Just finished "Never Let Me Go" and would like to discuss (spoiler alert)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where would they go? They have no family or friends to hide them. They are placed in jobs where they are monitored. And they are raised with the belief that this is their purpose.

I think the book speaks to how strongly your environment can condition your behavior. Loved this book when I read it a long time ago.

Fair enough. But our human instincts are to fight for our survival. So it is strange to me that out of thousands and thousands of these clones, all of them just blindly accept this horrible faith.

Thousands of us accept our status quo too.

[Anonymous]

Especially the Care-er. I was surprised she didn't revolt for some reason except she seem to have lost all of her "friends".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the book inspire you to go vegan?

What? No. Why would it?

It could be argued that it’s an allegory for the idyllic vision of pasture-raised animals who live a good life and then have “one bad day”…

No. I don’t think that can be argued at all. You must not have read the book very carefully.

Interesting rebuttal. Lesser beings (the clones) raised for their organs to be harvested by the superior beings (the non clones)… raised in lovely conditions until their parts have grown sufficiently to be useful… there is no chance the superior beings would ever consider the value of the clones lives because their own health/convenience takes precedence…

Am I thinking of the wrong book?

Yes, because it's pretty clear in the book that the clones aren't lesser beings.

And the author is clear that his intention was to examine the human condition and our willingness to submit and not animals.

I'm not the one who suggested the allegory to livestock, but I do find it interesting.

A book can take on meaning beyond what an author intended. And I'm curious if you have a link for the author discussing his intention? It would be an interesting read.

You can do a search on YouTube and watch the interviews he gave about it. Apparently this question came up a lot especially after the movie came out. He said that he didn’t want to write a book about the slaves rebelling because there were enough books about that already. He wanted to examine what happens when we are just conditioned to accept our role and submit. Then the movie director was talking about how this question comes up in the western world but not in places like Japan or Russia because of the different cultural expectations. Fascinating stuff.

[Anonymous]

I don’t know. I mean why don’t any of us rebel? We are just passing time till we lose our own organs one by one. In my view it was saying something quite deep about the human condition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the book inspire you to go vegan?

What? No. Why would it?

It could be argued that it’s an allegory for the idyllic vision of pasture-raised animals who live a good life and then have “one bad day”…

No. I don’t think that can be argued at all. You must not have read the book very carefully.

Np. I got the same feeling as this previous poster with the cattle comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the book inspire you to go vegan?

What? No. Why would it?

It could be argued that it’s an allegory for the idyllic vision of pasture-raised animals who live a good life and then have “one bad day”…

No. I don’t think that can be argued at all. You must not have read the book very carefully.

NP. What an asinine response. If you don't agree with the argument, then say why -- not "you must not have read the book very carefully." Talk about a conversation killer.

[Anonymous]

I read it so long ago but there was one thing that stuck with me because after having kids there was always one kid who would be more out of sorts and easier to anger/disquiet in any given play group. In the book there was a boy like that and she noticed it and it was painful but never gave a root cause. It's interesting because they all should have been like the odd boy out if they had any sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God, I loved this book. One of my all-time favorites.

+1. It's haunting.

+3

[Anonymous]

I think it is allegory for everyone stuck in a situation -- bad marriage, bad job, bad habits, or simply aging -- and realizing it is just the way it is and there is no (plausible) way out of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know. I mean why don’t any of us rebel? We are just passing time till we lose our own organs one by one. In my view it was saying something quite deep about the human condition.

This is one of my favorite books and I read it in grad school. We talked quite a bit about this -- about how people accept fates that are arguably worse than that of those in this book. Especially when conditioned to accept their position. Unfortunately there are many enslaved persons in the world today, who accept their position to the extent that they don't run away or fight. It is troubling -- that such a fate can be accepted, and that such a fate can be imposed. But human beings live through -- they still feel, they still connect. No matter what. There is a lot to think about and talk about with this book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the book inspire you to go vegan?

What? No. Why would it?

It could be argued that it’s an allegory for the idyllic vision of pasture-raised animals who live a good life and then have “one bad day”…

No. I don’t think that can be argued at all. You must not have read the book very carefully.

Interesting rebuttal. Lesser beings (the clones) raised for their organs to be harvested by the superior beings (the non clones)… raised in lovely conditions until their parts have grown sufficiently to be useful… there is no chance the superior beings would ever consider the value of the clones lives because their own health/convenience takes precedence…

Am I thinking of the wrong book?

Yes, because it's pretty clear in the book that the clones aren't lesser beings.

They are *treated* as lesser beings… no wonder you are struggling with this obvious connection to animal agriculture (regardless of what the author may or may not have intended) when you read at such a surface level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the book inspire you to go vegan?

What? No. Why would it?

It could be argued that it’s an allegory for the idyllic vision of pasture-raised animals who live a good life and then have “one bad day”…

No. I don’t think that can be argued at all. You must not have read the book very carefully.

Interesting rebuttal. Lesser beings (the clones) raised for their organs to be harvested by the superior beings (the non clones)… raised in lovely conditions until their parts have grown sufficiently to be useful… there is no chance the superior beings would ever consider the value of the clones lives because their own health/convenience takes precedence…

Am I thinking of the wrong book?

Yes, because it's pretty clear in the book that the clones aren't lesser beings.

They are *treated* as lesser beings… no wonder you are struggling with this obvious connection to animal agriculture (regardless of what the author may or may not have intended) when you read at such a surface level.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the book inspire you to go vegan?

What? No. Why would it?

It could be argued that it’s an allegory for the idyllic vision of pasture-raised animals who live a good life and then have “one bad day”…

No. I don’t think that can be argued at all. You must not have read the book very carefully.

Interesting rebuttal. Lesser beings (the clones) raised for their organs to be harvested by the superior beings (the non clones)… raised in lovely conditions until their parts have grown sufficiently to be useful… there is no chance the superior beings would ever consider the value of the clones lives because their own health/convenience takes precedence…

Am I thinking of the wrong book?

Yes, because it's pretty clear in the book that the clones aren't lesser beings.

They are *treated* as lesser beings… no wonder you are struggling with this obvious connection to animal agriculture (regardless of what the author may or may not have intended) when you read at such a surface level.

NP. Yes they are treated as lesser beings, but I agree with the PP who said that the book shows that the clones aren’t “lesser”. Or shouldn’t be considered as lesser. They have the same complex feelings, emotions, they can do art… And yeah, I admit I didn’t see any connection to animal agriculture at all. Perhaps it was a surface level read, but I also didn’t like the book (rather slow and tedious, lots of mundane descriptions that didn’t lead anywhere) so I read it quickly to get it over with. Frankly, if the author weren’t a Nobel laureate, it would’ve been a DNF.

[Anonymous]

I thought the way sex was discussed was fascinating. And the boat allegory. It would have been good to read in book club.

[Anonymous]

If you all liked this one, he has a more recent book (Klara and the Sun) that explores some similar themes.