Never Let Me Go
Never Let Me Go book cover

Never Let Me Go

Hardcover – Deckle Edge, April 5, 2005

Price
$14.57
Format
Hardcover
Pages
304
Publisher
Knopf
Publication Date
ISBN-13
978-1400043392
Dimensions
5.97 x 1.11 x 8.7 inches
Weight
1.12 pounds

Description

All children should believe they are special. But the students of Hailsham, an elite school in the English countryside, are so special that visitors shun them, and only by rumor and the occasional fleeting remark by a teacher do they discover their unconventional origins and strange destiny. Kazuo Ishiguro's sixth novel, Never Let Me Go , is a masterpiece of indirection. Like the students of Hailsham, readers are "told but not told" what is going on and should be allowed to discover the secrets of Hailsham and the truth about these children on their own. Offsetting the bizarreness of these revelations is the placid, measured voice of the narrator, Kathy H., a 31-year-old Hailsham alumna who, at the close of the 1990s, is consciously ending one phase of her life and beginning another. She is in a reflective mood, and recounts not only her childhood memories, but her quest in adulthood to find out more about Hailsham and the idealistic women who ran it. Although often poignant, Kathy's matter-of-fact narration blunts the sharper emotional effects you might expect in a novel that deals with illness, self-sacrifice, and the severe restriction of personal freedoms. As in Ishiguro's best-known work, The Remains of the Day , only after closing the book do you absorb the magnitude of what his characters endure. --Regina Marler From School Library Journal Adult/High School–The elegance of Ishiguro's prose and the pitch-perfect voice of his narrator conspire to usher readers convincingly into the remembered world of Hailsham, a British boarding school for special students. The reminiscence is told from the point of view of Kathy H., now 31, whose evocation of the sheltered estate's sunlit rolling hills, guardians, dormitories, and sports pavilions is imbued with undercurrents of muted tension and foreboding that presage a darker reality. As an adult, Kathy re-engages in lapsed friendships with classmates Ruth and Tommy, examining the details of their shared youth and revisiting with growing awareness the clues and anecdotal evidence apparent to them even as youngsters that they were different from everyone outside. [...] Ishiguro conveys with exquisite sensitivity the emotional texture of the threesome's relationship, their bonds of personal loyalty that overcome fractures of trust, the palpable boundaries of hope, and the human capacity for forgiveness. Highly recommended for literary merit and as an exceptional platform for the discussion of a controversial topic. –Lynn Nutwell, Fairfax City Regional Library, VA Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. From Bookmarks Magazine Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy come to terms with their destinies as Never Let Me Go slowly unveils its secrets to readers. Not before, not afterx97though readers may return to certain passages after experiencing the "a-ha!" moment thatx92s sure to come. Many of Ishigurox92s works have a purposeful ambiguity to their plots, but his sixth novelx92s play on memory, experience, and design may be the strangest yet. Despite its Twilight Zone -meets-Kafka sensibility, Never Let Me Go is heartbreaking, powerful, and chillingly possible. The title, taken from a folk song Kathy imagines to be about an infertile womanx92s miracle baby, suggests the novelx92s troubling themes: how we define human, accept our station in life, forge a better future for some of us, and interpret memories. Answers surface slowly in the alternative reality Ishiguro pieces together from Kathyx92s distorted recollections. His approach is deceptively simple; each tightly controlled piece of information contributes to a portrait of an ethically questionable society. As Ishiguro explained to Londonx92s Daily Telegraph , the novel "offers a version of Britain that might have existed by the late 20th century if just one or two things had gone differently on the scientific front." While a few critics questioned the charactersx92 acceptance of conditions they might have challenged, others assumed the system Ishiguro introduced precluded even pondering escape. In fact, a few found this world more interesting than the characters themselves. If some thought the scientific/technological premise polemical, others considered it highly provocative. In this age of major scientific debate over the future of humankind, Never Let Me Go will captivate you. Copyright © 2004 Phillips & Nelson Media, Inc. From Booklist Kathy, Tommy, and Ruth were once classmates at Hailsham, a private school in the English countryside. "You were brought into this world for a purpose," advised Miss Lucy, one of Hailsham's guardians, "and your futures, all of them, have been decided." The tightly knit trio experienced love, loss, and betrayal as they pondered their destinies... The novel is narrated by Kathy, now 31 and a "carer," who recalls how Hailsham students were "told and not told" about their precarious circumstances. (Why were their writings and paintings so important? And who was the mysterious Madame who carted their creations away?) Ishiguro's provocative subject matter and taut, potent prose have earned him multiple literary decorations, including the French government's Chevalier dans l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres and an Order of the British Empire for service to literature. (His Booker Prize-winning novel, The Remains of the Day, was adapted into a critically acclaimed film). In this luminous offering, he nimbly navigates the landscape of emotion--the inevitable link between present and past and the fine line between compassion and cruelty, pleasure and pain. Allison Block Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved A Globe and Mail Best Book (Top 100) A New York Times Notable Book (Top 100) One of Publishers Weekly ’s Top Ten Best Books of 2005 One of Seattle Times’ Top Ten Best Books of 2005 Finalist in the National Book Critic Circle Award A TIME Best Book One of TIME ’s 100 Best Novels (from 1923 to the Present) Shortlisted for Page Turners, BBC One’s new book club "A clear frontrunner to be the year’s most extraordinary novel." — The Times (UK) "So exquisitely observed that even the most workaday objects and interactions are infused with a luminous, humming otherworldliness. . . . An epic ethical horror story, told in devastatingly poignant miniature. . . . Ishiguro spins a stinging cautionary tale of science outpacing ethics." — Publishers Weekly (starred review) "Perfect pacing and infinite subtlety. . . . That this stunningly brilliant fiction echoes Caryl Churchill’s superb play A Number and Margaret Atwood’ s celebrated dystopian novels in no way diminishes its originality and power. A masterpiece of craftsmanship that offers an unparalleled emotional experience. Send a copy to the Swedish Academy." — Kirkus Reviews (starred review) "Elegiac, compelling, otherworldly, deeply disturbing and profoundly moving." — Sunday Herald (UK) "Brilliant . . . Ishiguro’ s most profound statement of the endurance of human relationships. . . . The most exact and affecting of his books to date." — The Guardian (UK) "Ishiguro’s elegant prose and masterly ways with characterization make for a lovely tale of memory, self-understanding, and love." — Library Journal (starred review) " Ishiguro’s provocative subject matter and taut, potent prose have earned him multiple literary decorations, including the French government’s Chevalier dans l’Ordre des Arts et des Lettres and an Order of the British Empire for service to literature…. In this luminous offering, he nimbly navigates the landscape of emotion — the inevitable link between present and past and the fine line between compassion and cruelty, pleasure and pain." — Booklist Praise for Kazuo Ishiguro: "His books are Zen gardens with no flowery metaphors, no wild, untamed weeds threatening — or allowed — to overrun the plot." — The Globe and Mail "A writer of Ishiguro’s intelligence, sensitivity and stylistic brilliance obviously offers rewards." — The Gazette (Montreal) "Kazuo Ishiguro distinguishes himself as one of our most eloquent poets of loss." —Joyce Carol Oates, TLS "Ishiguro is a stylist like no other, a writer who knows that the truth is often unspoken." — Maclean’s "One of the finest prose stylists of our time." —Michael Ondaatje "Ishiguro shows immense tenderness for his characters, however absurd or deluded they may be." — The Guardian "[Ishiguro is] an original and remarkable genius." — The New York Times Book Review Kazuo Ishiguro is the author of five previous novels, including The Remains of the Day, which won the Booker Prize and became an international best seller. His work has been translated into twenty-eight languages. In 1995 he received an Order of the British Empire for service to literature, and in 1998 was named a Chevalier de l’Ordre des Arts et des Lettres by the French government. He lives in London with his wife and daughter. From The Washington Post Kazuo Ishiguro's strange, and strangely affecting, new novel revolves around three people whom we first meet as children and whose fates are decided in early adulthood. It is an exceedingly difficult novel to review because essential aspects of it are also essential to the complex mystery at its core, so discussing it almost immediately becomes a delicate balance between what can and cannot be revealed. Believing as I strongly do that readers must be allowed to discover a book's secrets for themselves, guided by the author's hand, rather than have those secrets gratuitously spilled by a reviewer, I shall err on the side of silence, so please bear with me. Never Let Me Go is set in an undisclosed time -- not in the future, though the novel pays more than a slight bow to science fiction, perhaps between the 1950s and the 1970s -- at a place in the British countryside called Hailsham. It is a school, but a school unlike any other. It was intended to be "a shining beacon, an example of how we might move to a more humane and better way of doing things." The teachers are called "guardians" and the students, though that is what they are called, are neither ordinary students nor ordinary children. They come to Hailsham at a very early age and stay there until, as older teenagers, they are permitted to live in "the Cottages" or "the White Mansion" or "Poplar Farm," halfway houses from which they make tentative steps into the real world. The narrator of the novel is Kathy, or Kath, and the two other principal characters are her close friends and occasional rivals, Ruth and Tommy. She is "thirty-one years old, and . . . a carer now for over eleven years." What is a carer? One of the novel's mysteries, not really to be solved until two-thirds of the way through; suffice it to say that it's a difficult, emotionally and physically wearing job. Ruth and Tommy, approximately her own age, are "donors," but that mystery, too, must be left to Ishiguro to solve. In any event, for most of the novel Ishiguro is primarily concerned with the three as children and with the odd world they inhabit at Hailsham. The school, or institution, or whatever one cares to call it, is located on a large parcel of beautiful land, isolated from the outer world. Its students are made to understand that "we were all very special," that "we were different from our guardians, and also from the normal people outside." Their futures are hinted at but not faced head-on: "We hated the way our guardians, usually so on top of everything, became so awkward whenever we came near this territory. It unnerved us to see them change like that." They have a "special chance," but they have only the vaguest idea what that might be. They are so caught up in the rituals and routines of Hailsham, though, that they have little time for speculation about the distant time of adulthood. They excitedly await "Exchanges," for example: "Four times a year -- spring, summer, autumn, winter -- we had a kind of big exhibition-cum-sale of all the things we'd been creating in the three months since the last Exchange. Paintings, drawings, pottery; all sorts of 'sculptures' made from whatever was the craze of the day -- bashed-up cans, maybe, or bottle tops stuck onto cardboard." Each child is given "Exchange Tokens" with which he or she can "buy work done by students in your own year," from which they form collections that become precious mementos of their time at Hailsham. The very best products of their creative labors go to "the Gallery." None of them has ever seen it or even knows where it is, but the pieces for it are regularly chosen by a woman whose name they do not know -- "we called her 'Madame' because she was French or Belgian -- there was a dispute as to which -- and that was what the guardians always called her" -- and having one's work selected is regarded as a great honor. They also know that Miss Emily, the head of Hailsham, told one student "that things like pictures, poetry, all that kind of stuff, she said they revealed what you were like inside. She said they revealed your soul." Besides the Exchanges, the children look forward to the Sales, which "were important to us because that was how we got hold of things from outside." Every month "a big white van" brings the flotsam and jetsam of the outside world: "Looking back now, it's funny to think we got so worked up, because usually the Sales were a big disappointment. There'd be nothing remotely special and we'd spend our tokens just renewing stuff that was wearing out or broken with more of the same. But the point was, I suppose, we'd all of us in the past found something special at a Sale, something that had become special: a jacket, a watch, a pair of craft scissors never used but kept proudly next to a bed. We'd all found something like that at one time, and so however much we tried to pretend otherwise, we couldn't ever shake off the old feelings of hope and excitement." Too, the Sales are a way of connecting to the world outside: "at that stage in our lives, any place beyond Hailsham was like a fantasy land; we had only the haziest notions of the world outside and about what was and wasn't possible there." Hailsham is a closed circle beyond which they are not permitted to venture, with the result that the larger world becomes the subject of apprehension as well as curiosity: The children are "fearful of the world around us, and -- no matter how much we despised ourselves for it -- unable quite to let each other go." That theme, which recurs throughout the book, is summarized for Kathy by a long-playing record she owned for a while -- eventually, and mysteriously, it vanished -- called "Songs After Dark," by a singer named Judy Bridgewater (fictitious, as best I can determine), one track of which is a song titled "Never Let Me Go." The students have been told "it was completely impossible for any of us to have babies," but even as a very young child Kathy dreams of having one: "What was so special about this song? Well, the thing was, I didn't used to listen properly to the words; I just waited for that bit that went: 'Baby, baby, never let me go. . . .' And what I'd imagined was a woman who'd been told she couldn't have babies, who'd really, really wanted them all her life. Then there's a sort of miracle and she has a baby, and she holds this baby very close to her and walks around singing: 'Baby, never let me go. . .' partly because she's so happy, but also because she's so afraid something will happen, that the baby will get ill or be taken away from her. Even at the time, I realized this couldn't be right, that this interpretation didn't fit with the rest of the lyrics. But that wasn't an issue with me. The song was about what I said, and I used to listen to it again and again, on my own, whenever I got the chance." One time Kathy is alone in her room, playing the song, "swaying about slowly in time to the song, holding an imaginary baby to my breast." Then "something made me realize I wasn't alone, and I opened my eyes to find myself staring at Madame framed in the doorway. . . . She was out in the corridor, standing very still, her head angled to one side to give her a view of what I was doing inside. And the odd thing was she was crying. It might even have been one of her sobs that had come through the song to jerk me out of my dream." When she tells Tommy about this, he says: "Maybe Madame can read minds. She's strange. Maybe she can see right inside you." What Madame thinks she sees will not be revealed for many pages, but it gets right to the essence of this quite wonderful novel, the best Ishiguro has written since the sublime The Remains of the Day. It is almost literally a novel about humanity: what constitutes it, what it means, how it can be honored or denied. These little children, and the adults they eventually become, are brought up to serve humanity in the most astonishing and selfless ways, and the humanity they achieve in so doing makes us realize that in a new world the word must be redefined. Ishiguro pulls the reader along to that understanding at a steady, insistent pace. If the guardians at Hailsham "timed very carefully and deliberately everything they told us, so that we were always just too young to understand properly the latest piece of information," by the same token Ishiguro carefully and deliberately unfolds Hailsham's secrets one by one, piece by piece, as if he were slowly peeling an artichoke. Copyright 2005, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved. Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved. My name is Kathy H. I’m thirty-one years old, and I’ve been a carer now for over eleven years. That sounds long enough, I know, but actually they want me to go on for another eight months, until the end of this year. That’ll make it almost exactly twelve years. Now I know my being a carer so long isn’t necessarily because they think I’m fantastic at what I do. There are some really good carers who’ve been told to stop after just two or three years. And I can think of one carer at least who went on for all of fourteen years despite being a complete waste of space. So I’m not trying to boast. But then I do know for a fact they’ve been pleased with my work, and by and large, I have too. My donors have always tended to do much better than expected. Their recovery times have been impressive, and hardly any of them have been classified as “agitated,” even before fourth donation. Okay, maybe I am boasting now. But it means a lot to me, being able to do my work well, especially that bit about my donors staying “calm.” I’ve developed a kind of instinct around donors. I know when to hang around and comfort them, when to leave them to themselves; when to listen to everything they have to say, and when just to shrug and tell them to snap out of it.Anyway, I’m not making any big claims for myself. I know carers, working now, who are just as good and don’t get half the credit. If you’re one of them, I can understand how you might get resentful—about my bedsit, my car, above all, the way I get to pick and choose who I look after. And I’m a Hailsham student—which is enough by itself sometimes to get people’s backs up. Kathy H., they say, she gets to pick and choose, and she always chooses her own kind: people from Hailsham, or one of the other privileged estates. No wonder she has a great record. I’ve heard it said enough, so I’m sure you’ve heard it plenty more, and maybe there’s something in it. But I’m not the first to be allowed to pick and choose, and I doubt if I’ll be the last. And anyway, I’ve done my share of looking after donors brought up in every kind of place. By the time I finish, remember, I’ll have done twelve years of this, and it’s only for the last six they’ve let me choose.And why shouldn’t they? Carers aren’t machines. You try and do your best for every donor, but in the end, it wears you down. You don’t have unlimited patience and energy. So when you get a chance to choose, of course, you choose your own kind. That’s natural. There’s no way I could have gone on for as long as I have if I’d stopped feeling for my donors every step of the way. And anyway, if I’d never started choosing, how would I ever have got close again to Ruth and Tommy after all those years?But these days, of course, there are fewer and fewer donors left who I remember, and so in practice, I haven’t been choosing that much. As I say, the work gets a lot harder when you don’t have that deeper link with the donor, and though I’ll miss being a carer, it feels just about right to be finishing at last come the end of the year.Ruth, incidentally, was only the third or fourth donor I got to choose. She already had a carer assigned to her at the time, and I remember it taking a bit of nerve on my part. But in the end I managed it, and the instant I saw her again, at that recovery centre in Dover, all our differences—while they didn’t exactly vanish—seemed not nearly as important as all the other things: like the fact that we’d grown up together at Hailsham, the fact that we knew and remembered things no one else did. It’s ever since then, I suppose, I started seeking out for my donors people from the past, and whenever I could, people from Hailsham.There have been times over the years when I’ve tried to leave Hailsham behind, when I’ve told myself I shouldn’t look back so much. But then there came a point when I just stopped resisting. It had to do with this particular donor I had once, in my third year as a carer; it was his reaction when I mentioned I was from Hailsham. He’d just come through his third donation, it hadn’t gone well, and he must have known he wasn’t going to make it. He could hardly breathe, but he looked towards me and said: “Hailsham. I bet that was a beautiful place.” Then the next morning, when I was making conversation to keep his mind off it all, and I asked where he’d grown up, he mentioned some place in Dorset and his face beneath the blotches went into a completely new kind of grimace. And I realised then how desperately he didn’t want reminded. Instead, he wanted to hear about Hailsham.So over the next five or six days, I told him whatever he wanted to know, and he’d lie there, all hooked up, a gentle smile breaking through. He’d ask me about the big things and the little things. About our guardians, about how we each had our own collection chests under our beds, the football, the rounders, the little path that took you all round the outside of the main house, round all its nooks and crannies, the duck pond, the food, the view from the Art Room over the fields on a foggy morning. Sometimes he’d make me say things over and over; things I’d told him only the day before, he’d ask about like I’d never told him. “Did you have a sports pavilion?” “Which guardian was your special favourite?” At first I thought this was just the drugs, but then I realised his mind was clear enough. What he wanted was not just to hear about Hailsham, but to remember Hailsham, just like it had been his own childhood. He knew he was close to completing and so that’s what he was doing: getting me to describe things to him, so they’d really sink in, so that maybe during those sleepless nights, with the drugs and the pain and the exhaustion, the line would blur between what were my memories and what were his. That was when I first understood, really understood, just how lucky we’d been—Tommy, Ruth, me, all the rest of us..Driving around the country now, I still see things that will remind me of Hailsham. I might pass the corner of a misty field, or see part of a large house in the distance as I come down the side of a valley, even a particular arrangement of poplar trees up on a hillside, and I’ll think: “Maybe that’s it! I’ve found it! This actually is Hailsham!” Then I see it’s impossible and I go on driving, my thoughts drifting on elsewhere. In particular, there are those pavilions. I spot them all over the country, standing on the far side of playing fields, little white prefab buildings with a row of windows unnaturally high up, tucked almost under the eaves. I think they built a whole lot like that in the fifties and sixties, which is probably when ours was put up. If I drive past one I keep looking over to it for as long as possible, and one day I’ll crash the car like that, but I keep doing it. Not long ago I was driving through an empty stretch of Worcestershire and saw one beside a cricket ground so like ours at Hailsham I actually turned the car and went back for a second look.We loved our sports pavilion, maybe because it reminded us of those sweet little cottages people always had in picture books when we were young. I can remember us back in the Juniors, pleading with guardians to hold the next lesson in the pavilion instead of the usual room. Then by the time we were in Senior 2—when we were twelve, going on thirteen—the pavilion had become the place to hide out with your best friends when you wanted to get away from the rest of Hailsham.The pavilion was big enough to take two separate groups without them bothering each other—in the summer, a third group could hang about out on the veranda. But ideally you and your friends wanted the place just to yourselves, so there was often jockeying and arguing. The guardians were always telling us to be civilised about it, but in practice, you needed to have some strong personalities in your group to stand a chance of getting the pavilion during a break or free period. I wasn’t exactly the wilting type myself, but I suppose it was really because of Ruth we got in there as often as we did.Usually we just spread ourselves around the chairs and benches—there’d be five of us, six if Jenny B. came along—and had a good gossip. There was a kind of conversation that could only happen when you were hidden away in the pavilion; we might discuss something that was worrying us, or we might end up screaming with laughter, or in a furious row. Mostly, it was a way to unwind for a while with your closest friends.On the particular afternoon I’m now thinking of, we were standing up on stools and benches, crowding around the high windows. That gave us a clear view of the North Playing Field where about a dozen boys from our year and Senior 3 had gathered to play football. There was bright sunshine, but it must have been raining earlier that day because I can remember how the sun was glinting on the muddy surface of the grass.Someone said we shouldn’t be so obvious about watching, but we hardly moved back at all. Then Ruth said: “He doesn’t suspect a thing. Look at him. He really doesn’t suspect a thing.”When she said this, I looked at her and searched for signs of disapproval about what the boys were going to do to Tommy. But the next second Ruth gave a little laugh and said: “The idiot!”And I realised that for Ruth and the others, whatever the boys chose to do was pretty remote from us; whether we approved or not didn’t come into it. We were gathered around the windows at that moment not because we relished the prospect of seeing Tommy get humiliated yet again, but just because we’d heard about this latest plot and were vaguely curious to watch it unfold. In those days, I don’t think what the boys did amongst themselves went much deeper than that. For Ruth, for the others, it was that detached, and the chances are that’s how it was for me too.Or maybe I’m remembering it wrong. Maybe even then, when I saw Tommy rushing about that field, undisguised delight on his face to be accepted back in the fold again, about to play the game at which he so excelled, maybe I did feel a little stab of pain. What I do remember is that I noticed Tommy was wearing the light blue polo shirt he’d got in the Sales the previous month—the one he was so proud of. I remember thinking: “He’s really stupid, playing football in that. It’ll get ruined, then how’s he going to feel?” Out loud, I said, to no one in particular: “Tommy’s got his shirt on. His favourite polo shirt.”I don’t think anyone heard me, because they were all laughing at Laura—the big clown in our group—mimicking one after the other the expressions that appeared on Tommy’s face as he ran, waved, called, tackled. The other boys were all moving around the field in that deliberately languorous way they have when they’re warming up, but Tommy, in his excitement, seemed already to be going full pelt. I said, louder this time: “He’s going to be so sick if he ruins that shirt.” This time Ruth heard me, but she must have thought I’d meant it as some kind of joke, because she laughed half-heartedly, then made some quip of her own.Then the boys had stopped kicking the ball about, and were standing in a pack in the mud, their chests gently rising and falling as they waited for the team picking to start. The two captains who emerged were from Senior 3, though everyone knew Tommy was a better player than any of that year. They tossed for first pick, then the one who’d won stared at the group.“Look at him,” someone behind me said. “He’s completely convinced he’s going to be first pick. Just look at him!”There was something comical about Tommy at that moment, something that made you think, well, yes, if he’s going to be that daft, he deserves what’s coming. The other boys were all pre- tending to ignore the picking process, pretending they didn’t care where they came in the order. Some were talking quietly to each other, some re-tying their laces, others just staring down at their feet as they trammelled the mud. But Tommy was looking eagerly at the Senior 3 boy, as though his name had already been called.Laura kept up her performance all through the team-picking, doing all the different expressions that went across Tommy’s face: the bright eager one at the start; the puzzled concern when four picks had gone by and he still hadn’t been chosen; the hurt and panic as it began to dawn on him what was really going on. I didn’t keep glancing round at Laura, though, because I was watching Tommy; I only knew what she was doing because the others kept laughing and egging her on. Then when Tommy was left standing alone, and the boys all began sniggering, I heard Ruth say:“It’s coming. Hold it. Seven seconds. Seven, six, five . . .”She never got there. Tommy burst into thunderous bellowing, and the boys, now laughing openly, started to run off towards the South Playing Field. Tommy took a few strides after them—it was hard to say whether his instinct was to give angry chase or if he was panicked at being left behind. In any case he soon stopped and stood there, glaring after them, his face scarlet. Then he began to scream and shout, a nonsensical jumble of swear words and insults.We’d all seen plenty of Tommy’s tantrums by then, so we came down off our stools and spread ourselves around the room. We tried to start up a conversation about something else, but there was Tommy going on and on in the background, and although at first we just rolled our eyes and tried to ignore it, in the end—probably a full ten minutes after we’d first moved away—we were back up at the windows again.The other boys were now completely out of view, and Tommy was no longer trying to direct his comments in any particular direction. He was just raving, flinging his limbs about, at the sky, at the wind, at the nearest fence post. Laura said he was maybe “rehearsing his Shakespeare.” Someone else pointed out how each time he screamed something he’d raise one foot off the ground, pointing it outwards, “like a dog doing a pee.” Actually, I’d noticed the same foot movement myself, but what had struck me was that each time he stamped the foot back down again, flecks of mud flew up around his shins. I thought again about his precious shirt, but he was too far away for me to see if he’d got much mud on it.“I suppose it is a bit cruel,” Ruth said, “the way they always work him up like that. But it’s his own fault. If he learnt to keep his cool, they’d leave him alone.”“They’d still keep on at him,” Hannah said. “Graham K.’s temper’s just as bad, but that only makes them all the more care- ful with him. The reason they go for Tommy’s because he’s a layabout.”Then everyone was talking at once, about how Tommy never even tried to be creative, about how he hadn’t even put anything in for the Spring Exchange. I suppose the truth was, by that stage, each of us was secretly wishing a guardian would come from the house and take him away. And although we hadn’t had any part in this latest plan to rile Tommy, we had taken out ringside seats, and we were starting to feel guilty. But there was no sign of a guardian, so we just kept swapping reasons why Tommy deserved everything he got. Then when Ruth looked at her watch and said even though we still had time, we should get back to the main house, nobody argued.Tommy was still going strong as we came out of the pavilion. The house was over to our left, and since Tommy was standing in the field straight ahead of us, there was no need to go anywhere near him. In any case, he was facing the other way and didn’t seem to register us at all. All the same, as my friends set off along the edge of the field, I started to drift over towards him. I knew this would puzzle the others, but I kept going—even when I heard Ruth’s urgent whisper to me to come back.I suppose Tommy wasn’t used to being disturbed during his rages, because his first response when I came up to him was to stare at me for a second, then carry on as before. It was like he was doing Shakespeare and I’d come up onto the stage in the middle of his performance. Even when I said: “Tommy, your nice shirt. You’ll get it all messed up,” there was no sign of him having heard me.So I reached forward and put a hand on his arm. Afterwards, the others thought he’d meant to do it, but I was pretty sure it was unintentional. His arms were still flailing about, and he wasn’t to know I was about to put out my hand. Anyway, as he threw up his arm, he knocked my hand aside and hit the side of my face. It didn’t hurt at all, but I let out a gasp, and so did most of the girls behind me.That’s when at last Tommy seemed to become aware of me, of the others, of himself, of the fact that he was there in that field, behaving the way he had been, and stared at me a bit stupidly.“Tommy,” I said, quite sternly. “There’s mud all over your shirt.”“So what?” he mumbled. But even as he said this, he looked down and noticed the brown specks, and only just stopped himself crying out in alarm. Then I saw the surprise register on his face that I should know about his feelings for the polo shirt.“It’s nothing to worry about,” I said, before the silence got humiliating for him. “It’ll come off. If you can’t get it off yourself, just take it to Miss Jody.”He went on examining his shirt, then said grumpily: “It’s nothing to do with you anyway.”He seemed to regret immediately this last remark and looked at me sheepishly, as though expecting me to say something comforting back to him. But I’d had enough of him by now, particularly with the girls watching—and for all I knew, any number of others from the windows of the main house. So I turned away with a shrug and rejoined my friends.Ruth put an arm around my shoulders as we walked away. “At least you got him to pipe down,” she said. “Are you okay? Mad animal.” Read more

Features & Highlights

  • From the acclaimed author of
  • The
  • Remains of the Day
  • and
  • When We Were Orphans,
  • a moving new novel that subtly reimagines our world and time in a haunting story of friendship and love.As a child, Kathy–now thirty-one years old–lived at Hailsham, a private school in the scenic English countryside where the children were sheltered from the outside world, brought up to believe that they were special and that their well-being was crucial not only for themselves but for the society they would eventually enter. Kathy had long ago put this idyllic past behind her, but when two of her Hailsham friends come back into her life, she stops resisting the pull of memory.And so, as her friendship with Ruth is rekindled, and as the feelings that long ago fueled her adolescent crush on Tommy begin to deepen into love, Kathy recalls their years at Hailsham. She describes happy scenes of boys and girls growing up together, unperturbed–even comforted–by their isolation. But she describes other scenes as well: of discord and misunderstanding that hint at a dark secret behind Hailsham’s nurturing facade. With the dawning clarity of hindsight, the three friends are compelled to face the truth about their childhood–and about their lives now.A tale of deceptive simplicity,
  • Never Let Me Go
  • slowly reveals an extraordinary emotional depth and resonance–and
  • takes its place among Kazuo Ishiguro’s finest work.

Customer Reviews

Rating Breakdown

★★★★★
30%
(8.4K)
★★★★
25%
(7K)
★★★
15%
(4.2K)
★★
7%
(2K)
23%
(6.5K)

Most Helpful Reviews

✓ Verified Purchase

The Banality of Amoral Science

Kazuo Ishiguro's brilliant new book, NEVER LET ME GO, returns the author to the themes and approaches he first addressed in THE REMAINS OF THE DAY. Just as Stevens the butler devoted himself unthinkingly and uncritically to the minutiae of daily life on behalf of his Nazi sympathizing master, Lord Darlington, the main characters in Ishiguro's latest book focus on the irrelevant small details and minor tribulations of their lives without ever once contemplating the bigger picture. In both cases, the author not only conjures the question of the meaning of life, he asks us to contemplate the tragedy of wasted lives.

On its surface, NEVER LET ME GO tells the story of three special young people - Kathy H., Tommy D., and Ruth - all of whom meet as students at an idyllic private school called Hailsham. Kathy H. is the narrator, now 31 years old, telling her story in hindsight. She recalls her student days at Hailsham fondly, filling her tale with numerous minor anecdotes about the most mundane affairs that slowly reveal the nature of the school and its students' place in the world. (...) Ishiguro creates a convincing vocabulary, milieu, and mythology for this setting: guardians, carers, donors, completing, Exchanges, Sales, the Gallery, Norfolk, and an eerie sense of the students having "been told and not told."

NEVER LET ME GO accomplishes the remarkable challenge of presenting 288 pages' worth of reading between the lines. Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy are not the real main characters of this story, only the visible ones. The real main characters are invisible, the ones who have not only facilitated the use of cloning as a form of organ farming, but who have created a conditioning environment in which their victims accept their fate without question, as the natural order of things. Kathy, Ruth, Tommy, and their ilk live among normal people yet virtually never approach them, willing segretating themselves from the rest of society as though they were lepers. They live in Skinner boxes without boundaries, conditioned to believe they exist only to sacrifice their lives for the continued life of others. We never see the bioengineers or social scientists who create and maintain this horrifying use of humanity. Instead, they are represented (only on a limited scale) by Hailsham's headmistress, Miss Emily, and the mysterious, art-collecting Madame Marie-Claude.

In 1963, after attending the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Israel, the renowned Hannah Arendt wrote a profound and controversial book entitled EICHMANN IN JERUSALEM: THE BANALITY OF EVIL. Arendt went to the trial expecting to see a monster. Who else could be responsible for such evil as the Holocaust? Instead, she found an accounting clerk. Not only were the most normal of people apparently capable of mindless cruelty, but their evil was senseless, meaningless even to themselves. In this way, their evil was banal. Ishiguro creates a similar feeling, using the triteness of Kathy H.'s reminiscences and Miss Lucy's behaviors and rationalizations to illustrate the banality of their own peculiar form of evil: science practiced for its own sake, without the application of moral standards. NEVER LET ME GO is neither preachily anti-science nor moralistically pro-religion. It is simply a call to include our consciences in the application of science. Perhaps the fact that the first identified character in the book to speak other than Kathy and Ruth is a student named Hannah (who never appears again in the text) is Ishiguro's way of telling us to beware the dangers of banality, that sliding over the edge from ordinariness to "Ruth-less" evil is easier than we think.

I puzzled for a while over the setting - England in the 1990's - until I realized that the first sheep clone, Dolly, was created in England in 1996 and died prematurely a few years later. In a sense, all of Hailsham's students are sheep, raised in out-of-the-way rural settings, separated from society and isolated from knowledge of both the practical world and the world of ideas, limited in their human interactions except with one another, and, of course, bred to be consumed (for their vital organs). On several occasions, I was reminded of the cowlike creature in Doug Adams's RESTAURANT AT THE END OF THE UNIVERSE who greets diners by declaiming the tasty virtues of his best parts and declares: "..it was eventually decided to ... breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am." Adams presented his creature for comic effect; Ishiguro presents his "poor creatures" (as Madame repeatedly calls them) for a low key but nightmarish effect.

NEVER LET ME GO is a transcendent novel, an astonishingly powerful work of literature. The pace is slow and the details seem trivial, but patient readers will be rewarded for their efforts with a thought-provoking exposition on whose life is worth living and who, if anyone, has the right to set the terms and conditions. Arendt contemplated the banality of evil - Ishiguro warns us of the evils that lurk behind banality.
931 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Disappointing and unconvincing sci fi novel

(Spoilers below; please do not continue if you do not wish to read them.)

Kazuo Ishiguro is clearly a master writer, but he has chosen a subject here that is way, way out of his expertise. Although beautifully written, the basic story behind "Never Let me Go" is dull, and goes over a sci fi subject (cloning) that was done to death 40 years ago. Yes, even the idea of adult clones going willingly to their death for the benefit of mankind.

Presumably Mr. Ishiguro was inspired by the cloning of Dolly the sheep to try his hand at something like this. It's notable that when Americans attack this sort of subject, you get a result like the current movie, "The Island", which focuses less on introspection than on the rebellion of the clones. It says a lot about the difference in national character! LOL! Plus I see many commenters here are the most disturbed at the passivity of the characters.

I certainly see that as a flaw in the structure of the novel (what would prevent any of the clones from simply walking away from Hailsham or the Cottages? After all, they don't look any different than an ordinary person), however I think there are much more serious flaws in the construct.

The ideal age for a "clone" to donate organs would be late teens, not their 30s. That's when all your internal organs are at their healthiest, and you have reached adult proportions. That wouldn't leave time for "carers" to develop. And what's with the concept of "carers"? They aren't even properly trained as nurses or even orderlies. Transplant/donor patients require skilled nursing, not "pals".

Then there is the problem of the idea that the clones donate approximately 4 times (if they survive) and then "complete" (die). What the heck are they donating to accomplish this? You can live with only one kidney, and you can survive with a partial liver...or lose your pancreas, and survive on insulin. But you certainly can't survive without a heart or lungs, which are among the most desirable transplant organs. Maintaining a donor clone on dialysis (assuming both his kidneys were transplanted) would render him too weak to donate any of his other organs. From a strictly medical point of view, it would make more sense to kill the clones and harvest ALL the desirable organs, rather than taking one at a time and risking the clone dying from one of those procedures. Or is the idea that the clone is donating only to the individual he was cloned FROM, as that individual has various organs fail? That doesn't make sense either -- nobodies organs fail exactly in a certain order.

Furthermore, the implication is that harvesting cloned organs will cure cancer. I am hard pressed to think of a cancer that could be cured by transplantation -- it would certainly be rare. The problem with cancer is that it spreads all throughout the body, and transplanting organ after organ would be useless.

This is just a few of the examples of why this is a patently stupid idea for a novel. I don't think Mr. Ishiguro has read much genuine sci fi that explores these ideas, or he'd understand how out of date and out of his depth he really is here. As far as the story exploring the way people passively accept their fate, no matter what it is, without fighting back -- well, if he's revealing an inside look at British culture, that's the scariest part of all.
121 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Good in the small; disappointing in the large

Caveat: there are small spoilers ahead, though fewer than in the Publsher's Weekly review that Amazon provides.

I really wanted to like this book a lot, and it certainly is not without its virtues. The way Ishiguro sustains the voice of the narrator over the course of the story is impressive; Kathy's voice is every bit as distinctive as Stevens' in The Remains of the Day and yet quite unlike it. The book also deals with worthy themes, not least the way we might come to take for granted something utterly shocking and repulsive. One reviewer asked why none of the characters tried to run away. My response is that the reader wishes they might, but the point of the novel is that the characters have been lulled into a sense that their lot in life is inevitable; they have their place and the most they could hope for (a hope that plays out in the final pages) is that there might be a brief respite from what must come.

More below on the psychological plausibility of that premise. My disappointment had to do with what sits in the background. The novel, after all, is set in contemporary England -- or, at least, a version of contemporary England that's supposed to be within a reasonable imaginative distance of the world as it actually is. Perhaps the scheme on which the novel is built could actually emerge from the real attitudes of contemporary Western Europe. The way we are to assume most people view Kathy and her fellow "students" is not unlike the kind of racism that's still far too common in supposedly civilized Europe. But even that sort of reflexive racism seldom goes so far as to call into question whether the "other" has a soul and, the most vicious aside, most Western racists would still be horrified by the use to which the "students" are put. It's true; we are within living memory of the Holocaust. But it's also true that because of those very memories, the Western world, at least, is a different place. Moreover, even though most of us have deep reservations about cloning, it's not because we think that cloned humans would be any less than human. On the contrary, our reservations are partly because it's so clear that these beings _would_ be humans -- just like us.

Or so one might think. In order to make the case that this isn't so, and that the England he imagines is within imaginative reach, Ishiguro would have had to tell us a lot more than he does about how his dystopia came about. What we get, instead, is a hasty and almost perfunctory account in the final pages that feels unconvincing and blunts the emotional force of the novel's ending.

That said, there's a coda that honesty compels me to add. When I finished the book, I felt much less moved than I thought I was meant to. But in spite of the clumsiness of the backstory, I woke up the next morning with a real sense of unease. It was not that I was ready to grant the plausibility of the backstory. It was that I could imagine all too easily that the characters might really have been manipulated into accepting the utterly unacceptable lot that they have been handed, however implausible that lot may be. These characters may not be intrinsically less soulless than the rest of us, but we can imagine them being robbed of a piece of their souls -- not by the circumstances of their births but by how they've been schooled to see themselves.
116 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Sheep, or sheep with souls?

(Written by countezero for Worm's Sci Fi Haven, you can see more of his reviews here: [...])

Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go did not win Britain's prestigious Booker prize this year, an honor the author claimed in 1989 for The Remains of the Day, but I suspect people will read this novel-a sublime and haunting account of innocence, injustice and social deconstruction-long after John Banville's The Sea, which did win, disappears from the collective social conscious.

To peak everyone's interest and to keep them from pulling their hair out, I'll come right to the point, which, as Sarah Kerr noted in her New York Times review, is impossible for a critic to dance around anyway. Never Let Me Go is about human cloning. More specifically, it is about a group of cloned children growing up in an English boarding school, where the truth about their biology is both the cause and effect of some very strange happenings, which ultimately make for one of the best contemporary novels I have read, a book that should not be overlooked and cannot be ignored.

Ishiguro, a student of Freud, likes to employ subtle psychology in his work. He likes his narrators too damaged to ever truly reveal themselves. What the reader learns, he or she learns mostly through the information the narrator chooses to withhold about their pasts and through the plainness of their reactions to the present. In this regard, Never Let Me Go is more of the same, in that what is most essential to novel's plot is barely mentioned, or concretely addressed. "Few writers dare to say so little of what they mean," wrote one critic, describing Ishiguro's style of approach. Because of this, any lengthy description of the novel's thorny arc of action would dull its effect for first-time readers.

What can safely be said is that Ishiguro, who is also a student of the English novel, knows all to well that the patches of literary ground where science and morality clash have always been arenas of brutal and bloody contests, with neither side interested in armistice. From Bacon's New Atlantis to Shelley's Frankenstein and Huxley's Brave New World, the tradition of tackling tough social issues through speculative fiction has always been a favorite pastime of English writers with highly refined sensibilities. I cannot imagine that Ishiguro doesn't understand the traditions he has inserted himself among by writing a boarding-school novel about the politics of scientific advancement. He knows exactly what he's doing. He's provoking us. And, for the most part, it works.

Told from the backward perspective of Kathy H, who is 31-years old when the story begins, we learn about the young lives of Tommy and Ruth, who are her two best friends, and the lives of all the children at a special school called Hailsham-a wonderful Dickensian name whose sinister perfection can only be fully understood at the novel's end. Most of the early-going is typical. Social cliques form, loyalties are established and tested, a juvenile form of sexuality begins to bloom-all of which is handled very skillfully by Ishiguro, whose powers of perception and whose ability to capture the reality of human interaction have never been more functional. Add to this picture a host of inklings, of hints and whispers, and you'll begin to understand how wonderfully terrifying and brutally banal the core of this novel is. The children have questions that aren't answered, certain subjects that are off-limits. They notice nobody ever leaves the grounds, that some people don't seem to know how to act around them and that everyone who is not a student seems to have access to a universal truth being kept from them. They notice all of this and they explain it all away.

For the reader, whose suspicion is apt to grow after a few chapters, the answers the children come up with don't satisfy. Are the teachers sheltering the children from harm, or are they fooling them before the slaughter? The answer is not a simple one. Some of the teachers burst into tears and leave the school under painful circumstances after they are apparently unable to continue working among the children. Others, who at first seem cold proponents of the children's dark fate, which is continually teased and hinted at but not immediately revealed, later turn out to be some of the strongest advocates for them.

And what of Kathy and the other cloned children? Are they sheep, or are they sheep with souls? Even most the teachers who've lived and worked among them are incapable of going beyond this either/or examination of the children, and because of this, there is no reckoning at the novel's end. There is only twisted discovery and gradual acceptance. This is one of Ishiguro's most brilliant tricks. He parcels out information to the reader at the same pace he does the children. The result is by the time we have the whole picture straight in our heads it is no where near as shocking as it initially would have been. Just as the children have done, we become accustomed to it (even Kathy, the novel's unreliable narrator, is incapable of judging the circumstances of her undoing and assigning any morality to it). So the epiphany, when it finally comes, fails to engineer any discernible effects on the plot or the characters at all. And in many ways, this is the novel's most sobering and realistic assertion. People, more often times than not, fail to act or act ineffectively. Dénouement is a slippery French word that describes the culmination of a fabricated plot; it does not describe or represent reality. Part of Ishiguro's genius is his ability to realize this and codify it as art, just as he does in the very last conversation Tommy has with Kathy, when it's made clear they both know more than they let on about the reality of their existence, but neither are capable or prepared to do anything about it.

"I keep thinking about this river somewhere, with the water moving really fast," Tommy says. "And these two people in the water, trying to hold onto each other, holding as hard as they can, but in the end it's just too much. The current's too strong. They've got to let go, drift apart. (They want to stay forever)...but in the end, we can't stay forever."

Thus, the novel ends the way it was always going to end-with a stoic resignation that hauntingly recalls the bleak sort of acceptance victims of the Holocaust exhibited as they stood patiently in line waiting to be gassed.

Or as another reviewer, quoting a snatch of some Schopenhauer, put it: "In our early youth we sit before the life that lies ahead of us like children sitting before the curtain in a theatre, in happy and tense anticipation of whatever is going to appear. Luckily we do not know what really will appear."

The horror of Never Let Me Go is that the children of Hailsham know almost exactly what lies beyond the curtain and they continue to look and participate in the pageantry of life anyway. How human of them.

Five out of five
71 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

The slow dawning of a terrible truth. . . .

Ishiguro's latest is a masterpiece of understatement, a view of science run rampant through the eyes of children. Ruth, Kathy and Tommy are a tight triangle in the privileged world of Hailsham, an elite boarding school in the heart of the English countryside. Ishiguro's rendering of the enclosed, often cruel world of a private school is eerily familiar, unerringly told from the point of view of three adolescent characters--certain students are inexplicably "on the outs," friendships change on a whim, dominant students hold sway over others in irrational ways, secret pacts are made and die. But permeating all is the fact that these students have a role to fulfill once grown. The details are revealed with almost maddening slowness, but isn't that how certain truths often dawn on us? And the characters' acceptance of their roles is terrifying in a way--will human beings accept anything as long as properly indoctrinated? Perhaps not, as Kathy, Tommy and Ruth reach adulthood and become gripped by the notion that their donations may be deferred. Ishiguro's astute rendering of the details of everyday life, the slow unraveling of the truth, the "trueness" of the narrator's voice, all add up to a masterpiece.
59 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Quiet Devastation

Magnificent. I would give this six stars if it were possible, because it adds an unexpected and quietly devastating emotional dimension to Ishiguro's already-powerful armory. Although this book has something of the alternative-reality feel of [[ASIN:0679735879 THE UNCONSOLED]], it is by no means so difficult to read. It probably beats even [[ASIN:0679731725 THE REMAINS OF THE DAY]] in the surface lucidity of its narration, and emotions that had been denied or repressed in that earlier novel are here allowed to flower, albeit briefly. Indeed, one strand of this book is a love story, simple, true, and almost traditional, though denied the traditional happy-ever-after ending.

I am sorry that many of the previous reviewers, professional and otherwise, have given away the secret of what the book is about, since the pace at which Ishiguro reveals information is masterly. First, he gives hints that Hailsham, the secluded co-ed boarding-school in the English countryside, is not a normal school. Then he lets drop little bits of information, though never the complete picture. Even when the book is over, there are still larger mysteries out there that are never explained. Indeed, as others have pointed out, it is not only the readers who must accept the mystery; the characters themselves are hesitant to demand explanations for what they have not been told; it is part of what sets them apart as a sub-class, living apparently full lives within a cage of which they are only dimly aware.

There is a scene about three-quarters of the way through the book, after the heroine Kathy has got her own car and travels widely around Britain, when she takes a couple of her friends on a trip to see an old boat, beached on the edge of the marshes. It's just "this old fishing boat, with a little cabin for a couple of fishermen to squeeze into when it's stormy." A common enough sight along the shoreline, one would think. But for the people in this story, it acquires almost mythic significance. Kathy first hears about it from people as far away as Wales, and people who have been to see it are given the respect due to returning pilgrims. But for people who are effectively institutionalized, such outings can seem very special indeed; I remember feeling the same about some day-trips from boarding school, or later from a long-stay hospital. It is a brilliant device of Ishiguro's to demonstrate the smallness of his characters' world by showing the intensity of their enthusiasm for something so apparently trivial. It is one of his dominant techniques in THE REMAINS OF THE DAY, and it recurs in each of the four books of his that I have read.

It is interesting that Ishiguro states the place and time quite baldly on the first page as "England, late 1990s." Such glimpses of the outside world as we get, increasingly towards the end of the novel, are tied more closely to place and time than is usual with this author. And yet the basic premise of his story would have been impossible in the nineties. Although he is essentially writing science fiction, he needs to set it in the familiar world to prevent his readers from slipping into a special sci-fi gear. The most touching thing about his quite extraordinary characters is precisely their ordinariness, framed towards the end by long car journeys between various decrepit facilities, and lonely evenings in bed-sits. The heartbreak of the closing paragraph is conjured out of a description of windblown rubbish, "torn plastic sheeting and bits of old carrier bags," caught in a wire fence.

I have noted before how in each of his novels, Ishiguro seems to take a particular genre of British popular fiction and rework it to his own ends: the Upstairs/Downstairs story in THE REMAINS OF THE DAY or the Great Detective story in [[ASIN:0375724400 WHEN WE WERE ORPHANS]]. Here, although the author surely owes much to John Wyndham's THE MIDWICH CUCKOOS, the dominant genre is not science fiction but the boarding-school novel. And once again, he has captured the convention to a tee; it is also clear that he has been through such schools himself. This is all the more remarkable in that this book features a young woman as narrator and a mostly female cast, and thus breaks away from the classics of the genre (for example, Kipling's [[ASIN:0192838598 STALKY & CO]]) which all have a boys-school bias. But he has the adolescent female psychology down pat, especially the way that the closest friendships can also harbor intense rivalries.

Ishiguro's appropriation of classic British tropes is parallel to what I see as his attempts to enter British society. As even a book written by an Englishman, Alan Hollinghurst's recent [[ASIN:1582346100 THE LINE OF BEAUTY]], reminds us, English society is inherently dominated by class -- or rather caste -- with great importance placed on being a member of an in-group, and numerous ways, subtle and not so subtle, of reminding others that they are merely outsiders and not "one of us." An immigrant from another culture, however talented and however well-connected, could not help but feel this even more acutely, and Ishiguro's books are peopled with characters who believe themselves to be part of a privileged elite, but are still conscious of a true elite beyond their circle to which they will never belong. The boarding-school setting is a perfect metaphor for this, beginning with shifting in-groups among the students themselves, extending to the distinctions between the older and younger students, and eventually moving into the outside world, where having been to such a school at all is both a mark of privilege and a handicap.

One might even say that it has a metaphysical component, questioning whether a life led in accordance with rules set by an unseen power that can change them at a whim is worth living at all. What, in short, do any of us live for? Ishiguro's answer in this book seems to be that you simply have to live as best you can. I find it a strangely reassuring one.
36 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Slow, long and repetitive

How could this novel be nominated for a Man Booker Prize? I've read lots of books, and some I don't like very much but at least I can appreciate the structure and the beauty in the writing. Not with this one. It didn't produce anything... not a tear, a laugh or a thrill... flat story, flat characters, rainy days, slow, long, repetitive and predictable.
30 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Like sheep to the slaughter

If you are looking for a sleep-aid, this is a terrific book. I got about three weeks of slumber out of it, biting off twenty or so pages a night before passing out of boredom.

As a novel of ideas this is a huge disappointment. There is undoubtedly much to say about the ethics of cloning humans for the sole purpose of organ harvesting, but Ishiguro has failed to say it. For starters, the presumed rationale for using clones, as opposed to say, poor or mentally handicapped people, would most likely be (as I understand it is in the critically unacclaimed "The Island") that they are more readily accepted by the person from whom the genes were originally taken. Not here. There appears to be no relationship whatever between clone and "original"--parts is parts, as they say.

In fact, the relationship between the world of the clones and regular folks is touched on only sporadically here--hugely frustrating for the reader. Clones are raised in murky settings: we only get to see a faux boarding school which stands as the apex of the system, less fortunate clones are said to be raised in horrible manner, but we have no way of knowing since our narrator never ventures beyond her own narrow social strata.

This is the second "serious" Brit-novel I've read this summer--the other being Saturday by Ian McEwan--and while I was disappointed with the other one at the time, the tediousness of this one makes me appreciate it more in retrospect. At least McEwan attempts to grapple with the menace of sudden, inexplicable violence against a smug, self-satisfied, but fairly likeable English family. The attacks on a Brain surgeon and his artsy fartsy family by a (literally) diseased thug are not only believable in themselves, but stand in neatly as a metaphor for the threat posed by terrorism. Though it too is "talky" there is some action to break up the narrator's self-obsessive ruminations. It wraps up a bit too neatly for my taste (very neo-Victorian, that) and while our heroes get scrappy they never lose their souls. Hear, hear.

Ishiguro's characters, by contrast, end with a whimper. The world they inhabited, which gave their lives a semblance of meaning and order, turns out to have been an elaborate stage construct. With all hope lost, they shuffle off to the wings, silently. Ironically, at the novel's climax, several of the characters pose the question of whether clones possess souls. Based on my reading, the answer is no, though I doubt that is what Ishiguro had in mind.
30 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Engrossing, albeit not perfect

I finished "Never Let Me Go" with enormous relief. I could not stop reading it until the end, it was engrossing, but this novel evoked in me very strong emotions despite the fact, that the language is almost ascetic (a big plus) and the actual descriptions of emotions are virtually non-existent (typical for Ishiguro).

The narrator is Kathy H, a woman my own age, who recalls her childhood in a boarding school, Hailsham, and slow uncovering of the secrets, which are hidden or half-revealed. Kathy is intelligent and questioning, and together with her friends, Ruth and Tommy, comes very close to the truth.

Very early on in the book we learn that the children are reared to be donors of organs and their life after school is carefully programmed. The school exists, however, to give them some dignity in life and is run by some enthusiasts who want to prove that the students are no less human than ordinary people.

I got very angry with the students for not being more active and rebellious. Kathy, Tommy and Ruth ask questions, but they go on with their lives as they are expected to, although there is no mention of punishments or ordeals, which await those who try to get out of the scheme. It is implied that nobody did. Why? At the same time, I cannot believe, that the guardians who wanted to prove that their students had souls, seem not to believe it strong enough themselves!

I came across an interview with Ishiguro where he claims that the book is optimistic because of the natural dignity of the students, that they are undoubtedly human although their lives are so miserable. I did not catch this optimism at all, I was left with the feeling of hopelessness. Does it mean that the author failed to deliver his most important message? This novel is very good, it must be, otherwise it would not be so moving, yet something is not there... Also, I had a profound feeling of déjà vu ("Brave New World"? "The Island"?), the science-fiction metaphor of human life is not new, therefore four stars.
28 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

This is NOT a sci-fi horror novel....and what's PETA got to do with this?

This is NOT a sci-fi cloning "Nightmare in Hailsham" by the creators of the late Dolly the clone sheep. It is, however, a story about the human spirit coming through in the most unexpected circumstances.

As far as I can tell, Ishiguro has no plans to write a sequel to appease the few vocal readers who miss the boat here: there will be no "Episode II: The Revenge of the Kath" where Kathy H. takes the clone nation in her hands, leads the carers and donors to topple the regime through cunning, deceit, sarcasm, civil disobedience.....

The strange and macabre premise may be hard to fathom, but this ain't Michael Crichton, people. Don't look for water-tight scientific premises and action and counterreaction. One must look for deeper meanings conjured by such a premise, and not just be bogged down at wondering about the premise, in order to fully appreciate this book. I have read the book a week ago and the thought provocations continue daily. It is a haunting and chilling story.

This is a book that requires the reader to confront the similarities of his/her current life with those of the subjects in the story: if Kathy, Tommy, and Ruth and their friends are so accepting and not challenging the doomed premise that awaits them, it is because that world is the only world they know, as flawed and cruel as it obviously seems when the reader examines it from the outside.

In that sense, what about us? We may not be "completing" to the same cruel degree as the subjects in the book, but the modern life has certainly weighed down heavily on all of us: stress, depression, anxiety, family/marital breakdown are abundant reminders. Aren't we just accepting all of this as "all part of our modern-day lives" just as readily as the subjects in the story are accepting their fate? And how amazing that from the strange and improbable premise created by Ishiguro can come such revealing lesson about our own world?

Glory, I am sorry to single you out, but you stood at the wrong vantage point from which to review this book, and your calling this a "dumb book" after your faulty assessment is rather unfortunately revealing of your missing the point: this is least of all a sci-fi horror story. It has something to do with cloning, yes, but PETA has nothing to do with this book, and if you bring that into your discussion, it really makes one doubt that you understood the book at all.

It's not how strange and ultimately unrealistic the premise that should be your focus: Ishiguro has said this in countless interviews about this book. It is a story about how these children grow up in their second-class world and how they struggle to let their humanity come through even though it might not matter at all in the end. It is a story about how we should examine our world to see whether we are letting any of our unique values come through before we ourselves march through the accepted algorithm of "school-more school-job-retire-death," toward our "completion."

An endlessly intriguing book, that leaves just the right things unanswered and just enough holes unplugged, to let the enlightened reader exercise his/her mind during the read and for a good while after.
28 people found this helpful