|
|
Post by stever on Jun 3, 2014 1:12:04 GMT
I do not think children, or people in general, should be sheltered completely, nor do I think that they should be exposed to the harsh reality too quickly. There is a delicate balance between these two extremes -- this balance reminds me of the dichotomy between light and darkness in "Heart of Darkness." Kurt is exposed the most to the harsh reality of truth, or the "darkness," and he dies as a result of the "horror" of his exposure to the darkness. Conversely, Marlowe's fiancee is kept in the light, sheltered bubble of Europe, not knowing about the "horror" of the darkness or even Kurtz's last words. While she is much happier, she is living in a lie, as Miss Emily wants the children to live in "Never Let Me Go." While Marlowe may be a flawed character, he seemed to be the only one who lived between the darkness and the light, and was thus more knowledgable about the world around him without succumbing to Kurtz's fate. I do not believe either Miss Emily or Lucy are entirely correct; instead, I believe the truth lies in middle of these two extremes. In life, I think we must be knowledgable and aware of the world around us while also recognizing that illusion is sometimes essential to keep us going.
|
|
|
|
Post by anaritter on Jun 3, 2014 1:56:09 GMT
This is a really morally problematic question.
At the risk of sounding like a morally corrupt person, I think that Miss Emily is more correct than Miss Lucy in how she dealt with the children. It seems to me that there is no way out of the inevitable fate of these children. There's no way to fight it, or to even make it easier for them. Whenever Miss Lucy says something to the group or to Tommy (who tells Kathy), it disturbs them. It takes away the little happiness and innocence that they're still allowed. And if they can't be saved, why shouldn't they be allowed to have a little childhood happiness?
|
|
|
|
Post by garygates on Jun 3, 2014 3:04:45 GMT
In this case, 'your childhood' is a really vague and subjective term, and based on he pretext of the story, I don't think that there is much arguing in the idea that the leaders of Hailsham did in fact give the clones 'their childhoods.' The problem here, however, is our association with childhood. Childhood is an arbitrary and moldable idea. It does not have to be the same kind of childhood that we as readers idealize, but can still be some sort of childhood. So yes, Miss Emily's comment is by definition correct, but it does not justify her actions as an outside reader. As an outside reader, we wished that Miss Emily either gave the children instead of their dystopian and twisted childhood, the correct childhood, or an 'appropriate' childhood, instead of the childhood they received, one cloaked in mystery and quite separate from what we as a society expect and desire for all human beings.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheridanf on Jun 3, 2014 3:08:58 GMT
I think relating the childhood that Kathy, Tommy, and Ruth receive to our life in LO is useful in relating to the characters but not altogether realistic. After we leave LO, we have a life ahead of us- jobs, relationships, new experiences, and, most importantly, not having the idea floating above our heads that we only exist to donate organs and that within the next twenty years we will probably be dead so that some stranger can live longer. Now that I've reaffirmed the moral issue here, let's go back to the question.
I don't think what Hailsham is doing is wrong. I think their cause is noble and just, and if I were a clone I would appreciate having a childhood to think fondly upon. But I would also appreciate knowing what happens after that childhood.
I really liked what Lacey said, but I also wonder how the adults reacted to their situation. The moral question we are facing is that we have to tell this group of people their horrible fates at some point- so when do we do this? Having three younger siblings, I've been around younger children almost my entire life, and from this experience I know they're adaptive. They haven't spent very long on the Earth, so when something deviates from "normal" it's not as ingrained in them. I lived in Japan for two years and loved it- I had almost completely forgotten living in the U.S., and Tokyo had become my home. When I was told about 6 months in advance that we would move, I was so absolutely distraught. I cried, and pouted, and tried to convince my parents otherwise. But my younger sister- who probably could only remember living in Tokyo- was fine. She had friends there, too, but she could adapt. I'd also like to point out that by the time those 6 months were up and we had to move back to the states, I had come to terms with the move and was emotional prepared. Sure, I was still sad, but not as sad as I would have been if I had been told with only a week in advance, and it's not like I didn't fully enjoy those last 6 months.
I think Hailsham means well, but they really shouldn't hide this information. Children can adapt, and with this information they can emotionally prepare themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by amysohlberg on Jun 3, 2014 17:24:58 GMT
My immediate instinct is to say, "Of course they should know the truth!" but I wonder if it isn't all that easy. Kathy H, Tommy and Ruth hold their memories of Hailsham very close throughout their lives. Even when Kathy is in her later years as a carer, she still keeps an eye out for Hailsham everywhere. It becomes almost a beacon of hope for her, a place in her memory that can't be touched by her impending fate. A place of innocence and light and peace. That being said, Kathy H knows that she's never going to be able to go back. She has no concept of heaven, or any sort of life after death, so Hailsham becomes an almost cruel, tantalizing taste of how things could, even should be. But it's in her past, and she can only go forward, watching her friends "complete" and waiting for the day when she, too, will be asked to start her donations. I think that Miss Emily's logic is incredibly flawed because it makes the harsh reality of the clones' lives sting that much more. They have had a taste of a peaceful life, but it is taken from them, with only darkness before. It remains rooted in their memory, but I think the pain of longing outweighs the comfort of memories.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattagritelley on Jun 3, 2014 23:31:45 GMT
After reading all of these different responses, I'm really torn about whether I agree with Lucy or not. Lacy offers many insights into the notion that children retain an aura of innocence regarding of their surrounding life circumstances, and most of the other responses agree with such an idea. While I do believe that challenges and daunting thoughts certainly build character, I am a firm believer that childhood (or at least some portion of it) is a time for carefree and uninhibited exploration. Particularly during the first 6-10 years of life, a child is expected to learn how to be free, explore the limits of imagination and sore with intellectual and social creativity. In this stage of life, I think it is essential that children, and in particular those at Hailsham, be sheltered from the truth of their eventual fate.
That said, I recognize that as our minds develop and that childish and youthful innocence begins to wane, curiosity sets in and reality becomes more and more a part of our daily lives. I remember as a young child believing that the tooth fairy and Santa existed with not even the slightest doubt that I had been lied to. How and why would someone conceive such an outlandish scheme simply for our own amusement? However, soon enough I began to question their authenticity, just as my friends around me did. And eventually, there reached a point where I knew that something like the tooth fairy or Santa could not exist. Similarly, the students at Hailsham eventually reach a point when it is necessary to begin releasing information to them bit by bit, when they are ready to handle it. This way, they can balance the two extremes of either telling the children all at once at a very young age or simply not telling them at all. The transition will be logical and mature, but will most importantly allow for the retention of youthfulness and the innocence surrounding a young and carefree imagination.
|
|
joelk
New Member
Posts: 36 
|
Post by joelk on Jun 4, 2014 0:32:06 GMT
I'll start by just agreeing with Gary; it seems undeniable, as Amy S. pointed out, that sheltering the students at Hailsham did give them a childhood, so I'm not going to argue about that. The real question is: should they have done so? I'd like to extend a comparison that's stuck with me since our discussion in class, the on that Amy C. made comparing this to livestock—where, it seems, we almost all come down on the other side of the issue. It may be a Portlandia stereotype, but the "grass fed, free range, etc." movement is nothing new. The ethical treatment of livestock is something we many agree with, yet aside from those of us who are actually practicing vegetarians, few are arguing we ought to stop eating meat at all. Perhaps it's a faulty analogy, but it almost seems fitting, if not slightly reductive and unusual. Heck, a quick google search reveals a group called CETFA: Canadians for the Ethical Treatment of Food Animals (insert Canadian joke of choice here). And on their website, cetfa.org/about/, they literally state: "We exist to work towards the compassionate treatment of animals raised for food." Which sounds chillingly similar to "We exist to work towards the compassionate treatment of clones raised for organs." The obvious problem with the analogy is that humans, while animals, are sometimes more complex, and we can all discuss homo sapiens with much more authority than any animal. The bigger difference, I think, though—and maybe I'm just trying to justify my love of meat here—is that "ethically" raised livestock probably doesn't spend much time thinking of or knowing of its fate. It would be one question to ask if students should go to Hailsham and then promptly be killed, and another entirely for the situation where they go to Hailsham and then spend the next decade(s) grappling with their terrible fate. I guess the only way I can answer this question is to try and figure out what I might want. So put it this way: if you—the cow, the clone, the human—died instantly in horrific car accident sometime unexpected, you would have no time for regrets, for sorrow, or for any other emotional soul-searching. Your life up until then would be as it was. Yet I think most of us would, if offered the choice, want to know from the day of our births the date and time of an inevitable death. When we die defines how we life. There's a now-clichéd quote of "live as if you'll die tomorrow, dream as if you'll live forever" (I haven't read the yearbook yet, but I apologize if that was your senior quote). Regardless of if you follow it, it encapsulates the fact that we would live differently if we knew we might die soon. Go to college? Sure, we assume we have decades from which to reap the benefits. But if it’s, you have two years of life left, go to college? I think many would not. To me, the most humane thing to do would be to reveal the end that awaits the students of Hailsham immediately, if only so they can live and choose accordingly. I agree with Lucy Wainwright. |
|
|
|
Post by adamgrace on Jun 4, 2014 1:12:21 GMT
I've been struggling with this topic for the past few weeks after I finished the book, and I can safely say that I'm still not sure where I stand. On one hand (from my perspective as a straight white male living in suburban Lake Oswego) I believe, "Of course the children deserve a childhood! Everyone alive deserves to be happy and safe!" But then I think about my definition of 'childhood'. I am a product of my society, therefore I feel I can't comment on what a 'good' childhood even is. If they don't know any better, why give them something that we think is good? It seems strange that these people living in the society in Never Let Me Go are so obsessed with morals when they run such an immoral system. It may be that the people who created the cloning technique didn't believe that the clones would be capable of having human emotions or beliefs. Historically, all cultures have been hesitant towards the new. Jews, blacks, indians, etc. have been oppressed due to one thing and one thing only: fear. Clones may be experiencing the same thing within the society of NLMG.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidqin on Jun 4, 2014 1:24:31 GMT
I think my main problem with what Miss Emily said is the concept of "childhood." To me, that's such a vague term and it almost seems like an attempt by Miss Emily to dodge the true argument. Therefore, I think we need to define childhood, and then again we run into trouble when we consider that our view of childhood is inevitably colored by our own experiences in the normal world. So is it right of us to assume that these students should have the same childhood as us, as people who aren't brought into the world for the sole purpose of undergoing organ donations at the age of 25? No, certainly it's not right, and while I understand I sound like a post-modern critic here, I think we should not impose our own views of childhood to people living in an entirely different situation, as we can never understand their true condition.
So to get back to the question, was it right for the guardians to shield the kids from the truth and preserve this "childhood," whatever it is? I still think so, and I agree with others before me (Joel, Gary) in arguing that Hailsham was right to shelter the students to give them a few years of innocence and happiness. However, I don't think it is humane to withhold truth entirely, and that lack of transparency and frankness with students has only created an atmosphere of intense speculation and uncertainty within the student body at Hailsham. I think that their speculating about the nature of donations and deferrals tarnishes the true value of their childhood, as they're dealing with grim issues that they will confront as adults, but without the same access to information. Therefore, I think it is much better for Hailsham to have had told the students of their true nature as soon as possible (when they're old enough to understand, but certainly before they're considered seniors), and let them deal with attendant consequences on their own. It's not like they don't know about donations, so giving them the necessary information to complete their evaluation of the nature of their lives is the only fair option for them.
|
|
rishi
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by rishi on Jun 4, 2014 3:03:24 GMT
Like Amy, I at first thought that the answer to your prompt was simple. We as human beings are entitled to the truth. But is this always a good thing? Sure, lying and concealing facts are wrong, but what if we lie to benefit the person/people we are lying to? I think that this is really a question of values: do the children value moral correctness or happiness more? The obvious answer, at least in our society, is to say that they should value morals more. Many of us are taught to occasionally sacrifice our luxuries or privileges in an effort to promote our morals. For example, we are taught to not cheat on tests because that is morally right. If we had the opportunity to cheat, we could potentially receive a higher grade on tests (lol sorry bad example but you get the point). In the perspective of the children, however, happiness is usually valued more than moral righteousness. Furthermore, when we look back on our youth, we tend to have a desire to re-experience our childhoods. Childhood, for the most part, is a time of happiness, and that is the idea that Miss Emily is trying to reinforce in Never Let Me Go. The lies give the children something more valuable than the moral truth: an invaluable childhood happiness. In this way, Miss Emily's argument is completely valid, at least in my perspective. This is because I think that one of the most important things in life is happiness. Those who believe that the purpose of life is to live in a morally correct way would disagree with me. So ultimately, the answer to your question really depends on how people think we should live our lives. Should we focus on morals or happiness?
EDIT: I think a good comparison to the children's situations is childhood belief Santa Claus. Many parents choose to lie to their children and allow them to believe in a mystical, generous old man from the North Pole who can travel to every house in the world in under 24 hours. Is it wrong to let children believe in Santa?
|
|
|
|
Post by emilybrinkmann on Jun 4, 2014 3:25:24 GMT
You have to look at what is childhood. Is it ignorant bliss that makes it special or is it the constant discovery and curiosity that leads to a fulfilled childhood. Miss Emily thinks that they were given a childhood at the price of the truth. I personally believe that kids take in and comprehend more than we give them credit for. I would like to think that they will eventually learn everything (or at least a majority of everything) and it is better if it comes from someone they can trust. Children will eventually have to become young adults, and then adults, and with that growth will come the newfound knowledge and responsibility. It is in my opinion that it is best to teach kids to be have to learn and handle the truth at a young age rather than let them live in the ignorant bliss. I think that Miss Emily has good intentions and truly believes that she is doing the right thing, but in the context of the book and Hailsham truth is better.
|
|
|
|
Post by austinellerbruch on Jun 4, 2014 3:32:20 GMT
As I have stated in previous posts, I firmly believe that the truth be known to all and not hidden from any individual. I relate Miss Emily's actions to a government which keeps its citizens in the dark about horrible events so that conflict can be avoided and everyone can go about their merry little lives. Keeping Kathy and the rest of the students at Hailsham from knowing the truth will cause them to experience greater pain at the shock of the big reveal later on in their lives. The guardians at Hailsham should have told the students the truth from the beginning, that way they would be prepared when their time was to come. Mr Koepping told us today that the major problem with our generation is that we don't experience enough fear, and because of that we are ill prepared for the horror of the outside world. The same can be said of the students at Hailsham, since they have nothing to fear while there, they won't be ready for the shocking fate that is their donation.
|
|
|
|
Post by gracepark on Jun 4, 2014 4:02:03 GMT
The comparison to a child’s belief in Santa Claus fits really well with this scenario. I, unfortunately (or maybe fortunately?) was one of those few children who was immediately told right off the bat that Santa didn’t exist. My mom also stole my first tooth from under my pillow saying it was “unsanitary.” So in other words, I really didn’t have much of an imaginary and fantastical childhood filled with a rosy-cheeked Santa Clause or a really, really rich Tooth Fairy. So if we put this in context to the story, my parents never really sheltered me nor did they lie. My parents made it clear from the start that life wasn’t filled with magical fairy dust. And that, in turn definitely influenced my attitude to different things in life. When my friends wrote down pages and pages of their wish lists for Santa, I would wonder what my parents would get me for Christmas. When my friends flaunted their $20 that they got from the Tooth Fairy, I would bite down on my tongue to stop myself from screaming “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TOOTH FAIRY!”
Occasionally I would blame my parents for my rather cynical nature. If only I had that bit of imagination – a sprinkle of that fairy dust – I would be much more optimistic about certain things. But then again, I didn’t want to be a child with her head in the cloud, completely isolated from reality.
And like most people said, this question is difficult mainly because of the paradox that it brings. Just as Kathy abhors the idea of being a clone, she can’t let go of the memories that Hailsham planted in her. Because nonetheless, those memories were real, right? Just because it was fake or made-up doesn’t make it anymore less than a memory that is bounded to the individual. Whether we want to admit it or not, it shaped us and that in itself serves a significant importance. And while we struggle to find that silver lining, in essence, that separates capital-t Truth and happiness, every moment that we live forms our truth that we build for ourselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by racheladele on Jun 4, 2014 4:58:16 GMT
This question of truth makes me think of the situation parents have to face when the decide to adopt a child. Parents must determine whether it's better to either wait to tell the child that they are adopted until they're older and put him or her in a position to feel lied to later, or to ensure the child always knows but therefore make them constantly wonder about their birth parents and the adoption. I do not want to pretend to know the answer to this one, because it's something I have always wondered, and seen people struggle with (in terms of adoption) on both ends of the question.
In the context of the story, I think that the children who went through Hailsham could have been given more information, like what Miss Lucy was trying to present. They knew half the truth, which they took for “normal,” and that just enough to keep them motivated to continue living the life they knew. The characters didn't spend time wondering about their clone state or crying out about the meaninglessness of their lives. Perhaps it could have been part of the Hailsham experiment to have different schools, and in each one, the children brought up with different amounts of information known from a young age. Children have a much easier time accepting truth than adults, who already have established norms and expectations. That is why, with the clones behaving and thinking as though they were born naturally, they could have told the whole truth to Ruth, Tommy, Kathy and the others. It may have even made them more motivated to do their art and be creative; if they knew that it was to prove they had souls.
|
|
|
|
Post by naomiporter on Jun 4, 2014 5:09:26 GMT
While of course this is a really hard, possibly un-answerable question, I keep returning to the conclusion that Hailsham must have dealt with the impossible situation in just about the best way available. I am not referring to the general idea of sheltering them, but the carefully prepared method of half telling them things when they are just too young to understand it. I really feel like the result of this was about as ideal as could be hoped given the context. While it allowed the children to live their normal, innocent, blissful childhood, it did not keep them entirely blind to what was coming. They always had just enough subconscious understanding of the way their life would be that they were never shocked when the next piece of information was given to them. I cannot think of any better way of giving these children a good childhood while not ruining their lives with a lie.
My only real concern would be that this would never work. How exactly do you manage to know the precise point in time and amount of information to use that will give the children the exact amount of understanding that they need. This seems terribly unrealistic, but as it actually happened in the book, I think Ruth, Kathy, and Tommy had about the best lives they could hope for. They had what so many other clones did not have—a happy, productive, normal life to look back on.
|
|
