Why do you think the three friends never tried to escape their ultimate fate? Why hope for a deferral but never try to find their freedom away from the school? This is something that many reviewers of the novel have expressed with great surprise and even dismay.
Mainstream ideological narratives have instilled into us the belief that within all of us there is an unquenchable thirst for freedom and that we all equate having independence and agency with being human. Never Let Me Go highlights to us that for some in the world, the desire for a purpose and interdependency in life holds a lot more value than some perceived notion of freedom or rebellion against the status quo. To answer why Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy do not escape their horrible fate, it is imperative, in my opinion, that we leave behind grandiose notions of breaking free and focus on the small rebellious acts done by the three friends. I do believe that when we focus on this particular aspect, we see the clones acquiring as much freedom as they can under the constraints of their social conditioning because they have grown up with a gradual understanding of the trajectory of their lives, are accustomed to the natural-born people’s position of control and are accepting of their role as donors.
In sociology, there exists a phenomenon known as “everyday resistance” and is employed by underprivileged groups to make their life bearable without outright opposing the existing social order. Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy’s position is perfectly explained in the following quote by sociologist Daniel Brook. He states, “Open conflict rarely produces material benefits; indeed, most often it produces repression and severe punishment. Everyday resistance, on the other hand, may garner just enough material reward and social satisfaction to make life a little more bearable” (Brook 266). And this is exactly what Ishiguro’s clones do and just because their idea of escapism is different, we the readers with our conventional mentalities comprehend it as infallible passivity. One example of this is Ruth, Rodney, and Chrissie visiting carers before being one themselves. Another would be Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy climbing through a barbed wire fence on their way to viewing the boat from a distance and making a symbolic escape.
Moreover, I think Kazuo Ishiguro portrays to us our own inability to escape. Why do we accept the current world as it is? Why aren’t more of us rebelling against the stronghold that capitalism has on our lives? Why have we done nothing about the countless human rights abuses taking place in the world right now? The answer to these questions is the same as the answer to the question of why the three friends never escape their ultimate fate; if the circumstances are right, people can and will remain passively complicit in their own suppression just as they become resigned to their own mortality.
Works Cited
Brock, Daniel. “The Continuum of Collective Action.” Peace Review 13.2 (2001): 265-271. EBSCOhost. Web. 25 Nov. 2012.
In sociology, there exists a phenomenon known as “everyday resistance” and is employed by underprivileged groups to make their life bearable without outright opposing the existing social order. Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy’s position is perfectly explained in the following quote by sociologist Daniel Brook. He states, “Open conflict rarely produces material benefits; indeed, most often it produces repression and severe punishment. Everyday resistance, on the other hand, may garner just enough material reward and social satisfaction to make life a little more bearable” (Brook 266). And this is exactly what Ishiguro’s clones do and just because their idea of escapism is different, we the readers with our conventional mentalities comprehend it as infallible passivity. One example of this is Ruth, Rodney, and Chrissie visiting carers before being one themselves. Another would be Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy climbing through a barbed wire fence on their way to viewing the boat from a distance and making a symbolic escape.
Moreover, I think Kazuo Ishiguro portrays to us our own inability to escape. Why do we accept the current world as it is? Why aren’t more of us rebelling against the stronghold that capitalism has on our lives? Why have we done nothing about the countless human rights abuses taking place in the world right now? The answer to these questions is the same as the answer to the question of why the three friends never escape their ultimate fate; if the circumstances are right, people can and will remain passively complicit in their own suppression just as they become resigned to their own mortality.
Works Cited
Brock, Daniel. “The Continuum of Collective Action.” Peace Review 13.2 (2001): 265-271. EBSCOhost. Web. 25 Nov. 2012.
This is an interesting post, Minahil. Bringing our own reality into it was very much appreciated with this part of your post:
"Moreover, I think Kazuo Ishiguro portrays to us our own inability to escape. Why do we accept the current world as it is? Why aren’t more of us rebelling against the stronghold that capitalism has on our lives? Why have we done nothing about the countless human rights abuses taking place in the world right now? The answer to these questions is the same as the answer to the question of why the three friends never escape their ultimate fate; if the circumstances are right, people can and will remain passively complicit in their own suppression just as they become resigned to their own mortality."
Can you each think of ways that we are complicit in our own suppression? Isn't that a bigger point overall from the novel: these young people just allow this to happen to them when they know what their fate will be. It is shocking, sad, and to think we are similar should be horrifying for us. But if we also think our lives are bearable and even good, maybe we are not aware of our realities (meaning we don't think we are suppressed in any way) which would be a big difference from the characters of our book.
At the same time, here is my question to you, Minahil, is it really a conventional mentality to want to survive? Your suggestion is that we, the reader, is the one to blame for our desire to have Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy escape. But it is not human instinct to want to survive?
"Moreover, I think Kazuo Ishiguro portrays to us our own inability to escape. Why do we accept the current world as it is? Why aren’t more of us rebelling against the stronghold that capitalism has on our lives? Why have we done nothing about the countless human rights abuses taking place in the world right now? The answer to these questions is the same as the answer to the question of why the three friends never escape their ultimate fate; if the circumstances are right, people can and will remain passively complicit in their own suppression just as they become resigned to their own mortality."
Can you each think of ways that we are complicit in our own suppression? Isn't that a bigger point overall from the novel: these young people just allow this to happen to them when they know what their fate will be. It is shocking, sad, and to think we are similar should be horrifying for us. But if we also think our lives are bearable and even good, maybe we are not aware of our realities (meaning we don't think we are suppressed in any way) which would be a big difference from the characters of our book.
At the same time, here is my question to you, Minahil, is it really a conventional mentality to want to survive? Your suggestion is that we, the reader, is the one to blame for our desire to have Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy escape. But it is not human instinct to want to survive?
Thank you for your input, Dr. Dipaolo!
I firmly believe that it is human instinct that craves survival but I, in my post wanted to highlight how survival means different things for different people. We, as readers expect Tommy, Kathy, and Ruth to make a grandiose escape. I think a small part of all of us who started reading Never Let Me Go expected the climax of the book to be an act of escape by the three friends. I think that we project our simplest notions of freedom onto the characters and thus when we see the characters in the book going in a different direction, we ask the question: why didn't they escape?
I firmly believe that it is human instinct that craves survival but I, in my post wanted to highlight how survival means different things for different people. We, as readers expect Tommy, Kathy, and Ruth to make a grandiose escape. I think a small part of all of us who started reading Never Let Me Go expected the climax of the book to be an act of escape by the three friends. I think that we project our simplest notions of freedom onto the characters and thus when we see the characters in the book going in a different direction, we ask the question: why didn't they escape?
Something that struck me about this novel is the lack of social and life skills that the students gain during their time at Hailsham. For example, they do not learn to drive until they receive their training at the cottages. I wonder the extent to which this system of providing students with only the necessary skills prevents them from escaping their futures. In other words, would they know how to fit into society if they did escape? That said, I also think that people find comfort in what is familiar, which may also influence why they did not leave.
That struck me too, Nicole! They were taught things they'd need to know specifically for the life that was set out for them, so the necessary skills as you said. Escaping was never an option as Ishiguro never explored that part in the book. When I was reading there were moments I wondered why they would not just escape. Like when Tommy and Kathy found out that deferrals weren't a thing at all. Surely after that meeting with Miss Emily they could have driven off and never looked back? Although they do not want to 'complete' they do not necessarily fight against it either. At most, their goal is deferral and not exemption. But then I remembered that in the assigned video, Ishiguro mentioned that this novel was not about that, trying to heroically escape as many novels like it would have explored. I think the bottom line of it is that the children of Hailsham were taught to fulfil their destiny, which was seen to be for the greater good of others. It was instilled in them so much that they did not even have thoughts to escape. This is true especially when we are taught something at an early age, challenging anything is close to unimaginable.
Thinking of it from outside the book and into the real world, I echo some points raised by Minahil that Ishiguro portrays our own inability to escape some of the realities of the world that we face. Many of us are like Tommy, Ruth and Kathy and the children in Hailsham, who do not challenge certain norms and accept them as is. We tend to accept our fates and fail to see a wider perspective. This is heavily influenced by the societies we are raised in, some societies are more conforming than others. Analyzing this book is through a lens of people who have more freedom and autonomy than the characters, so we would be quick to question why they did not escape because that seems like something we would at least try to do. However again, it was not Ishiguro's goal as he wanted to show a side of people who do not revolt.
Thinking of it from outside the book and into the real world, I echo some points raised by Minahil that Ishiguro portrays our own inability to escape some of the realities of the world that we face. Many of us are like Tommy, Ruth and Kathy and the children in Hailsham, who do not challenge certain norms and accept them as is. We tend to accept our fates and fail to see a wider perspective. This is heavily influenced by the societies we are raised in, some societies are more conforming than others. Analyzing this book is through a lens of people who have more freedom and autonomy than the characters, so we would be quick to question why they did not escape because that seems like something we would at least try to do. However again, it was not Ishiguro's goal as he wanted to show a side of people who do not revolt.
Thank you, Nicole, for bringing up that point and Mucha for expanding on it. I think this was some of what I was getting at when I talked about social conditioning. I tried to answer the question as best as I could without thinking about the author's intention because I feel that if I had done so I would not have been able to find an answer though it is absolutely important to realize that Ishiguro purpose with this book was different from the mainstream narratives.
Hi Minahil!
I think you answered the question beautifully. I definitely agree with you on the points you raised and you asked some interesting questions at the end too! This was just another perspective I thought to look at it from.
I think you answered the question beautifully. I definitely agree with you on the points you raised and you asked some interesting questions at the end too! This was just another perspective I thought to look at it from.
Thank you, Mucha!
Hi Mucha,
I also drew upon what Ishiguro said about this not being the kind of novel where the people, this was not his focus. In reflecting on this, I realize that some people in this world probably did try to escape, even though they are not talked about by Kathy. In this way, I think that Ishiguro does an excellent job of exploring what happens if people stay in these situations, which is a perspective that is not always captured. Accordingly, I think that the book connects to the contemporary world, as we are also sometimes complacent in bad things, as Minahil pointed out in her post. So, what happens when we stay? The system stays the same and may even grow stronger. What happens when we do not push against capitalism? It expands and continues to dominate.
I also drew upon what Ishiguro said about this not being the kind of novel where the people, this was not his focus. In reflecting on this, I realize that some people in this world probably did try to escape, even though they are not talked about by Kathy. In this way, I think that Ishiguro does an excellent job of exploring what happens if people stay in these situations, which is a perspective that is not always captured. Accordingly, I think that the book connects to the contemporary world, as we are also sometimes complacent in bad things, as Minahil pointed out in her post. So, what happens when we stay? The system stays the same and may even grow stronger. What happens when we do not push against capitalism? It expands and continues to dominate.
I agree with the points you brought up Mucha and Nicole. It did also wonder why life was so limited at Hailsham. It is ingrained in us to live a life of purpose and to achieve our fullest capacities. I think in the space that the clones grew up, in the way they were taught to live, they were achieving their purpose. As Nicole said, they were not taught how to even drive a car and I think even the cottage was a very new experience for them. How would they cope in the real world? Other clones at the cottage expressed how differently Hailsham students are raised. I do think they lived in somewhat isolation that made them okay with their fate of being a carer or a donor. Maybe they felt that surviving donations and giving as many times as their body could was their ultimate goal so they should not try to escape that. Mucha also expressed this and I agree with her, I think many of us are resigned to the fate we see from the lens we were given. For this reason we do not act against the things we see in society that we do not agree with.
Hi Nicole,
This is a great point. In the novel Kathy states that the students are given information in stages and the students generally do no understand. This could be intentional on the part of the guardians who want to ensure that the students cannot function independently and do not became hopeful about their future.
This is a great point. In the novel Kathy states that the students are given information in stages and the students generally do no understand. This could be intentional on the part of the guardians who want to ensure that the students cannot function independently and do not became hopeful about their future.
The children that grew up at Hailsham like the three friends know nothing other than what they are taught at the school. They don't have any outside influences since they don't have families. They grow up knowing their purpose and having to accept that. I think the school purposely didn't prepare them fully for the real world so that there could never be a question of escape or freedom because they are clearly different from the rest of the population. I don't think freedom is something that can even cross their mind, to them there is no such thing and it's not possible.
I like this discussion started by Nicole about the lack of training for the actual world and Emily, you are probably correct that it was absolutely by design to ensure the students were very limited in their perspective. It also speaks to the social conditioning received there and within our own world. Think of your classes at STU. There is a very limited worldview and ideological perspective (almost) regardless of discipline. How do we break out of the social conditioning we receive starting as children and into adulthood within our homes, schools, churches, television, news, etc.? I don't know if we can.
While the novel may simply be about mortality, I don't think intention matters. That's the great thing about art. It is up to the viewer of the art to take out of it whatever meaning they get.
While the novel may simply be about mortality, I don't think intention matters. That's the great thing about art. It is up to the viewer of the art to take out of it whatever meaning they get.
My biggest take away and greatest answer to this question of why they never try to find their freedom is also stated by other students. My thoughts come from socialization: how we grow up, the things we learn, the people that surround us and how the society we grow up in influences who we are as people greatly. Kathy, Ruth, Tommy and the other students from Hailsham didn't know a life outside of their "school", they didn't have a "normal" life at all. Their guardians were teachers, their siblings were each other, they didn't know what life could be like outside of the grounds. They were essentially stuck inside of this small bubble of a world with no sense of what life was like outside of it. Their life was not normal to others, but it was normal to them and because of that they felt at home. They may not have understood the wrongdoing and they grew up with little understanding of what was really happening. It wasn't until their final years when they really put the pieces together. Their fate was something that felt and seemed normal to them because they hadn't known any other way, this is why they didn't flee.
I agree with these points. I think although the three students experienced imposter syndrome often, wondered why they became clones, and questioned who they were cloned after, they were more scared to leave their situation. Although they were unhappy and knew their fate, it seems that they still somehow accepted their reason for existence. This ending feels like it was specifically chosen by the author to invoke strong feelings by the reader and make the reader see the scenario of a sad ending. I don't think we, as readers, would have the same strong feelings around human experimentation and have these same conversations if the students successfully escaped and live happily ever after.
I've read my peers points of views. This is a part of the novel which angers me the most because it doesn't makes sense to me. I'm going to critic some things, please don't hate me for it. The overall belief these people achieve freedom in different ways than we do is just incoherent. It is clear that the children knows there is more to life than being donors, they know this when they talk about Ruth's possible, they can imagine lives for themselves working in offices, Tommy and Kath wanted to leave the life they were living, they knew there was more to it. They show some small signs of escape, but they know that they want to be living their own lives, not the one planned for them. They want to live a life together and it's easy to tell. After the visit with Madame and Miss Emily, they could've easily drove away and never came back, but the shock of learning that the 'state', 'society', 'system' or 'government' doesn't want them to was enough to deter them from finding another strategy at the moment. There was nothing holding them back. I agree with Nicole on the other hand that unfortunately they did not have the social skills someone who grew outside of Hailsham would have. This is further demonstrated in the cottages where the student living there would copy people on television to feel more 'normal'. Kathy knew this, she developed a way of seeing things differently from others which is why it made me believe that she would be the one to eventually escape. She was the one with the most experience with the world. She had been a carer longer than anyone else and she'd seen more of the world than the others maybe she would have picked up on social cues. What I found interesting and I brought it up with my group, after I finished the book, I looked into watching the movie and in the trailer, you could see that the children had a 'chip' that would force them to come back and get it scanned in order to show that they were in fact returned from their adventures which would explain why they never deviated from the life that they were 'meant' to live. In the book on the other hand, it's never mentioned which tells me it was added.
This being said there's a saying that goes "Privilege is when you think that something's not a problem because it's not a problem for you personally." -David Gaider It's definitely a problem for the Hailsham student, and eventually when more and more students become aware like Kathy and Tommy, a revolution will happen. Oppressed groups are resilient and one day a talk won't be enough for them to accept their 'fate'. Just like one day we will decide that capitalism is hurting us as a society and only benefits the 1%. We (as a society, I don't mean individuals) don't see it as much of a problem now because it doesn't affect us personally, but eventually it will and people will fight more and more.
I will disagree with another point, a lot of people are fighting injustice and it's currently growing, Gen Z being a big part of it. Just recently they've been fighting gender norms. Candace Owens (somewhat seen as a political figure) critiqued Harry Styles for wearing a dress on the cover of Vogue and said that he is not acting manly enough because he's wearing a dress. This sparked a movement in schools and with men all over the world fighting back and wearing dresses and heels and showing that masculinity and femininity is a social construct, and that everyone should be able to feel comfortable wearing whatever they want. It seems superficial to some people but action is happening everywhere, just this November, voting rates went higher, just so Trump, someone who impacted negatively the rights of many people, would be taken out of office. Younger voters are being more open and they notice how powerful their voices are. Change is happening, people are changing things, so I disagree that people are not fighting for human rights because they are, sometimes it's just not like we believe or perceive it to be.
This being said there's a saying that goes "Privilege is when you think that something's not a problem because it's not a problem for you personally." -David Gaider It's definitely a problem for the Hailsham student, and eventually when more and more students become aware like Kathy and Tommy, a revolution will happen. Oppressed groups are resilient and one day a talk won't be enough for them to accept their 'fate'. Just like one day we will decide that capitalism is hurting us as a society and only benefits the 1%. We (as a society, I don't mean individuals) don't see it as much of a problem now because it doesn't affect us personally, but eventually it will and people will fight more and more.
I will disagree with another point, a lot of people are fighting injustice and it's currently growing, Gen Z being a big part of it. Just recently they've been fighting gender norms. Candace Owens (somewhat seen as a political figure) critiqued Harry Styles for wearing a dress on the cover of Vogue and said that he is not acting manly enough because he's wearing a dress. This sparked a movement in schools and with men all over the world fighting back and wearing dresses and heels and showing that masculinity and femininity is a social construct, and that everyone should be able to feel comfortable wearing whatever they want. It seems superficial to some people but action is happening everywhere, just this November, voting rates went higher, just so Trump, someone who impacted negatively the rights of many people, would be taken out of office. Younger voters are being more open and they notice how powerful their voices are. Change is happening, people are changing things, so I disagree that people are not fighting for human rights because they are, sometimes it's just not like we believe or perceive it to be.
Please don't take this the wrong way, it's just an opinion and I didn't mean to target anyone specifically. :)
Thank you for sharing this, Annabelle. I agree with you that the students did want to have lives as we know them. And it angers me too that they did not try to get it. There are a lot of signs within the novel that suggest that, as you point out. But at the end, they do nothing. There is something telling there too. Maybe it is just thought they were not equipped with the skills to cope or maybe it was, as you noted, because the government would frown upon it. I mean think of all the laws we follow because the government says so. Many of them do nothing beneficial for us yet we follow them anyway.
How many of you in the middle of the night would stop at a red light when there is not another soul around? I know I have waited for the light to turn green. Why? Why do we follow so many rules and just do what our elders or people in authority tell us to do?
How many of you in the middle of the night would stop at a red light when there is not another soul around? I know I have waited for the light to turn green. Why? Why do we follow so many rules and just do what our elders or people in authority tell us to do?
Hi Annabelle! I enjoyed reading your post, so powerful and a lot of great points! Specifically to the end of your post I like that you looked at it beyond the book. I agree with your point that change is happening. Change takes time and it can be frustrating and discouraging when the results of challenging and fighting injustices are not immediate. This might be wishful thinking but I really hope that some day our society unlearns the things that truly hold us back like the example you mentioned regarding the policing of what and who can be masculine and feminine. Just some day man!