|
|
Post by Jason Parris on May 30, 2014 15:11:13 GMT
The teacher Lucy Wainright wanted to make the children more aware of the future that awaited them. Miss Emily believed that in hiding the truth, “We were able to give you something, something which even now no one will ever take from you, and we were able to do that principally by sheltering you. . . . Sometimes that meant we kept things from you, lied to you. . . . But . . . we gave you your childhoods” [p. 268]. In the context of the story as a whole, is this a valid argument?  |
|
|
|
Post by Lacey Doby on May 31, 2014 18:50:36 GMT
I saw this great documentary recently about Syrian refugees living in a poorly constructed camp in Jordan. They made living spaces out of tents, fabric, bits of cardboard, and anything they could find. At the point in which the documentary was filmed, a rainstorm had recently flooded the camp. The water had mixed with the makeshift sewage systems and ran through the tents, creating a dangerous living environment for anyone. The people had had their houses back in Syria bombed, and seen their friends and family destroyed, and had lost everything they ever owned.
At one point in the documentary, they discussed what people expect to see in charity videos and documentaries about poverty and war. Missing limbs, starving people, sad children, etc. They went around the camp and filmed many of the children, and what they discovered was, even through all of the pain and struggle the children had to endure, they were full of hope and smiling and playing games, just like regular kids. They had a childhood, though it was different from everyone else's, and sure it would have been happier without the war, but they still found time to just be kids.
I think Lucy was right. The kids have a right to know the truth about their future, and it won't destroy them because it is all they will ever know. It won't be an unpleasant surprise for them when they are older and they won't be as disappointed as Tommy and Kathy are after they talk to Miss Emily and Madame.
|
|
|
|
Post by fionabyrne on Jun 1, 2014 22:41:03 GMT
Wow, I love what Lacey has written. You make happiness in whatever situation you are put; that becomes your new normal. I get a feeling, though it may be unbiased, that Ms. Lucy wanted to shock and scare kids so that they might fight back. I'm not sure. Anyway, I think they could still live well and have childhoods even if they knew more, but I'm also not convinced it would be necessary for them to know more. I have trouble seeing what good could come of giving even more details, because it seems like the kids were already pretty well informed because no one was shocked by the life they ended up living. I'm surprised there was not one instance of someone fighting back, and I know it must have been a conscious decision on the author's part. That kept it out of the realm of the Hunger Games and kept the focus in the internal complexities of a girl who people are not convinced has internal complexities.
|
|
|
|
Post by clairem on Jun 1, 2014 23:05:45 GMT
I totally agree with what Fiona is saying about the possibility that Ms. Lucy tried to 'reveal' the students' realities to them as a way of trying to get them to see the injustice occurring. Her view on the process and life that the children were living definitely seemed to be that it was no way to live a life and she definitely attempted to get them to see that (in her mind) they were not living normal or healthy lives. I think that there is something to be said for both Ms. Lucy and Miss Emily's points because when raising children, for one, there is no right way of doing it. Sometimes a balance of revealing and concealing is the most effective way of allowing children to savor their youth and innocence while still maturing into what they will soon become, adults. In the context of Never Let Me Go I think that Miss Emilys argument is valid because the students at Hailsham had very little life to live and the guardians saw that which is what provoked them to try to allow the students as little harsh reality to seep in as possible. Even though the students were forced to accept and grasp their fate, they didn't have to live it for quite a while, and that waiting period is where the guardians worked to keep carefree and childish.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannahlewman on Jun 1, 2014 23:13:34 GMT
I really like the possibility Fiona suggests that perhaps Ms. Lucy was trying to get kids to rise up and fight back. I think the only reason people need to understand the truth is so they can make something of it, and in this situation, even though ignorance is bliss, it would have been good for the kids to know the truth so that they would at least have some fighting chance of making a difference or pushing back. Sure, they probably would not have succeeded, but there is no chance of fighting back against an unjust or oppressive system when you have no idea what you're fighting against. The only glimmer of hope in this whole, depressing system, comes from the possibility of change, or of people saving themselves. For example, when Tommy thinks they can delay their donations, that is the only hope they have to cling onto for a while. If kids knew what they were up against, they would have a better chance of trying to change the system and maybe even create a stronger sense of hope, because hope is a much purer source of happiness than ignorance.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethmeyer on Jun 1, 2014 23:14:39 GMT
Children do indeed seem to be able to have some kind of happy childhood whatever their situation, as long as they are given enough space to create happiness. I really liked Lacey's example too: the children in the camp may have had to deal with things that we've never known and hopefully will never know, but they were still given space to have fun and be kids. Their childhoods may be different from what we consider normal or happy or good, but they still have some happiness in their lives. In the case of the clone children, I think they would have had childhoods whether they had been told about their futures or not. So long as they were able to go to school and be around each other and interact and play and learn and have fun, they had childhoods. Again, maybe not the kind of childhood that we would consider fun or normal, but as their situation is different from ours we have to allow for those differences. I also agree with Fiona; whatever the real reason behind informing the children about their futures, it's nice that they were told so that when they got older they weren't confused and scared. I actually think that would have been more likely to cause an uprising (if they were scared and confused because suddenly they were being pulled out of their lives of studying and hanging out with each other only to be taken to centers and been forced to donate their organs) than if they'd known all along. Because they knew all along about what they're lives were going to become, they got used to that truth and it became their reality. |
|
|
|
Post by jessicalee on Jun 2, 2014 0:24:28 GMT
In the context of this novel, as with the context of our lives, there ought to be a fine balance between concealing and revealing. There are benefits that come from both sides of the argument. Lucy's argument is compelling because by informing the children about their awaited future from an early age, they take that as their reality and essentially understand their lives to be completely normal. This almost shelters the kids more than keeping the truth from them would because they do not grow up to fear their future, and instead accept it as a natural part of their lives. At the same time, Miss Emily really hit the nail on the head when she said "we gave you childhoods". Every child deserves to have a childhood consisted of carefree and innocent memories. Yet, the thing about childhood is that it isn't until adulthood that we realize how valuable our childhood is. Most of these children, however, don't ever get to experience adulthood. In this sense, it's better for the children to know, understand, and accept their futures than for them to grow up to fear for their lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by natalieskowlund on Jun 2, 2014 0:39:09 GMT
Not to feed off a generalization...but I suspect that many of us here in LO can relate to the sheltered childhood that Kathy, Tommy and Ruth experienced in Never Let Me Go. Sure, we may not be clones (...or we've never been told we are...), but many of us have been brought up in a bubble of comfort, with supportive parents, a close-knit, safe community and enough money to pay for our needs. Obviously this doesn't apply to all of us, but there's a reason why LO is known as "the bubble."There are ways of life so extreme, terrifying, or just plain different beyond the boundaries of LO that we were not exposed to as children. But honestly, I don't know what the right answer is. While children don't necessarily have the tools to cope with the darker sides of reality, it also seems questionable to deceive children into believing that life is all fun & flowers. Is it possible to expose children to the reality they live in while also protecting the romantic nature of childhood, or do we have to choose one or the other?
It's paradoxical, because while we see the obvious scarring on Kathy and her fellow clones when they discover their childhood art projects were all for nothing, at the same time they all relish those memories of their past at Hailsham and cling to them for stability as they near their most uncertain ends. For Kathy and her friends, their memories are all they have to remind them of the more pleasurable moments in life...is it perhaps the same for us? We, too, long for romantic memories to keep us from diving into the insanity and darkness of a future where nothing is certain or stable. It is a conflict between truth and happiness, but it's hard to say which one trumps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jun 2, 2014 3:49:55 GMT
First off, I just want to say how fantastic all of your responses are and that I agree with each of you!
There's definitely a fine line between concealing and revealing. I think people deserve to know the truth when they can handle it but before it becomes something they wish they had heard earlier. For me, when I was growing up, it was hardest to get large doses of truth all at once. It's a lot easier to accept harsh realities when they're displayed in small intervals and you are the one who puts the truth together. Miss Emily's idea of having a childhood troubles me though, because is it impossible to be a kid and not have a childlike innocence? Lacey's post is a great example of why I think it is possible. Kids are accepting by nature and they believe you because they don't know not to; giving them the truth doesn't mean they can't be happy. In my opinion though, what's worse than kids knowing the darkness in the world, is looking back on a childhood where you didn't know the truth. When I look back and think of the things I saw but didn't understand or how I idealized someone who would later hurt me, makes me sad. I wish I could still feel like that, but know that that was a lie. I'm glad I had time to be an innocent kid, but I'm also grateful that the adults in my life were honest with me and realized what I could handle. Exposing truth over time gives people an easier time later on when they have to accept their fate.
|
|
|
|
Post by moreno on Jun 2, 2014 5:07:39 GMT
I love what Lacey wrote, and I agree with her. "Never Let Me Go" begs the question, is ignorance bliss?
In the context of this story, I would have to say no. Kathy, Tommy and Ruth spend a majority of their childhood searching for answers and coming to conclusions they hope are right. The passage in Madam's house when they learn the truth of their existence is heartbreaking. Lacey stated it perfectly when she said, "The kids have a right to know the truth about their future, and it won't destroy them because it is all they will ever know." I think humans have an innate ability to adjust to their surroundings, and telling the kids about their future would have given them more freedom. Because it was all they would ever know, instead of letting their unknown futures dictate their present, they could have made something more of themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by mitralebuhn on Jun 2, 2014 5:30:38 GMT
Hannah and Morgan mentioned something I've been weighing as well--the common phrase that ignorance is bliss. I feel that is often perceived as the core idea of childhood. It is that period of time when we are unaware of the harsh reality. But it is also a time when we easily live in the "now". Focused on the moment, everything that happens is extreme and vital. Children are so real and raw and their lack of experience makes them this way. A childlike mentality is all that childhood is about. I think in informing the children of their future it would not steal their childhood, but add too it because their faith in themselves and energy are key to qualities to spark a change where the children take control of and have the potential to change their future. The adventure of fighting for something only adds to their childhood story. But, by waiting to inform the kids of their future donations, the children have less of a probability of fighting for a different future as their simplicity and enthusiasm dies down over the years, and they are given a basic childhood. It is better to share the truth early on and give the kids a chance at change.
|
|
|
|
Post by cassiecumberland on Jun 2, 2014 5:37:47 GMT
Although the entirety of what Hailsham is doing, in my opinion, is wrong, I understand that Miss Emily is trying to justify the fact that Hailsham attempts to make an unjust and suck-y situation better.
I don't necessarily understand the question because what is the argument against? I'm assuming that the argument is why Hailsham was good. Well, considering the context, yes, Hailsham was good in comparison to REALLY bad. But in realistic terms Hailsham is horrible.
I also understand Fiona's idea of Miss Emily trying to inspire the children to rise up. That, however, is incredibly naive because they are children who don't know what is going on. They know something weird is going on and that weird things are happening, but truly if Miss Emily wanted them to make a difference, she would realize that she can't put the power in their hands and she needs to do something herself.
|
|
|
|
Post by emwolfram on Jun 2, 2014 7:02:15 GMT
I am conflicted by this question. By giving the "clones" a childhood Miss Emily is giving them the illusion of a life they will never have. This seems more cruel than telling the children/clones the truth. It hides the reality of their lives to the point that they don't even know what is in store for them. I feel as if Hailsham is more about soothing the conscience of the people who are using the children/clones. They feel better about using the clones as human organ storage if they are treating them well. However Miss Lucy doesn't buy into that illusion and feels even more guilty. Hailsham humanizes the children/clones which makes the reality of their future all the more horrible and immoral.
|
|
|
|
Post by carolinedorman on Jun 2, 2014 19:29:08 GMT
To some extent, sheltering the Halisham students did give them a childhood. No one likes to have the truth sheltered from him/her. However, would the student have found any enjoyment in their artwork if they knew what they were fated to do? I think it is important to make the students feel like they are humans and not just cattle being raised for slaughtering. If they were not sheltered from the truth, I think it would be easy for society and the adults around them to treat them as clones and nothing more. Each human deserves something to hope for and believe in, even if it is a lie. From one of my favorite movies Secondhand Lions, the character Hub gives a speech, “Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most…; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in”. As humans, we are never going to know every truth. If Halisham students were not sheltered in this way, I think it would be easier for society to reject them as humans. To some extent, the adults really did need to see that the Halisham students have souls to emphasize the whole truth of their situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by juliamoreland on Jun 2, 2014 23:44:11 GMT
I like natalie’s idea! LO is another form of ignorant bliss (for some people, I know not everyone). I grew up in Detroit when it was starting to completely fall apart, and when I moved to LO there were things that went unspoken. As a kid, you don’t notice if someone tells you not to talk about something, because you don’t question it. Or at least I didn’t as a child. Kids have such an altered reality as it is that I do not know if they could even understand their fate to come. Yes, I completely agree that Lucy was right in trying to inform the kids, but to some extent, can they do anything with that? Try to explain death to a six year old, it is hard. Yet, when we let things slide away from a young age, the standard is not likely to return.
The ignorance is bliss stand point is extremely limiting. If everyone stayed comfortable and ignorant of their future, than would we develop as individuals? Tough concepts make us wiser, and our reactions and interpretations all together create an individual.
|
|
