its way through to me. It was nothing short of magical for me to be caught up in a sense of an epiphany concerning writing, as i was when i last commented here.. Few things that are realistically possible in the stretch of my particular existence would give me as much of a sense of meaning, pleasure and gratification as to return to such a state.
Imagination can be a form of deliverance from the worst the world has to offer Sometimes even in dealing with extremely grim subject matter, catharsis can be found.
i think perhaps this story is so gripping, sad, unforgettable partly because it is so cathartic. One of the things i was wondering was: do we wish to be haunted by a story, and if so, why? What does this haunting offer us? Does it offer any respite from the experience of being a human being?
Or could it be problematic for one's state of mind?
Even in only the past few days i have been revisiting the concept of catharsis.. What is it really, why does it help us, does it really help us? As a writer, making decisions about whether to use certain devices.. what outcomes for readers should be contemplated?
i remember Kazuo talking about going to the cinema and watching people see the end of the film and feeling sort of guilty and questioning himself. Indeed he said the funniest thing about this, it was really interesting and perhaps somewhat contradictory, that he had been traumatised by Bambi and Dumbo as a child and in a way, if he could have known what he was getting himself into as a viewer, he would never have signed up for the traumatisation, and in fact in a way, would have undone the viewing if possible. So he was acutely aware of forcing upon people a sort of visceral trauma they couldn't relinquish, and he did actually realise it was almost a hypocritical process of inflicting certain pain through the manipulation of emotion concerning tragedy.
But i think this raises a lot of really interesting questions about why we watch or read things like drama or horror and why or how we find pleasure in this or feel in any way motivated to do so. i know this is the most basic crux underpinning literature but listening to the account concerning Bambi and Dumbo, i find myself stumbling upon a great mystery of this nature as though it has never been heard of. Why be compelled to tell a sad story and why be compelled to suspend disbelief and immerse oneself? What is the implicit contract between the storyteller and the audience and did Never Let Me Go breach this for some people and if so why and how?*
What makes a storyteller feel able to take such a risk and decide to do so? Can a plot device that the author espouses as pure artifice to prop up a theme come across as fundamentally meaningful in itself beyond the authorial intention? Should Kazuo Ishiguro have pulled his punches and what sort of story would we have left if he had, if he had tried to spare us the worst of the blows? Can we do without writing like this - does it change us and if it does, does it change us for the better? In an oversaturated world, do we need more work like this, will we always need it, does it serve any purpose?
*Edit: i remembered that one reason i am prompted to ask this alongside some of the other rhetorical questions (apologies there are so many, i am basically thinking out loud) is that KI said, of the cinema in particular, that there has always been an incredibly explicit contract between filmmakers and filmgoers, and what the contract pivots around is _release_ . I think he himself found himself wondering if his tale had breached this unwritten contract when he saw people's reactions in the audience to the end of the film in test screenings. I'm not sure if he was applying the same thought to literature, but i think it's interesting to consider. Especially given the nature of responses in the comments where i ended up feeling many must be from people who were required to read the book as part of a curriculum before reaching adulthood. i also wondered about the effects of that on the reception of the story.
@@EvangeliseGoodEdit: it turns out wrote a wall of text with loads of rhetorical questions and i had to divide it into two. Sorry!
i could make a connection to another haunting story i was reminded of recently, which i remembered as i was thinking about Kazuo Ishiguro's description of Bambi and Dumbo - that is, Watership Down. Ostensibly for children!
Can we consider these parables of sorts? And if so, would Never Let Me Go fit into this category?
And how do these stories work to make us willing to suspend or surrender disbelief? Some of the most tragic stories i can remember actually seem to be children's literature!
So yeah, even though the subject matter is haunting and I'm not very articulate right now, funnily enough, i suspect thinking further along these lines might cheer me up no end (haha, honestly) at a very bleak time. In the meantime, in case you do respond further, i might try to seek out some things on the original Greek concept of katharsis. i was actually looking this up on CZcams literally just yesterday..What i saw mainly looked a bit mediocre, unfortunately. However right now I'm gripped by the idea that catharsis is fundamental to the relief of suffering caused by the human condition. And i feel like this is probably central to the capacity of Kazuo Ishiguro to cause us to feel uncannily moved. And perhaps this tendency speaks to a potential drive on our part to volunteer our souls to certain authors as receptacles, ripe to be haunted by their devices.
Other stories come to mind as i write these lines, like The Happy Prince by Oscar Wilde, or the animated 80s Christmas classic The Snowman, or in a similar vein, The Bridge to Terebithia. What do stories about tragic loss give us? On the surface, they could only traumatise us. Beneath the surface, what is it? Do they provide existential company through the imagination when the real lot of humans is to be born alone and die alone? Can stories that deal with suffering make it easier to deal with suffering? Is it ever a betrayal of the audience by the storyteller to expose them to pain with no cushion to catch their fall at all? Or is this in some way the ultimate loyalty on the part of the storyteller to his or her audience? - to expose us to a carefully controlled source of pain with no cushion but only a conduit into the realisation of our humanity, our vulnerability and our limited time on earth?
i look at this from at least two perspectives - as part of an audience seeking immersion and a willing contract with a storyteller to suspend disbelief; and as someone interested in the craft of storytelling, including the use of devices to particular effect.
I'm not sure that last time around i was quite so down the rabbithole of human-beings-as-animals (albeit cultured animals). i think i would already have been having an existential moment, no doubt, but it's fair to say that the space I'm in now due to recent experience is probably a lot closer to aspects of the subject matter of this book.
i know that when Kazuo Ishiguro first set out to write this book, he wasn't guided by any ideas about organ donations or any speculative fiction framework. What he wanted to do was tell a story about young people whose lives would artificially be cut short. He just didn't know why or how that shortened lifespan would come about. So what came later (which is what is most memorable for some people, ie the plot) was in his own words purely a device on which to hang the themes of the story he wanted to tell, which i think included a certain heightening of emotive experience in a context where the protagonist already knows they are never going to experience a natural lifespan and to look at the implications for this in respect of one's personal character and relationships among other things. I keep asking rather simplistic rhetorical questions, but i guess, among all this, what kind of altered expectations might you have in such a scenario about your lifetime and purpose? And then, would these alterations align with what others might expect on first pass?
i think potentially one of the reasons NLMG is so devastating is because of what KI is able to imagine that doesn't necessarily align with our expectations. This occurs alongside things i guess we might expect, like focussed and concentrated meaningfulness of one's connections with others one feels close with.. There's a dissonance and a schism but it "works" so well because he wraps it up in discourse (in the Foucauldian sense, if i can get away with that shorthand) of the kind we use to address equally devastating subject matter that "goes without saying", in "real life", if that makes any sense. So there's a potential revelation that it's precisely what goes without saying, what is flying straight under the radar, that goes unexamined, that is setting one up to fail. Not only in the story. And then there's the dissonance, from one perspective, off the top of my head, of the storyteller never fixing this oversight, never allowing the audience a payoff of relief, and allowing the character to realise their ultimate fate. It's incredibly jarring to not be spared as the audience.
i think on one level convention would lead us to expect and hope for Kathy's salvation but we, like Kathy, are not spared, and as the audience, we not only feel for her, we feel the loss of her. (Editing: Which, more clumsily, has a direct connection to her own beliefs, which in turn connect to hegemonic discourse she has been exposed to, and therefore her demise genuinely passes to her as natural. While we feel the liminal gap between her discourse and the perceptible reality of the matter as the audience, which is at best uncomfortable and haunting and at worst horribly devastating.)
I think KI is actually doing something very interesting there. i don't feel it's like a bleak outcome for the sake of it. (Edit: It doesn't feel like a device, at least if it works for you, but like a truth for the character about their fate in life.) It's also rather too oblique and in some ways unpredictable to be an obvious parable. There should be nothing heroic about Kathy's march to her demise. And that wouldn't be the right word to describe it. And yet there's something obtuse there, halfway between romanticism and stoicism, of a person faced with their fate. I'm half reminded of "tears in the rain" (Bladerunner soliloquy) but this is very different. It's kind of hegemonic, the opposite of rebellion. And it's rendered believable, which seems like a very difficult thing to pull off. The yielding to the perverse fate, the discourse of acceptance, despite everything at stake - it's unusually confronting.
i feel like whatever else might be gleaned from it, it's a lot harder to pull off a denouement of this nature, than a character who intuitively struggles and rebels.. And sometimes i think stories that are harder to write take us closer to stories that are less told and subject matter that is less entertained. Or certainly less easily entertained.
And it seems to me that KI was far less concerned with the plot, the whys and the hows, but what he keenly wanted to imprint upon us was the loss of a person like Kathy, clearly seeming to imagine that something about a story about her sort of character or fate would elude its being told.
Yet the story now appears to have achieved a sort of canonical status, with high school students required to study it. i would have actually thought this was beyond their remit. i wouldn't really suggest people go there until they're in their 20s. But perhaps this is not unlike exposing young kids to Watership Down?
i might try and come back and edit for clarity later but these ideas helped keep me afloat for the evening! i hope and trust this missive finds you well!
@@mothratemporalradio517 sorry for delay, trying to figure out how we get in touch, what Social media you have?? I'm on Telegram but not much else. Any ideas? Sorry to hear about your current woes, and yes it's a woeful time. Get back to me when ever suits you. I haven't seen the movie, they never reach the depth of the book. the only movie that worked in that way for me was The Golden Compass, have you read/seen that? I don't think Ishigoru punches at all, it's more like having veils gradually removed as you follow the path unfolding before you, all with a dawning sense of unease and so many off shoot thoughts, of things that you try to grasp, but remain out of reach. Hope you can find some joy in small victories that help to keep your spirit raised. wishing you well. C
Kazuo feels like 1900 to me.
carey is so beautiful
keep dreaming you're never gonna fuck her
@@ulric8445 ugly comment that overlooks the substance of the original.
@@mothratemporalradio517 lmao
Carey at 0:30, she's so adorable
fiucik1 zz
She is cute
They can't escape their destiny. .still I did ask that when I read the book
The question is very deliberate, and deliberately unanswered.
@@willf4718 Will, i replied to you in another comment, but i wonder whether you have read any books by Peter Hoeg? There's one set in a sort of dystopian schoolhouse which reminds me a lot of Never Let Me Go and may have been written beforehand (although I'm not too sure about that). The endings are different and the protagonist is a male child but i think his (edited to avoid spoilers) child companions ultimately perish. It's hard to pinpoint exactly but the similarity in atmosphere and other aspects seemed uncanny to me, to the extent that at one stage I wondered if it had been a basis for the film (presumably lacking awareness of Kazuo Ishiguro's novel which I've yet to read). Peter Hoeg also wrote The Woman and The Ape which i wonder if you might enjoy.
@@willf4718 FWIW, that book by Hoeg I'm referring to is called Borderliners and was apparently published in 1993. I'd be so interested to know what you would make of it in contrast to Never Let Me Go, including in terms of the angle you have taken with Ishiguro's devices. One reason i put this to you specifically is because you are interested in Ishiguro's intended manipulation of the reader and the ploys he makes use of. i wish i could phrase this perhaps a bit more elegantly and substantially but that's the thrust of it.
My sense of it is that if i was Hoeg (based on the NLMG screenplay), I'd be ambivalent about Ishiguro's story if it came later and surprised if he hadn't read Borderliners
At the same time, as not-Hoeg, and considering storytelling as an art and the structure and payoff of stories for the reader/viewer/listener, i feel like Ishiguro's text managed to do something or set up something more haunting that would stay, unbidden, with those who consumed the story long after its telling (i suppose this is the kind of story i like).
As you are thinking about devices in explicit terms...if it was the case that despite stories sounding roughly similar on one level, that Ishiguro had managed to somehow elevate his tale as a structure that may be comparatively more captivating or memorable than Hoeg's... i am wondering whether in comparing the similarities and differences of the stories, it might be possible to identify which devices Ishiguro has employed to the advantage of his narrative?
I think if you happened to read Borderliners, you might see what i mean.
i think a couple of key points may be apparent. i think perhaps Borderliners has strengths at the outset that Never Let Me Go may lack - in its screenplay version. It also allows for lacunae. But, there is a significant difference. i am not sure if i should in fact hammer out all the perceived differences in case you would like to read it! i think while certain events and themes seem very similar, there is ultimately a key plot difference which relates to the unasked question identified and the denouement also substantially differs. i think Never Let Me Go (screenplay) continues to build suspense whereas very sadly because i thought it was great, the pacing in Borderliners began to suffer and it had a comparatively weak final third as i remember it.
@@mothratemporalradio517 I don't read a lot of that kind of fiction, but I'll seek it out. Ishiguro, as I implied above, has a way of transforming genres into something different. His work seems to use one's preconceptions of genre and fantasy as a catalyst for his ideas. The Buried Giant is a good example of that, and actually When We Were Orphans does it too. Both are plays on genre that seem to be going in a stylistic direction that ultimately is subverted, and in doing so, he ultimately forces us to re-examine the shape of the story as a whole. Hard to describe until you read them, but I'd especially recommend TBG for that. The genre is less the canvas and more a device.
@@willf4718 this comment reminds me a bit of the likes of Angela Carter. i just saw someone diss When We Were Orphans but in a non-specific way - it was referred to as "drek". May i ask what you liked about it besides what we are touching upon with regard to literary devices? Also, may i ask whether you have read The Unconsoled, i think it's called? I saw mixed reviews on that, but i suspect i might like it.
Including the fact that you mentioned you don't generally gravitate towards "that kind of fiction"* (does this mean speculative or literary fiction?), i have a bit of a random question. i was looking over some comments on a 2011 Guardian review of NLMG. i noted that approximately a quarter of them all used the word haunting. The same people tended to describe NLMG as a book that had affected them as no other had; it also appeared they had some difficulty articulating why. The review itself was actually not quite so generous, suggesting it left them cold. The issue of "why didn't they escape" made only a brief appearance compared to the comments here where it seems to account for the majority.
i found myself thinking about the word "haunting" and whether or not it describes an experience people want from literature. Partly because i saw Ishiguro appearing to wrestle with this effect and whether it was a good thing or not. I'd say it is perhaps the best thing you could hope for as a writer in some ways. On the other hand, at least one comment noted that while they would strongly recommend it, they'd never read it again because it was too painful. Please excuse the slight rabbitholing: in lockdown with exploding infection rate all around and seeing the interview with Ishiguro suddenly offered leverage back into the world of ideas. If you don't find much enthusiasm to discuss it, that's fine, but i was looking at these comments just earlier today. Perhaps i might ask whether you found the denouement of NLMG to be devastating and/or haunting and if so, whether this was unhappily painful in a way you'd rather not have the experience (don't get this impression) or are you able to take it in stride, even if moved, perhaps by contemplating the story as allegory or exploration? If the latter, do you think your ability to recognise how a writer is manipulating you as a reader assists in taking in devices with a pinch of salt as it were, so that you are simultaneously moved but also able to recognise yourself as within a masterful grip, with all as it should be?
Hopefully that last part made sense. I think after reading all these comments i decided Ishiguro had taken a risk by using certain devices to tell the story he wanted to tell (which originally didn't includ anye SF plot device) - and that it had both worked and not worked, in that it was divisive. i thought he was successful in what he set out to do even though a certain quantity of folk will baulk at the device; and i figured he knew that was a possibility but was loyal to his story.
Thanks for touching upon those other books; for various reasons it's been difficult to get my hands on books for some time, certainly since the pandemic began, and my attention span had somewhat diminished. But i feel like now could be the perfect time to dive headlong back into fiction. i think i really need it, haha, as you might be able to tell. Cheers!
*good on you if you will give Borderliners a try; i remain interested in seeing what you would make of it compared to NLMG including in terms of devices
i have seen the movie now am really broken and distrubed /
You're very, very wrong. Just look around you at how people live. So many live lives of quiet desperation -- in soul numbing jobs, in miserable marriages, etc, etc, And how many ever "escape"?
This a story about how one chooses to live -- /with/ the hand we're dealt, and /with/ the many, many things we can never change or escape. I honestly feel that the only flaw here is your own failure to understand this.
The difference is that some people do quit soul numbing jobs and some people get out of miserable marriages, and the ones that don't at least entertain the thought of doing so.
It is not a comparable situation. Normal unpleasantness of live are one thing. I don't mind working etc and donig things I don't like. What I would hate if I had a significantly worse fate than the majority population of where I live. If I was simply by fate of birth choosen to have no or less rights. I think this movie is not comparable with doing a boring job etc but rather with things like slavery, racial oppression, genocide etc, where one group in society is systematically stripped of their rights while others have rights.
And even if you were correct, which you partially are, even in extreme situations like slavery, many people do not escape, especially if they were born into the situation, if a group previously enjoyed rights and had a better status, and is then stripped of rights, attempt of escape, even if rather by something like emigration rather than open rebellion is more common than if people are second, third, fourth or more generation in the situation I think. However, soooner or later revolutions and revolsts do happen, because even though humans tend to be compliant, they also tend to be jealous, resent unfairness etc. If one is short changed, this can create anger at some stage
Also, appart from the question if the premise of the movie that most comply is correct, it just makes for a boring story, the normal the compliant is inherrently boring, only the special, the unusual is intersting and has artistic value, normal is worthless
@@janinaschmaedeke6264 completely disagree that this scenario is boring and that only the exception can ever be of interest. Very ordinary and even banal things can be rendered incredibly fascinating through narrative or camera work or other means of creating interest. The essential concern here is the human condition, not plot devices. i do get the impression that perhaps a lot of people were forced to engage with the text, in a particular way, at a particular age, for a class.
Why not enough people have watched the movie?
The movie is ok only if you have never read the book. If you have read the book the movie will let you down. Except for only one scene.
it's a science fiction novel so everything is not real but you will find real touch
"do you know lily"
The possibility also exists that escape wouldn't have been easy. Remember how they have some sort of computer chip implanted in their hands and they scan their hands every time they enter a building or open doors? Chances are they could probably be tracked that way as well, hence no means of escape.
They could fuckin break it
That's not an argument at all when the other option is certain death.
@@WhiteSlift better the devil you know. A death that will come at a certain point rather than immediately and in traumatic circumstances. I'm guessing you're not a woman but a lot of women stay in relationships where they are abused (and some men too). Since your insistence has been focussing on the motivation of people in real life in dissimilar circumstances, why do you think those women don't "simply" leave?
Or as another example, if it is true that there are people in North Korea but know they are likely to be shot in the attempt, how do you explain the fact that these attempts are few relative to the greater population?
isn't it the case that the archetypal hero's journey you are presenting as reality is just that - a fictional construct to help people escape their actual everyday reality in many cases?
When people are between a rock and a hard place, like a hot air balloon that caught on fire far above the ground with no parachutes, some are good to jump perhaps in an effort to preserve life and some will cling on for dear life. Who will survive the longest or suffer most - much of this may depend on chance. Neither form of effort necessarily is better than the other. For example i bet there's people who don't make a break for it in North Korea who are very brave and not stupid. I also feel like it's very unlikely you've experienced say, water torture, and that you would be so cocky with what feels like macho posturing if you had actually been in situations where you fear for your life. A lot of people freeze in response to fear. This is just dwelling on what you insist is natural for humans under threat.
Anyway, go watch the original Bladerunner. Maybe you romanticise rebellion but.. have you experienced untold loss in taking risks to honour your values? i mean maybe you have but you sound pretty laissez faire about it as though it's more like a first person shooter scenario.
Putting it another way, if you were in North Korea, would you definitely make a break across the river to China where your chances of getting shot are high and you'd be sent back if officials found you?
You might but i feel like this is just bluster. i think the average person after experiencing torture and/or threats to their loved ones has a breaking point.
@@gorgeousbeauty7347 how if it's embedded in say their brain (I've no idea) and they have no surgical equipment or knowhow? Can a cat get rid of its chip?
There were tons of slave rebellions, most of them crushed... I remember watching our Ukrainian movie Chervonyi about prisoners in GULAG rising up... it ended like usually. We remember the heroes who died fighting back, not those who just accept without fighting back. Like modern day russians.
What does he mean when he says "we don't have the perspective to think about running away"?
It's the idea that we accept the reality that we've been given, we accept that we go to school, grow up to get jobs and eventually die, y'know? We never put much thought into deviating from those 'facts of life', just like the children at Hailsham, they're not particularly rebellious, even with small things, they just accept.
Chloë Foster But how is that different from being passive?
He means exactly what he says.
Many people just don't see how they might be able to escape their situations. For example, even in the the context of NLMG, where would these young people run to, exactly? What would they do and how would they survive?
In any event, you're quite missing the point. The story is about mortality and how we act in the face of that. Tell me, please, how do we escape from our mortality?
@@paulparanoid I think it is not about general mortality, because eventually dying or having a boring job is not comparable. I think this more resembles a facist society of sorting people into groups based on an inherrent characteristic you have no choice over and giving one group no rights so that the majority group can use them for their benefit. Like free white people/black slaves in the past. Even then, yes many people don't rebell if they are born into the oppressed group. However, those who don't rebell don't make interesting characters, precisely because they are not special, only the special is interesting, the ordinary has no value in art. No one can escape from mortality, but one group being artificially killed earlier is not the same as accepting natural mortality. It is precisely because the other humans attempted to escape mortality that these clones were created. Tell me, should a group who is targeted for forced labour followed by genocide as soon as they can't work anymore just accept their fate? Yes many do, but there are always those who rebell, that's how prisoners blew up buildings etc. And as soon as one starts, more people join in, especially if you have nothing to lose. Those who benefit form an oppressive/facist system are of course even less likely to rebell than those who suffer under it, which is why one should not be angry at the victim's passivity (although this passivity makes the story utterly boring), but at the one who set up and benefitted from the system. Just like slave holders were the bad guys, not the slaves, even if they did not rebell
@@janinaschmaedeke6264 This is exactly what I thought. Art is usually about the extraordinary. But this is about the majority of people in a system that has no discernable way out. Being a descendant of enslaved people made me feel a deep connection and understanding of that type of person who is stuck in an evil system that poses as normality. Also it should be considered that these people are clones. Would they even contain the strength of a human spirit or the will to survive above all else? As they were made for organs do they genetically have inbuilt compliance? (Those are the questions I would ask the author)
We didn't even discuss friendship with this novel lmao. It was just dystopian literature...
haha der bro lernt fürs Abi 😂
Ja hier auch... Das buch ist schmutz
@@Z100CD13 Jungs, ihr habt es raus 😂
Viel Glück für morgen!
@@tristanmoller9498 jo danke 👍 dir auch.... Gar kein bock auf die Kacke....
@@Z100CD13 Danke man. Letzte Klausur im Fach, kann's kaum erwarten da raus zu laufen!
thumbs up if you listen to that in your english class
to me,it's about how you write and not what you write about!!
And unfortunately the prose in this novel is as bland as they come.
power of conditioning over nascent mind is beyond comprehension. even for adults.
Il libro e' commovente, stuggente, a tratti malinconico, ma poi scorre bene con scrittura chiara. L'autore, inglese ma nato nella Nagasaki gia' devastata dalla bomba atomica, padroneggia tutti tempi verbi e le regole della consecutio temporum con maestria e come un pittore con pennello e calamaio riesce a dipingere quadri magici di pura immaginazione e fantasy.
ruth is such an interesting character. She is so dastardly, but at the same time, it feels a little bit wrong to condemn a person in her predicament. We have all been around a person like that, and it can be exhausting. Tommy and Kathy submitting to her control is a microcosm of how all of them ultimately submit to their incredibly unfair fate
More hurting than Titanic
Didn't see the movie but read the book. And yeah the fact that the protagonists never consider run away nor resolutely fight for their rights to live is a bit unconvincing. After all survival instinct is innate to EVERY living being. Or... maybe they were genetically deprived of it? But I got the author's point: he didn't want to dig into the scientific side of the matter (that would be too Michael Crichton.) Sublime book anyway (very sad though but not exactly depressing.)
@STD092812 well said, it's very easy to point out what "goes without saying" when you are in a position to point to it. I found myself posing similar questions and analogies not only here but in some other context recently. Why do we eat cereal from a bowl and not from a mug? Why di we not use the floor of a public phone booth as a place to release our stools? (Not meaning hard furniture!)
In this context i am only familiar with the screenplay and if i am honest, this may have felt like an itch that i needed to scratch but i also accept it being a deliberate oversight on some level. i haven't read the book and it would be interesting to know if there is more nuance to this lacunae in the text than on the screen. i do think this criticism is slightly better phrased than similar criticisms I've seen on this page, contingent on the word "convincing".
Others are arguing real humans would be motivated to do X in our world, therefore fictional characters in a speculative world must automatically have the exact same motivations and mindsets. Among other things this ignores the whole "what if" premise of speculative fiction. What if they didn't run away? What if they even openly accepted or embraced their fate?
But, what i do recognise is that even within a fictional setting not obligated to observe all conventions of realism, a reader or viewer or listener still wants satisfying immersion and payoff.
i think some of these critics are lacking in imagination, life experience and haven't read that widely. But fair play about immersion - even though i definitely don't see the dearth of escape as a deal breaker, in fact i see the point including the exploration of this, which is indeed lacking in certain comfort. i do think this aspect of the script may be a double edged sword in some ways. This lack of escape from a grim fate is at the heart of the story but where this device seems unconvincing to people even at a stretch it will pull them out of immersion.
For me personally i think the substance of the story certainly manages to transcend this plotting "difficulty or weakness" or astute but calculated machination. It could be argued, rightly or wrongly, that the story is more powerful for its silence and gap in this respect in which the reader or viewer is required to fill in the gap with their imagination. But perhaps the inherent risk of such a device is breaking immersion (and not in a "good" way).
i actually think this story feels very similar to a 1993 story by Peter Hoeg. i can say that it does try eventually to tie up certain loose ends here and there - and that perhaps, unfortunately, in that case, it actually somewhat irretrievably undoes the air of mystery which somehow was also important in remaining immersed.
An interview of Kazuo Ishiguro alongside Alex Garland, a long time friend of his who later adapted the novel for the screen, reveals that what compelled him to write this story actually began with an idea based on young people prematurely losing their life. But, he didn't know the why or how.
He was honest and explicit that the speculative fiction part was purely a device to create scaffolding on which to hang the rest of the story.
i think suspending doubt is worth it for a cracking story that is terribly moving, but it is possible that just like tastes vary with regard to specific vegetables, some people just react to the device poorly. i think for those of us moved by the tragedy this seems like a bit of a travesty but there it is, i guess that's a risk Ishiguro took in order to be able to tell the heart of the story he wanted to tell. And i think that essence is worth it. i would however be very interested in the various waves of feedback he received prior to publishing. In particular, I'm interested if he was pushed about that, especially when it came to the film. i think possibly Alex Garland might have had to field this somewhat on Ishiguro's behalf and then he wheeled out Ishiguro himself as the authoritative expert. Which was very nice and unusual to hear :) Usually the original writer is the last figure to have any say about the interpretation of their work in film productions, from what I've heard. i wonder if it related to this factor. If so, it's nice that Garland honoured his friend's intentions.
Nice fantasy but no matter what, people will always get bored with each other and seek new experiences to ovoid stagnation.
Based on what evidence and life experience?
"my experience is that no matter what, people grow bored with each other" etc - could that be why stories that involve loyalty, for example, are powerful?
It's speculative fiction but i don't think that means that unconditional, redemptive love is always an illusion, even though aspects of this are a cultural construct You're probably not wrong that it's atypical, except that you didn't allow for its existence at all. i basically think that you are a) mistaken and b) probably a person with the cultural conditioning of a young man.
This movie is very depressing.....
Can't argue with that.. If you can still see this, may i ask if alongside that depression, this story left you with any other form of substance that may have helped compensate for or round out the bleakness? Was it haunting in a romantic way that stayed with you or do you feel like it was something traumatising that you wished you hadn't encountered? Did it offer you some kind of payoff for shaking you emotionally - were you able to take anything constructive away from the experience or did it just leave you feeling bad? Has it caused you to think somewhat differently about anything?
Wut?
WDYM? It was the funniest movie I've seen in a long time.
why they want to live more but don´t run when the teachers don´t let them live a few more years... that´s a nonsense part of the movie.
I think the author is not being totally honest about his goals and why he wrote this type of story! I think he has classified information concerning cloning farms and wrote ‘truth in fiction’ story about true events…
There's no need to clone people to harvest organs, Chinese do organ harvesting from Uyghurs and dissidents without ANY cloning needed. When it comes to science there's also no need to clone entire human to get their organs, it's way easier to clone organs separately. Again, nobody does that, instead they just put undesirables into camps and take away their hair, their organs, everything. No science fiction needed, world just closes its eyes on what China is doing to people they deem "lesser".
Ça pue la merde mdrrrrr
When we dealt with this book at school, I already thought that it was a metaphor for life but we never really discussed that. My teacher more or less said that the book was written to show us how bad a world like that could be and that it's therefore a dystopian novel like 1984..
It is not a metaphor for live in general, it is a methaphor for how people react to oppression and that most don't rebell, it is comparable to slavery, racial oppression, etc. It is a story of one group of people being given no rights and being used for the benefit of the majority group.
So in a way it is about a dystopian totalitarian society, sorting people into groups, and stripping one group of all rights, using them, whether for labour, medical experiments, their organs etc does not matter, this is how facism and similar systems operate
Yes, it is metaphor for life, how the lower class sacrifice themselves for others.