Originality? Functionality? Individuality? Community? Friendship? Love? Justice?

What is the defining feature of humanity? And who is entitled to that definition? Raising harrowing questions in a dystopian England, "Never Let Me Go" seems to be one of those highly divisive books that you either love or hate with a passion.

I loved it, every single word of it, from the beginning to completion.

To complete, a word that implies a special kind of duty and function in the strange alternative post-1945 society described through the eyes of a couple of friends and lovers, - to complete a life, what does it take? Are you a complete human being regardless of how you were conceived? Are you complete even if you share your DNA with somebody else, somebody with higher priorities, and a more privileged position? Are you complete even if your role in society is to serve as a convenient tool for others?

How much of you is shaped by your upbringing, the drilling of a rigid ideology fed to you in an omnipresent, omniscient education system, leaving no options but the ones decided upon by others? Are you complete even if you are moulded carefully to fulfill an external purpose?

When you complete the mission forced upon you, is the sum of your life what you gave to society, or what you secretly stole from it to keep for yourself?

For me, the answer is: you are a complete human being when you manage to see who you are, to reflect on it, and to make emotional and intellectual decisions based on your situation. If you think, see, feel and love, you are a complete human being, no matter what an oppressive, obscene and dehumanising society does to you on a larger scale.

If your thoughts and feelings are yours, and you are able to share them with other human beings, you are complete. In the positive sense of the word. When you complete, you will have lived. Maybe more than the people who fed on your body to add minutes and hours and days and months and years to their own privileged lives.

Never let go of your humanity!

Went into this completely blind after only really seeing the hype behind it… what a heartbreaking surprise.

A novel like an understated, wrapped in velvet iron fist right in the feels.
When I was 16 I focussed on the parse, plain prose, on world building and implausibilities; now I cried repeatedly because deep down, in a sense I feel our lives are how main character Kathy H. describes hers
But in the end, we can’t stay together forever.

Probably the first review here that I start with a youtube link, but this song (based on the book instead of the other way around) really does capture the style of this tale quite well: https://youtu.be/4UX6tzE7P44

This is one of those books that in a sense work (much) better while rereading it and knowing more of the main premise. I read this story first in 2006, and I think I cried when the movie came out with Keira Knightley and Andrew Garfield, but now all the subtle foreshadowing really tugs on heartstrings. Till chapter 7 as a reader you are kept as much in the dark as the 10 till 13 year olds at the special boarding school Hailsham Never Let Me Go is set.

Growing up special...
None of you will go to America, none of you will be film stars. And none of you will be working in supermarkets as I heard some of you planning the other day. Your lives are set out for you.

The skill how Kazuo Ishiguro paints the experiences of growing up on a boarding school, capturing the essence of schoolkids Tommy (repressed anger mixed in with a desperate wish to fit in) and Ruth (seemingly strong willed and a leader but at times lying and bluffing to get this impressions to stick), is excellent.

How he uses a small aside sentence, focussing on how every student of Hailsham wants to be favoured by a guardian, to feel special besides the confines of their small drawer with personal belongings, procured from secondhand shops and each other’s creative output, draws the slightly menacing atmosphere so well.
Or the magic realistic child thinking of Norfolk as a lost corner of England, where everything one has lost can be found back, like the lost corner in the school.
All absolutely heartbreaking when you know more of the purpose of the school.

The fickleness of memory (especially when it concerns a narrator whose role is potentially morally ambiguous while looking back on the past) is another aspect that is done masterfully by Ishiguro, and will be familiar to readers of the The Remains of the Day and the An Artist of the Floating World.

... ending up universally touching
‘But think of it. You were lucky pawns. There was a certain climate, and now its gone. You have to accept that sometimes that’s how things happen in the world. People’s opinions, their feelings, they go one way, then the other. It just do happens you grew up at a certain point in this process.’
‘It might be just some trend that came and went’ I said. ‘But for us, it’s our life.’

Self determination and free will, nature vs nurture, mortality as something that is told to everyone but also not told in a profound manner, comes back more and more in part 2 and 3 of the book.
Part 2 is still in many senses a bildung novel, with a lot of ambiguity of feelings and intentions, characters wanting to be liked versus liking oneself: the staple for any teenager growing up. Here Ishiguro even outdoes Michael Cunningham in depicting three way relationships in all their complexity.

What was special for me on rereading was how for the first time I started to realise that the H. and E. as surname might not be to anonymous talk about classmate, but just a designation.
We all know it. We’re modelled from trash. Junkies, prostitutes, winos, tramps. Convicts, maybe, just so long they aren’t psychos. That’s what we come from. We all know it, so why don’t we say it.
Would that be true and explains Ruth lying, Tommy’s anger, Kathy’s urges?
In the end this theory seems to be invalidated, but still that was a new perspective in rereading the book as well.

There is a dark promise of what happens when humanism fails with advanced technology at hand, with the Hailsham students alienated from regular society
I realized, of course, that other people used these roads; but that night, it seemed to me these dark byways of the country existed just for the likes of us, while the big glittering motorways with their huge signs and super cafés were for everyone else.

Part 3 is in its core mainly focussed around the realisation of mortality.
How we, as the Hailsham students, will lose everything in the end, but keep on living on nonetheless, with this knowledge:
I keep thinking about this river somewhere, with the water moving really fast. And these two people in the water, trying to hold on to each other, holding on 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. That’s how I think it is with us. It’s a shame because we loved each other all our lives. But in the end, we can’t stay together forever.

This book is scary. Not because it’s horror in the common sense of the word. But because it’s terrifying that we might reach a point in society where children and people are so violated and used. And worse, complying. This isn’t a happy book. There’s no rebellion. This is a harsh story from the perspective of someone so okay with how they’re regarded. Not because the characters are stupid but because this is what they’re told and raised to believe.


I recommend this book especially to the fans of The Handmaid's Tale. The narration style is different from the usual but I didn’t mind it. Kathy’s voice was a bit detached telling her story but I believe it was all part of the book and how society shaped her. It was certainly different from anything I read recently. I’m also glad I didn’t consider reading it when I was younger because I would’ve appreciated it less.

Sublime... simply sublime. 31 year old Kathy recounts her life, and those of her friends, from an entire childhood spent at a boarding school, to an adulthood spent as a carer -slowly, page by page, using Kathy as the narrator the shocking reality of the group's lives is revealed.

I give this book all my bookish love, for the slowly revealed horror of the protagonists' existences, the harrowing lives they lead, and most of all for forever haunting me with this exquisite speculative fiction masterclass. How did Kazuo do it? He entwined beautiful and subtle underplayed romances with the horror of their lives - yet, on completion, I realised that these romances were profound, epic and essential to the story! What can I say, other than - Holey Hannah Montana, I am so Happy that I have further Kazuo Ishiguro books to read! 'Ate out of 12..

The girls that get it get it (not me)

That was a little joke, I managed to grasp the point of this book. I would describe it as a dystopian novel exploring the purpose of life.
Without spoiling much, I'm going to point out a few things I liked and didn't like.
As usual, I found the idea or the concept of this book VERY interesting. It's something I can (except for when the book is just a piece of trash) enjoy. I understand why it had to be or, let's say, was written. I found the characters quite versatile which I like. Each one of them (3-4 main characters with side characters of no importance whatsoever) told their own story and presented their take on the situation they found themselves in and that's beautiful.
But the book had many issues.
1) The writing - it's a first person perspective, something that is in my opinion rarely good and this wasn't one of those cases. The sentences were way too simple (3rd grader level of simple). The message was strong but I didn't highlight a single sentence.
2) The beginning - very confusing, took about a 100 pages to start making any sense
3) The big mystery was revealed on the 60th page and nothing happened since - self-explanatory
4) connected to reason 3, the book had barely any plot

To conclude this messy review (staying true to my nature), I'm glad I've read this book since it's very popular and loved, but I'm also disappointed cuz the potential was there but not used whatsoever.
Have you read it? Tell me your opinions in the comments, I love to engage with you

The thing I enjoy most about Ishiguro’s writing is the sheer level of depth he gets into his characters; he captures all the intensity of real emotions whether they are self-serving or destructive. His writing style is simple, plain even, but he builds up many layers within his storytelling to unleash the full symphony of conflicted feelings in powerful bursts.

However, I saw none of his brilliance here.

Indeed, for all his talent, I don’t think this novel was as effective as The Remains of the Day or even When We Were Orphans. For me. this is a lesser novel by a great writer.

This is his most popular work, and his most critically acclaimed, and I think that’s only because of the particular themes he explores here. This is science-fiction, but I prefer the term pseudo-science fiction. It’s slightly futuristic, but the fictional elements are relatively comparable to what man can do today. Vivisection transplant is nothing new. Organ donors are nothing new. This book is very similar to the movie “The Island” (2005) where a select group of people have special clones bred for the singular purpose of providing them with replacement body parts.

What I find interesting is how these two were released so close together. For me, such forms of artifice reflect the worries and concerns of that decade. Discussions over designer babies and animal rights issues (in regards to testing, transplants and cloning) were often in the media. If we look back to the Victorians, the elements in the literature reflected the concerns of the age. This is true for all literary movements; I just used this one for an example, but the point is I think this novel reflects an aspect of the time in which it was written. And for me that’s why I think it’s worthy of study, it's timely.

But did I enjoy it?

Not overly. Do I think it is a success artistically and dramatically? Not really. For me the novel continuously fails to deliver. The retrospective narrative remains detached from the happenings. Granted, the voice has lost all sense of hope and is looking back at a life of sorrow and incompleteness, but it just didn’t have a sense of life. You could say that’s because she is semi-human in the state imposed on her, but, for me, it was too despairing. And that’s coming from someone who counts Edgar Allan Poe amongst his favourite authors.

The inability of the characters to question the situation also somewhat puzzled me. Surely, they must have had some glimpses of thought that considered their present situation an injustice? There was a lack of inquisitiveness into the morality of the situation. And this, when paired with their complete failure of recognising their own feelings about each other, made the narrative feel slightly incomplete. They didn’t seem to look beyond their own situation. As a reader, we make our own judgement calls, but where were theirs? A certain emotional immaturity, that bordered on the absurd, ran through the work.

Overall, I can see why this book is so popular. But I don’t think it’s all that. Ishiguro’s other books are much more accomplished.

Facebook| Twitter| Insta| Academia

I loved this novel not so much for its gothic darkness, but for the questions it raised. It seems chillingly plausible that any cruelty, carried on long enough, will be accepted as the norm by humanity-especially if it benefits the majority (like providing an endless supply of organs). We manage this by dehumanising the victims. India's untouchables and America's slaves are just two of the examples. Even when we, as "enlightened" human beings, look back in disgust at such historical injustices, shouldn't we ask ourselves the question: "Am I any different?" I constantly do, and am frightened by the answer sometimes...

The writing of the novel is weak compared to "Remains of the Day", and the main plot device (art and literature providing evidence for the "soul") is rather trite, but Ishiguro must be congratulated in creating a future which is a dystopia only from the main protagonists' point of view, and drawing us into the same and making us feel the horror. The novel is science fiction in a sense, and gothic in another, but I would hesitate to include it under either category because ultimately it addresses the ephemeral nature of human existence from the viewpoint of a doomed character, and thus grows beyond any genre categorisation.

I would recommend it wholeheartedly to any lover of serious literature.

There's no doubt about it, “Never Let Me Go” gives a picture of the '90s that isn't nearly as pretty as the folks on 90210. In the book, you’ll find a dystopia where everything seems perfect. But the sad truth is that this world isn't perfect for everyone. And it's definitely not perfect for Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy. I don't want to spill all the beans here, so I’ll just say this: these three friends are in for a wild ride. Over time, they'll learn about their true (and dark) purpose in this funky world and why they have had such a special childhood.  See, they aren't exactly human like the rest of us… or are they? And what does it even mean to be human in the first place?  While they wrestle with that question themselves they'll also figure out just how important friendship and their memories of growing up together will be in the face of some seriously high stakes.

“Never Let Me Go” can seem misleadingly simple. It’s easy-going narrator, Kathy, talks to us like we're gossiping with her over tea and biscuits, which is fun and all --but the story as a whole is about the steady erosion of hope, about repressing what you know, and about how many of us can't reach out and grasp the happiness right in front of us. This book can get pretty deep. The thing is, Kathy's chatty style and her mysterious story just make me want to read more. Sure, there are some dark moments that make you think, but the page-turning nature of the book means you won't get paralyzed by the deep stuff.

There are oodles of reasons to pick up “Never Let Me Go” and -- dare I say it?-- never let it go. But the best reason will be: FRIENDS. Life would be pretty dull without good friends with whom to share good times, but the truth is that not all friendships are perfect. There are bound to be fights, squabbles, and even falling outs. But having experienced all these things means you'll fit right in with Kathy and her pals. The novel gives us a good long look at what happens when friendships don't always go according to plan. Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy have had their fair share of tiffs and bruised egos. The trio has even gone years without talking. Nevertheless, their friendships still endure the test of time (and a bunch of other tests, to boot). Reading about this trio may just make you a better friend, too.

Kazuo Ishiguro is a master of human emotion and interaction, he captures these in this book perfectly. He has chosen a surprisingly modern and deep topic with important parallels to life today. What is happening is implied, not spelled out. We are required to observe. Even the events themselves are amenable to different interpretations -- but “Never Let Me Go” is a book that makes you think, maybe even more than you want to, about our society and ethics.

--->EXCERPT<---

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.

I own this movie and have watched it many times (including today). I always thought it was so very sad and I never knew there was a book about it until friends on Goodreads had it listed. The book is just as sad and of course has more things added in that the movie did not. The book shares a lot more about the donors childhood at Hailsham.

The main characters are Kath, Ruth and Tommy. They all grew up together at Hailsham and were together later at the cottages and later at the end. Well, at least Kath was with them at their end.



Kath and Tommy seemed to be having a little thing start up with them as kids but Ruth pushed in and took over with Tommy. I'm not sure why Kath or Tommy never pushed Ruth away. You really know in the movie and maybe a little in the book that Ruth wanted it that way. But she later apologizes for it.

These poor kids are growing up in this place thinking things are so normal. Until finally one day a teacher tells them what they truly are, they are donors. They were raised as a sort of clone of someone else and when they grew up they were to be used as donors for other people. Their lives were to be nothing. This didn't really bother them too much when they found out because I guess they thought that was just life. They never really knew about the outside world until they went to the cottages at age 16. They stayed there until it was time to donate or unless they signed up to be a carer like Kath did. This means she just goes around and gives the donors comfort. But they were all together for a while at the cottages trying to live a normal little life there.





Later on when Kath finds Ruth again when she's in the hospital and on her second donation, they go and find Tommy. Ruth apologizes to them for keeping them apart for all of those years. She tries to help by finding them information to see if they can have a few more years together since they are in love.



This really is a very sad story for these people. If you watch the movie you will see how much more sad it can be, showing one of them dying on the table after the last donation. It's just disturbing and just the thought that the world COULD actually do something like this to people.

Either way, I loved the book and the movie.

MY BLOG: Melissa Martin's Reading List

This is the second time I have read this book - I could only remember liking it and not much more so I really wanted to reread this now that Kazuo Ishiguro has won the Nobel Prize for Literature. And I am certainly glad I did.

The novel is speculative fiction but that speculative part is only at the periphery of the meditation on what makes us human, what makes live worth living, what friendship can do for us and how to make the most of the time we have been given. It is a novel about growing up, about friendship and love, about trust and betrayal, and about loss more than anything else. Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy grow up on what at the beginning sounds like a normal boarding school but as the book progresses turns out to be something else completely. The story is told more or less chronologically by Kathy looking back at her life and greatly influenced by how she sees the world.

This time around Kathy struck me even more so than before as an unreliable narrator. She wants to see the world a certain way and makes everything else fit into that narrative. She puts her head in the sand and refuses to see the horrific reality of her life and those of her friends. But even more so, her relationship with Ruth is what made me think. Ruth sounds awful, do not get me wrong, but then again Kathy always goes out of her way to excuse her own behaviour while only paying lip service to Ruth's intentions. Kathy's snide remarks are always in reaction to something Ruth has supposedly done or thought. I liked how Ishiguro made their friendship so ambiguous and how the interactions have different layers to them. It added so much to my reading enjoyment and made me think about narrators in fiction and how we tend to trust them unless they make it clear that they are unreliable.

I adored the way Ishiguro tells his story, thoughtful and slowly and very clever. He builds an atmosphere of both dread and melancholy while creating highly believable characters. It is genre fiction with literary aspects which just is my favourite.

This book absolutely should have won the Hugo award for 2006. It wasn't nominated. Why? Because it was shortlisted for the Booker Prize? Because the author's other novels aren't science fiction? I don't know. But it is definitely the most significant, disturbing, haunting - and enjoyable - recent SF novel that I have read.

In an alternate-reality England of the 1990s, a woman named Kathy reminisces about her childhood at a school called Hailsham. Her experiences, at first, are those that might seem normal – both the joys and travails – to anyone familiar with British boarding schools. And of course, Kathy does perceive her experiences as having been "normal," because, like everyone, she sees her past only in the context of her own experiences. But, as we quickly realize, from our perspective, Kathy's life is not normal at all. She, and all the students at Hailsham, are clones created solely for the purpose of organ donation.

What's exceptional about this book it how Ishiguro created a tense book, with a creeping sensation of growing horror, solely through the voice and perceptions of Kathy – who, although intelligent and creative, is essentially a passive character, a product of lifelong conditioning and training to accept her fate as inevitable duty.

Nearly everything is told to the reader "between the lines" – The characters themselves are naiively unaware of the dreadful pathos of their lives. We never even really see the "villains" in this society (although the reader is led to think of questions of bioethics and what people in our own reality are also willing to do - people in this world do already die because others want their healthy organs).
The title works as a metaphor for the whole book, in a way – if we asked Kathy what "Never Let Me Go" means, she would tell you it was the title of a song on a secondhand tape that she listened to (and misunderstood) as a girl – but as readers, we can see that it refers to the creation of a situation where, even without guards or electrified fences, human beings are trapped so deeply by their own selves that the concept of fleeing a dreadful end (which they do realize is dreadful) doesn't once even occur to them.

It is clear that it has occurred to Ishiguro, however, when he gives us a scene where children are discussing prison camps with electrified fences, and the guardians are explicitly uncomfortable. The fences around these people are not electrified, nor tangible, but they are just as real - and they continue to exist even when physical 'freedom' is granted.