|
Post by jennyxu on Jun 4, 2014 5:18:19 GMT
I think Miss Emily had truly great intentions. The whole idea of clones seems inhumane and cruel, and I can why Miss Lucy would want to be straightforward and let the children understand the purpose of their existence. But if they knew the truth, their quality of life for their limited years would not be as fulfilling. If they knew the truth from the beginning, they would have no purpose to continue on with their lives. By hiding the truth from them, they had the opportunity to live a normal childhood, filled with the experiences of learning, friendship, and love that we all get to experience. Even though towards the end of the novel, Kathy's life seems dreary and hopeless, at least she has happy memories to reminisce upon. Since they exist, they should have the privilege of years of carefree innocence. Yes, we have bad connotations of the word "sheltered", but I believe that children sometimes need to be sheltered. The weight of the truth should not be laid upon them from the start. The truth should be revealed at the right moment, when the truth serves more benefit than harm. Informing the children of their destiny at a young age would serve more harm than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by danyhong55 on Jun 4, 2014 5:34:46 GMT
Is ignorance truly bliss, or is the only alternative knowledge?
I really like Laceys' and Morgan's posts and how they explore the idea this questions and how it plays out for Kathy, Tommy and Ruth. But I must disagree slightly on some of the things that are presented. I like to hold the belief that knowledge is is the only way that the world can work. That knowing is how humans can progress as a species, a community and as a group. Much of the time, the world's problems are blamed on the ignorance of a group. The Democrats blame Ephalents on being so close minded on things like social control. The Republicans blame Dawnkees on being so ignorant when it comes to business and rural proceedings. Knowing what each other presents is most important in solving issues. That's why research and development in the science field is so valued today; because it lets us know more and knew things. This is also why I enjoy Speech and Debate as an extracurricular activity, and discourse and discussion in class time. The exchange of ideas allows us to see more than one side of an argument and allows us to formulate arguments that is much more educated on the matter in order to win and to educate the other side and perhaps a non-partisan third party which is better, or simply to create a better understanding of the world. I'm not entirely sure if that is wholly applicable to the clones.
Tommmy, Kathy and Ruth are simply tools to be used by people. They have inherently been Otherized by society as a category that is less than humans and perhaps the same as livestock. The schooling program that our characters went through treated them with more dignity that the current situation which is markedly less humane. However, they accept that as what is and not what ought not be. All of these circumstances beg the questions, is ignorance and bliss really terms that what we as a category deemed higher than the clones use to define what they feel. When we refer to pigs and cow, we do not consider them to have the same implications of ignorance and bliss. Should the cows be taught that the grass is greener on the other side (and not made of corn)? Or is it better for them to be in ignorance. They are nothing but livestock to these people. Their organs define who they are, not their intrinsic properties of being a human, partly because they are not fully considered human.
Another question we must ponder is that would ignorance and bliss really make a difference in their lives? Would the truth so drastically be so shocking that they should go out and change something? Or would they accept both as the truth either way and live out their lives. In our culture, we expect these character after learning the truth to go out and change the world for the better, to let them know that clones are human too and have right that are being abused. However, we see that the truth in reality does nothing to them so what difference dose it matter? Is knowledge really power in this case. Of course to look at only these characters and how they react is to be awfully close-minded at their society and our society as a whole in terms of ethics and culture.
The question remains is ignorance bliss? I'm be much happier not knowing.
|
|
|
Post by madisonarmst on Jun 4, 2014 5:40:05 GMT
It's hard to judge this argument as either valid or invalid considering the extreme circumstances. Miss Emily obviously had good intentions and only wanted the best for the clone children, but emotion does not make an argument valid. Miss Emily was put in a strange situation where she had to decide what she thought the right thing to do was. She is clearly uncomfortable with the idea of creating humans for the sole purpose of donating their organs because she realizes that these are real people with souls and hopes for their futures. She defends her decison to not tell them of their fate because by holding off on revealing it to them, she is allowing them to have a childhood filled with joy. They are able to have happier childhoods and accept their fate as a result of her decision. Miss Emily's decision was a good one because it benefited the clones, but it is difficult to categorize it as valid or invalid due to complexity of the situation and the human emotion and moral questions surrounding it.
|
|
|
Post by jamiezimmerman on Jun 4, 2014 5:50:36 GMT
No! I think Miss Emily and Miss Lucy are completely misguided in their theory about what they "provided" to the students of Hailsham. Prior to the Three-Fifths Compromise, white Southerners wanted their slaves to count as population census so that their own state would have more influence in the legislative body. But the argument against this reasoning was that if you were going to count slaves as part of the population, you have to give them the right to vote and, essentially, the rights of citizenship. To synthesize this, Ron Swanson once told Leslie Knope: "Don't half-ass too many things. Whole-ass one thing."
I think it is an insult to the clone students to give them so much - a cultured lifestyle, childhood memories, a comfortable upbringing, and educated background - only to deny them the right to life and the right to keep their organs in their bodies where they belong. They either guarantee the human lifestyle or nothing at all.
I don't mean to suggest it would have been better that Kathy, Tommy, Ruth, and all the others should have been abused and tortured in a meaningless life that begins and ends with nothing immemorial in between. In fact, from an existentialist lens, it was worth it to provide as much as Miss Lucy and Miss Emily could. Kathy created meaning in her life: she remembers her childhood with nostalgia and enjoys relationships with her friends. Kathy created something out of nothing. So maybe then, Miss Lucy and Miss Emily do have a valid point...
|
|
|
Post by rubyking on Jun 4, 2014 6:16:23 GMT
I'm not entirely sure how to approach this. At one end, it's easy to blame the staff for being so secretive and stripping the students of a genuinely "normal" life, but as I read how difficult it was for Miss Lucy to tell Kathy and Tommy about what they tried to do for them, I saw a genuine sadness in her composure, and that was heartbreaking. In that way I can see it being easier for them to have distanced themselves from the children so that in the end, it wouldn't be so emotionally difficult to let them experience their fates. Perhaps that is a cop out excuse, but at the same time it is extremely honest.
|
|
|
Post by Anna M. on Jun 4, 2014 6:17:18 GMT
When Kathy describes childhood in Hailsham, it is becomes clear that she cherished her time there. Miss Emily is not responsible for the cloning, she is only trying to make the best out of an impossible situation. Her personality isn't one of a revolutionary, she is a woman of rules. I can't say that her reasoning is wrong because in her mind she is right, and from her perspective it makes the most sense. She is given a set of rules and she makes the best with them. Of course, I think providing the students at Hailsham with the resources to refuse the donor "doctrine" that is handed to them.
I agree with Madison. It is impossible to determine the validity of her reasoning. I could go back in forth for days about whether hiding the truth from the to-be donors was wrong. What I can say, is that when I think of my childhood I think upon it fondly and I am sad (devastated, actually) that I will never get to experience childhood ever again. I think if I were in the situation of Ruth, Kathy, and Tommy, my anger would be caused by the fact that I have to give up my body parts and die, not that I had a childhood based upon a lie.
|
|
|
Post by avinash on Jun 4, 2014 6:29:27 GMT
I think Miss Emily is technically correct in her comment. The problem though is that she gave the kids a dystopian childhood. The children may not know this, but the reader does. Often times holding back the truth only leads to complications down the line. Holding back the truth just leads to divisions in society and this is a form of segregation. I like what Steve said in terms of illusion and how it fuels us. I agree with this when the illusion is somewhat small scale. In this case the children have no idea how messed up their childhood is.
|
|
|
Post by yongkim on Jun 4, 2014 6:32:59 GMT
The truth hurts, but it can also set you free. Why is the truth so enticing even though it can prove detrimental? Let's take the simple game of Truth and Dare... Many people tend to pick truth in truth or dare to find out if our take on the truth is actually accurate, although it could potentially lower self confidence or have other negative effects. I believe that's why truth is so sought after. We want to know that we are already right about the truth because to find out otherwise would make the world seem threatening and unpredictable. However, was Miss Emily's argument valid?
Although the students are entitled to the truth, I agree with Miss Emily in that hiding the truth gave them their childhood. The organ donation system runs smoothly and without argument because everyone is willing to accept their fate. Hailsham is a school for the human treatment of clones, so instilling hope in their minds at an early age could have led to an individual rebelling against the organ donation system. If the guardians were to have drilled in the children's minds that they would ultimately die through donating their organs, it would only further discourage the possibility of rebellion.
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Jun 4, 2014 6:54:58 GMT
yongkim hits the bullseye with his analysis of truth. When I play Truth and Dare, I, too, fall into a deep existential crisis. Upon recovery, I am inclined to identify the moral intricacies of "Never Let Me Go." Although Miss Emily runs the gamut, she tends to put the cart before the horse and subsequently count her chickens before they hatch. It seems to me that she makes the mistake of looking a gift-horse in the mouth.
|
|
|
Post by shannonfender on Jun 4, 2014 7:00:38 GMT
The fact that this fate is inevitable for all of the kids is what makes Ms. Lucy justified. I was trying to put this in context of my own upbringing in order to make sense of it. What if my parents had told me all the horrible things I might ever come to face when I was a kid? What if I was allowed to swear and watch violent/sadistic films and basically do whatever since all that horrible-ness exists in reality and because I would eventually learn about it when I'm older? Well what sets this apart is that this path has been set in stone for all of Ms. Lucy's students. Whether they like it or not, they will someday have to not only -know of- people who sacrifice their lives as donors, but that will be their forced reality. Thus, Ms. Lucy is only preparing them for their futures, which is what school is meant to do anyways. We do not go through school until 12th grade and are all of sudden surprised by "Oh yeah by the way you have to get a job and live on your own now". That's the expectation that we are gradually coached into from the day we start Kindergarten. Granted, that isn't always on the forefront of our minds (especially when we are little play-doh-eating 1st graders), but it is always the ultimate goal. It is a gradual process. OH AND I JUST THOUGHT ABOUT ANOTHER EXAMPLE. My cousin's daughter is 3, and her parents (my cousins) are trying to explain to her the concept of death. Even though that is not something you would want to concern a chipper little 3-year-olds mind with, death is the inevitable end for all of us. Death, whether it takes our family, friends, or pets, will be a force we have to come to terms with at some point in our lives. You wouldn't want to go through life not knowing what death is and then all of a sudden learning the grim truth that one day we will all cease to exist. That would be horrible.
The other possibility that was mentioned is the idea that maybe Ms. Lucy is trying to encourage a change. By telling them what their future holds, she is essentially giving an ultimatum of "this is what you got so if you don't like it, change it". But to be honest that probably is not very likely, and I wouldn't do a very good job of supporting this theory anyways. So I'm going to stick with the first one.
|
|
|
Post by sammywong on Jun 4, 2014 7:07:36 GMT
I think ignorance can only possibly have truly bliss qualities if truth is never revealed. Unfortunately for the clones, every single one of them is going to find out they're organ donors. (even if it is last second on the cutting table.) For Kathy and the Hailsham clan, the truth was kept from them for many years but eventually given to them. This makes the ignorance that they were experiencing beforehand cruel. So no, I do not agree that giving the Hailsham kids their "childhood" was justified. Because eventually they're going to find out, and when they do, the pain of knowing is going to be just as fatal as the pain of...well...donating their organs.
|
|
amychen
New Member
“But the wild things cried, “Oh please don’t go—we’ll eat you up—we love you so!”
Posts: 47
|
Post by amychen on Jun 4, 2014 7:41:11 GMT
Sorry again for posting late. It's been a rough couple of days. To me, the saddest part about Never Let Me Go is how everything the characters experience seems to stop much too early and how their childhoods seem to drag on much too long. This happens is because Miss Emily and Madame try to keep the clones under the innocence-based value system we apply to our own children, who we often try to keep ignorant from the truth until they "come of age." The problem with this is that our own children are expected to live much longer. The "childhoods" provided by Miss Emily and Madame were disproportionately long in comparison the the rest of the clones' lives, and in this way stunted their development when it came to their interactions with the world. I was distraught when Tommy died. Part of the reason for this was that his childhood sucked. And when things finally started going his way---when Ruth matured and realized she was using him and he and Kathy finally were able to be together---he had already donated so many times, and had to do his final donation. And I think this applies to a lot of us. For many of us, our childhoods sucked. Not our entire childhoods, of course, but there are definitely things that I don't remember too fondly. I spent recess alone with books for a few years because my friends wouldn't play with me. I sent myself to study hall several times to avoid the playground. On the other hand, I'd also hurt others. Not as much in the gossipy sense as much as the hitting as some childish act of vengeance sense. Although I'm not sure keeping the students informed of their fates would have made them mature quickly and avoid many of my mistakes or silly arguments or actions (especially with respect to Ruth's lies and Kathy's blind following of Ruth), I think it's irresponsible to keep people from knowing the essentials. When people die young, their parents watch others develop and wonder "if only he/she hadn't passed away" and talk about all the things they've missed. In letting people know the essentials beforehand, Miss Emily and Madame could have prevented many "if onlys" in the lives of their students, especially with respect to Kathy and Tommy's delayed relationship. Of course, I have yet to clarify what I think Miss Emily's justification, the "something which even now no one will ever take from you," is. I agree with what natalieskowlund stated: that Hailsham and the ignorance provided in it created a sense of stability for the students. This stability, however, is problematic because---as I noted earlier---the stability provided in the clones' childhoods prevent them from reaching more stability in their adulthood. From a PoMo perspective, Miss Emily's viewpoint justifies her point because she sees this stability as a necessity in child-rearing. However, it stunts the clones' maturity, preventing them from realizing what they want before they're incapable of doing it.
|
|
steph
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by steph on Jun 4, 2014 7:56:05 GMT
I vividly remember being at a movie theater and seeing an opening scene, I believe among a montage of others also depicting chaos, a bridge during a storm. Cars are honking, people are screaming, rubble is flying, and in the middle of it the camera finds a small child. I don't remember what movie this is, I'm fairly sure it exists, and in my memory I am internally raging. Obscenities and declarations that "'they' can't do that!" that "it's an unfair move" were waiting to be shouted, but the montage flashes forward and the movie continues. It feels like a low blow for a cheap movie to put in a brief clip of a child in mortal peril with their flimsy visual affects and overwrought soundtrack (I'm still badmouthing that damn film and I don't even know what it is), because that special fear and concern is reserved for children in danger.
This question has many people on the fence, its answer feels that it holds immense importance, because childhood is an amazingly substantial idea, and a loaded one. Humans idealize childhood, idealize their own, what it means, what it should be, etc, and feel an intense need to protect children because of what they believe this childhood means. Protection will often go beyond care. In Grendel his mother is described as treating him as an object that proves she created something; she doesn't have a relationship with him and he lives in a reality far different from hers, but she attempts to protect him despite his obvious disgust and need to leave the cave. Miss Emily has similar instincts, as we all do, when we are given the ability/necessity to protect a child. In the instance of Hailsham, it is over-protection.
Tommy, Ruth, Kathy, the students, are gullible, they formulate how to act, they create "art" without having much of a complex world to make art out of, and they live in a facade made of opportune moments, denial, and lies. Even Hailsham's existence lies to them, conditioning them to believe that they are recognized as having humanity when they would never get that respect from the world they will later be forced to live in. A childhood can't be taken away, but when it's based off lies it will be deconstructed to dig for evidence, to find the horrible truth in the tiny details that Ruth and her protective gang will find. Kathy reminisce's over her most powerful memories, which revolve around discovering truth; a childhood whittled down to the moments where the curtain was briefly lifted, or maybe that's all her childhood was, constantly searching for answers. Childhood is endeared for its innocence, incredulity, imagination, and discovery, and all Miss Emily allows is innocence. While she croons "Oh baby baby, never let me go...", the clones are made powerless to protect themselves in a reality they will have to step into, as if they were to get lost in the woods that are kept so out of bounds.
Of course there's a necessary balance between sheltering and information, and Miss Emily says "We were able to give you something, something which even now no one will ever take from you..." Something beautiful about what she gave them was their knowing they had a soul, that they could fall in love and they were human, which many clones assuredly would not get, but giving them that assurance and then the power/knowledge to protect it would have been treating them as humans, and not as "poor creatures".
|
|
|
Post by keelycorrigan on Jun 4, 2014 11:43:06 GMT
Lacey articulated what I was grappling with. I don't want to talk in the abstracts of the children in the novel, because it is quite apparent that the children of the novel are not simply that. They are the children of our world and for me to throw an easy answer to them feels just so horrible. On one hand, to live without the truth of a situation, the human brain, whether youthful or not, creates delusions in which it can reside. Would these delusions create the kind of shelter for the children as to make the fall from blissful grace later in life worth it? Or is it better to live in the face of a terrible truth?
Julia brings up an extremely interesting point, in which children are able to take truths presented to them and create delusions from them. It is the old wive's tale of boiling the frog. If you put the frog into a pot of boiling water, HELL YEAH IT'S GOING TO JUMP OUTTA THERE. But, if you leave the frog to simmer over time, by the time the frog realizes his fate, he is already half cooked.
Side note, I just compared children to frogs so I'm obviously a model human.
As NLMG is a person book in many ways, I want to throw my personal opinion out there. Children deserve to live in the happiness that naivety brings. Introducing complexities to children is fraught with potential issues. Give it to them to early, and you are "frog-in-the-pot"-ing them, but too late and the presence of the previous bliss is too painful a memory to carry. But, young people are smart. Even if they can't understand the understated politics that lead to something like this, they can understand something they can name. The nameless villain is far more feared than the villain that you recognize.
|
|
|
Post by hannahboe on Jun 4, 2014 12:09:11 GMT
In general, I would totally agree with Ms. Lucy - tell the kids everything. They deserve to know what they were made for and what their lives will be. That being said, in the context of the story as a whole, I agree more with Ms. Emily. Over the course of the story, we are able to see both sides: while growing up they are kept very ignorant of their fate, but as they grow up they piece together what they think their future looks like and eventually live it out. What I found myself grappling with is the way that the characters resigned themselves to their fate when they understood what it was. It wasn't so much that there wasn't a rebellion or a greater attempt to fight the system, but the fact that they stopped being happy and didn't make much of an effort to try to be. Even when Kathy and Tommy eventually got together, they didn't seem happy. But when they were kids, living without the knowledge - and fear - of their unavoidable futures, they were happy. They were real kids with real relationships and had real fun. They experienced art and culture and every human emotion the rest of us do. I don't think that anyone could have made the most of the opportunities given to them at Hailsham if they knew what was coming. It would be incredibly difficult to not be very pessimistic when told that they existed as bodies to harvest organs from. In this way, I think Ms. Emily (and the entire purpose of Hailsham) was right: Keep the kids unaware for as long as possible so that they could get some pleasure out of their otherwise unfortunate existence.
|
|