|
|
Post by Jason Parris on May 30, 2014 15:17:52 GMT
In drafting my proposal to add Never Let Me Go to the curriculum, I made the following observation:
One of the challenges inherent in teaching dystopian texts is helping students see past the exaggeration and temporal distance employed by many of the authors on the current list; while they are always impressed with Orwell or Huxley’s imaginative capabilities, they sometimes miss how close to home the commentary in the novels should hit. Ishiguro’s deft and subtle technique renders a vision that is made even more terrifying because of its terrifying proximity to our own experience. Kathy H.’s conversational, first-person narrative and her tendency to address the reader directly pulls students in to the narrative in a way that makes them feel at once sympathetic to, and complicit in, her dehumanization. The fact that Ishiguro’s story takes place in a world that looks very much like our own brings what can be a rather abstract discussion of “universal philosophical questions” and “a reflection of the life, values, and ideas of a culture” devastatingly close to home.
Considering your own experience with the novel, respond to my assessment.
|
|
|
|
Post by natalieskowlund on Jun 1, 2014 22:32:21 GMT
I agree with Mr. Parris' assessment of the novel. Ishiguro creates a world that connects with readers on perhaps a more guttural level than some other, more extreme dystopian novels because the characters lives are so similar to our own. They experience love, longing, nostalgia, anger, despair, sorrow...and all with fullness and temporal nature with which we experience those same emotions in our own world.
One idea I found especially compelling in the novel was that although the novel seems to specifically focus on clones as donors, and thus what it means to be alive when your purpose is nothing more than sustaining the lives of others--and eventually dying to keep them alive, the novel also raises the question of what any of us are doing here...whether we too are just waisting time on the way to our death beds. Perhaps it is a morbid thought, but certainly not one uncalled for. While overtly Ishiguro seems to focus on the lives of clones, I think he subtly raises the question of what any of us are doing here. The clones are dying for "originals," giving up their vital organs to prolong the lives of "real" human beings. But are the lives of "originals" really any more significant than those of the clones who keep them alive? Sure, they get to work in offices, have families and live in traditional houses, but what does any of that mean? The tale in Never Let Me Go drives so close to home because the fundamental question that the clones grapple with is hardly different than the one that the "originals" grapple with: Is meaning an inherent part of life, or something that needs to be manufactured? And, if the latter is the reality, is it ethical to do so?
Thus, the past provides comfort for all. The past is a land where everything has been settled and it seems life knew nothing more than the truth of that moment. Kathy longs to return to the fantasy of a life where loved ones stay forever and art and learning are the only objectives of the day. Along the same lines, Madame and Miss Emily remember a time when they had the ability to uplift life, and in a way, create meaning for beings who otherwise seemed to have none. They, too, view the past as if it were a utopia within a snow globe, something they can view but no longer truly believe in. For both the clones and humans, the past seems to hold onto an inherent sense of meaning with life in the present struggles to incorporate.
In summary, Never Let Me Go makes a connection between the human version of reality and the dystopian version of reality in which the story exists, allowing for layers of insight at once more accessible and more complex than a novel solely steeped in a fantastical realm.
|
|
|
|
Post by fionabyrne on Jun 1, 2014 22:33:56 GMT
Reading the description of more common dystopia I couldn't help but think of Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron". I found the story enchanting and tragic, but I am sure I failed to feel how close it came to reality, which is the point of dystopia. Its kind of a macabre, ominous version of "its funny because its true". I completely agree that Ishiguro achieves that realistic, plausible reality. I didn't appreciate it as much before, but now that I think about it, /Never Let Me Go/ is a very unique piece of dystopia. It would be difficult for an author to only focus on one interesting part of the new world they create. If you get to make a dystopian world, I'd think it would be tempting to use all of your crazy, inventive ideas in that world. Ishiguro's decision to only focus on the clones makes it so much more focused and keeps the reader focused.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethmeyer on Jun 1, 2014 23:02:02 GMT
I agree with both Natalie and Fiona. I also think the reality in the novel hits quite close to home because it's not so different from our world today. But because of that, I'm also reluctant to call it a dystopia, even though there really is no other genre for it. For me, a dystopia forms when a utopia goes down the drain. Personally, I didn't feel like we as readers learned enough from either Kathy or Ishiguro about the society of the world in the book to call it a utopia-gone-bad. But that's just me. As for the reality in which clones are basically life support for other humans, I have to agree with Fiona: it is indeed macabre and ominous. I'm not a sciency person, but I know that scientists managed to clone sheep and some other farm animals a few years back, so the science is there to create clones. But the fact that the clones in this book as well clones in most other dystopian or science fiction literature (not to mention movies, TV shows and everything else) are used like farm animals is revolting. I'm not going to write out a huge list, but it seems like clones can never just be other people that are the same as us. They're always being used. And that's what's ominous. If scientists started cloning people, would they just be used for some purpose or other? Or would they get to live their own lives?
|
|
|
|
Post by hannahlewman on Jun 1, 2014 23:06:21 GMT
When I read "Never Let Me Go," I almost forgot that I was reading a story about clones, a so called dystopian novel. Between Ishiguro's stylistic choices in terms of voice and the world in general created by the author, the whole text felt very close to home. It's wasn't just relatable on the personal, "I'm a teenager and these relationships remind me of ones I know very well" level, but also on a greater, social commentary level. Honestly, I was often sick to my stomach while reading this novel. It's so easy to say "I can't believe people would feel comfortable killing innocent people just for the sake of organs, that's wrong and disgusting," it's pretty hypocritical to recoil that quickly. When you think about it, our society is built on a system where a select few of us thrive on the failure and even death of others. We enjoy cheap goods, a bounty of foods we did not help grow, and luxury resources all because there are people around the globe whose whole lives are dedicated to producing those items. In fact, many of the laborers around the world never even get to live in the kind of semi-luxury that the clones experienced at Hailsham, their real-life conditions are often worse than the so called dystopian ones created by Ishiguro. And yet we don't really question or stop this injustice because we benefit from it directly. It's pretty scary to think that this book, this "dystopian" novel, is so close to our own reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by clairem on Jun 1, 2014 23:18:14 GMT
One of the most interesting parts of this novel's form is the fact that before we, as the readers, even know what is really going on in this odd kind of society we feel a human connection with the main character. Kathy often refers to her own personal experiences in relation to our own saying things like, "I'm sure this has happened to you before" which quickly ties the reader tighter to her story and her way of life. Another way that Ishiguro sets up a solid connection between the reader's world and the novel's world is the fact that he has the world of clones, Hailsham, and the cottages intertwine with the world that we live in, which allow us to kind of look for our own place in this novel. For me the novel was slightly scary because it made me think strongly about the fact that there could be experiments like this going on or to come in the future that seem so out there I have never thought of them before. And to think that I could be involved or my children is an odd thought. More importantly though this world of cloning, that is so easy to relate to and observe, brings into question the humanity of their society versus ours and if one is more or less valid. It makes me worry about the future and question the values of our modern society because it is a realistic representation of what ours could be or could become.
|
|
|
|
Post by jessicalee on Jun 2, 2014 1:38:46 GMT
This novel may be dystopian, but strip it down to it's most bare-bone state, without the clones and the organ donors, and it becomes a story about relationships. And even more specifically, teenage relationships. The novel discusses the many ups and downs of these relationships, whether they be friendships or relationships having to do with love. I believe that this human connection between reader and character creates a bond that allows us to sympathize with Kathy and project our own beliefs and desires onto her. The novel got me to start thinking, "what am I doing with my life?". Kathy's future is set out for her from the minute she is on earth. She follows the path that the guardians and the rest of society tell her to. She'll grow up to be a carer and then an organ donor, and that's final. There's no delay if she falls in love with someone; she can't have a baby; she can't even choose her own career. This is what makes the novel so tragic: Kathy experiences no sense of freedom in choosing her future, which is actually very similar to many people today. Although, there are many people who are blessed enough to be able to create their own paths, there are still several people who cannot, which is extremely disheartening. Whether clones or humans, all people deserve to take their lives into their own hands. We can no longer take this for granted- we must go out and create our own futures.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jun 2, 2014 3:18:43 GMT
Dystopian novels and movies are currently flooding pop culture (Hunger games, Divergent, the maze runner, transcendence, etc.). Although people are enthralled with the action of these movies and their great fast moving plots, I don't think we're watching them just for their adventures. We are drawn in by this idea of what could go wrong if we aren't careful. Terrible things will happen if our utopians fall, we don't recover from a disaster, or the government goes crazy. But NLM is different, we aren't concerned with the "how" this happened but with what is currently happening, making it a different kind of dystopian novel. It's one of those novels that pulls you in and screams at you to understand the feelings the characters are going through. Kathy is one of us, a person with capability for love and sadness, which makes it so much harder to deal with her acceptance of the end. The way that Ishiguro presents the characters makes it hard for us as readers to accept that this society thinks of them as non humans. "Why would anyone doubt you had a soul?... it wasn't something commonly held when we first set out all those years ago. And though we've come a long way since then, it's still not a notion universally held, even today" (260). The book hits home because we see how truth is not something always readily available. We connect with Kathy so well that when we find out she may not even be human, we reflect inwardly. It exposes our fear of the unknown and whether we or not can handle the real Truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lacey Doby on Jun 2, 2014 3:37:47 GMT
I used this book as a novel in my power reading class and in the journals I had to write about it I noted how eerily similar some aspects of the characters were similar to those of people I knew, or even to myself. I recognized all kinds of situations and people, and this made the story much easier to reflect on afterwards.
The main basis of the story, with the clones and the society that created them, then seemed much more reachable for me. I loved that passage when Miss Emily is talking about how people prefer to pretend the clones don't exist or just aren't real people, because we definitely do that right now, even if we say we are not. There is all kinds of bad stuff happening, but it is just easier for people to deal with if they pretend it either isn't as bad as they have been hearing or isn't even an existing problem. The teenage perspective really struck home and helped me to turn this into less of a book about clones and more about a book on how people really are at a base level.
|
|
|
|
Post by mitralebuhn on Jun 2, 2014 4:56:21 GMT
Looking at Mr. Parris' assessment and everybody's responses, it is clear that Never Let Me Go is a unique dystopian work. This moved me to consider "why dystopian?" Why would Ishiguro choose to write a dystopian piece when the essence of a dystopian work, the reader's transportation to a new and dramatically different world, is not the main concentration in Never Let Me Go? This piece focuses on relationships and sparks a deep appreciation for freedom. Considering the heart of this work is often a key component to dystopian novels, which often incorporate some form of restriction, I've come to the conclusion that Ishiguro utilizes the emotions of isolation and limitation that dystopian novels inherently induce to facilitate her main story that shows the search for a meaningful life.
|
|
|
|
Post by moreno on Jun 2, 2014 4:56:33 GMT
Like many others, when I was reading "Never Let Me Go," I lost sight of the dystopian genre and read the story with our own society in mind. Largely in part to the was she addressed the audience, I related to Kathy right away. What scared me as a I continued reading is that I too felt a sense of disconnect with what was actually happening. After the context of the novel was fully explained and we (the audience) learned about the clones and donors, I stopped and realized that it did not phase me. That surprised me because with a story that inhabits the characteristics of my own world, I would expect to feel somewhat sick about the lives the characters live.
I suppose it did not phase me because we see a form of clones and donors in our own society. They take on many different names, but they exist. Like Lacey said, there are people in our own society who we choose to turn a blind eye to because they make us uncomfortable. Similarly, there are bad things happening in our world today which we have come to except or are desensitized to. I guess this book seems more like a giant allegory than a made up dystopia.
|
|
|
|
Post by juliamoreland on Jun 2, 2014 5:03:34 GMT
I agree with Natalie and the central question that she found the work arsies with “why are we here?” Do you ever have those moments where suddenly you think, “Maybe I’m just dreaming right now?” because I know I do. Those moments where reality subtly slips away, but you still know you are present. That is the way this novel makes me feel. It slowly separates from reality, and the narrative helps draw you into a lullaby state. I did not even notice how intense the dehumanization was until we discussed it in class. Of course, that left me feeling awful, but I was completely in this dystopian world. Now I picture Ishiguro as a hypnotist, rocking the readers into a soft lullaby that disconnects reality for a moment.
I have lived under the false impression that dystopian novels were some crazy ideas, like running the world off of fat people or something, yet this novel changes everything. It presents an altered view of the world, while still keeping true reality in check. Thinking about why I’m here freaks me out, because I haven’t the slightest clue.
|
|
|
|
Post by emwolfram on Jun 2, 2014 7:17:04 GMT
The fact that the dystopian aspect of "Never Let Me Go" is subtle makes it such a phenomenally chilling novel. Instead of the usual "in your face dystopia", Ishiguro writes a setting that feels very similar to our own world. Because of this we are able to more fully relate to the experiences of the characters. We are able to become closer to understanding how the people within the story feel because we know the world that they live in.
Another thing that I have noticed about this book is that we are given the perspective through the eyes of Kathy, who is a donor. However if we lived in Ishiguro's world we would not be the donors. This is a shockingly humanizing novel because we connect with the clones in a way that we never would be able to if this was the world we existed in.
|
|
|
|
Post by carolinedorman on Jun 2, 2014 19:17:01 GMT
The themes and ideas in Never Let Me Go are inherently hard to cope with. It is far easier to find any excuse to distance oneself from a truth that is hard to swallow than accept it. I naturally shy away from dystopian novels because I dislike far-fetched and unrealistic concepts presented in a science fiction setting. However, as Mr. Parris pointed out, Kathy pulls the reader into her narrative. The role of becoming a carer or giver particularly resonated with me. As a student, I feel like there are so many assignments and activities that I become involved in that don’t amount to anything. We are promised that becoming president of the student body or editor of the yearbook will set us up for future success. Similar to Kathy, there is not always a way out, a deferral. Is it even helpful to have a background in making art when one’s role in society is already decided? This novel fundamentally questioned the importance of feeding one’s soul even with the risk of becoming side tracked with the ultimate career path.
|
|
|
|
Post by stever on Jun 3, 2014 0:51:14 GMT
I enjoyed "Never Let Me Go" and agree with the majority of Mr. Parris's observation. I found the conversational style and the realistic characters made the book easier to relate to and more understandable. However, the fact that this was not an "in your face" dystopia novel did not make this novel seem more personal to me. At times, I even missed the imagination of other dystopian novels, because from my past experience, a distant and imaginative setting has not impacted my ability to be moved by a novel or relate to characters. Conversely, more imaginative and less realistic settings have even helped my ability to be moved by a novel and relate to characters, because when authors are not hindered by realism, they have freedom to express much more.
"In your face" dystopias like "1984" by George Orwell have been able to effect me profoundly because I found so many similarities to our society in even the most seemingly distant imaginative world. While not a dystopia, a "A Wild Sheep Chase" was incredibly imaginative, and the surreal and absurd events that occurred in that novel brought us closer to the characters. Literature is about spending disbelief, and while I found "Never Let Me Go" incredibly effective, I did not find it effective because of its simplicity and subtlety. More imaginative or "in your face"can affect us in this same way if we are willing to suspend our disbelief.
|
|
