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.

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.

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.

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?

There are few modern books that I think will last the test of time- this will. It's a masterpiece.

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.

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”…

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

What? No. Why would it?

Did the book inspire you to go vegan?

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.

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

+1. It's haunting.

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

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.

+1, I read it this way too (also read it a long time ago).

I think you could tell a different story about a similar idea where the donors did rebel or flee. But Ishiguro's books don't tend to involve dramatic personal choice. He rights about people (or in some cases, AI) in psychologically interesting and difficult situations, and focuses on the drama of them understanding, processing, and living with these situations. It's compelling because it's so identifiable to most people -- the vast majority of people find ways to live with uncomfortable and sometimes even abhorrent personal realities, whether it's abuse, oppression, mental health issues, etc. It becomes normal and you survive. Ishiguro's characters are generally extremely typical people, not outliers, not rebels and renegades. This is actually something I really like about his writing.

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.

Really enjoyed his style of writing and couldn't put it down until I finished it.

This book can spark a discussion for hours, but one that I can't shake off is why they just didn't run away and not donate?

The book never addresses this. Sure, they tried to get permission to defer, but there is no mention of anyone ever rebelling or simply refusing to donate. Why is that?