Talk:Never Let Me Go (novel)

Translation of translated title

Retranslation (back into english) of translated title seems faulty:

Dutch: "Laat me nooit alleen" (Never leave me)

I'm German and once lived close to dutch border. Dutch is pretty similar to German, too.

Therefore my educated guess on the meaning of
"Laat me nooit alleen" is
"Lass mich nicht allein" in German which literally translates into
"Let me not alone" or to put it into correct grammar
"Don't leave me alone" in English

The close resemblance of the first three sentences makes me confident in my educated guess.

By the way the German title is
"Alles, was wir geben mussten" (All we had to give).
Please note that "had to" is used as past tense to "must".

--84.63.159.136 (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I can confirm (as a bonafide Dutchy) the translation is wrong in a literal sense (and you deduced its meaning correctly), this can attributed to the poetic license the Dutch translator/publisher have taken , as with the German title, even though the close resemblance to the English title might be confusing. 81.206.39.122 (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Plot

The plot synopsis is very detailed... but it does not anywhere explain that the children are clones and are being grown to donate their vital organs! I have not read the book and so don't know where to insert it but all of a sudden we're talking about "donors" with no clue as to what that means. 10:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.128.75 (talk)

But that's one of the main strengths of the book: It's never clearly explained. Read the book.--Oneiros (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I came here with the same comment. Maybe the vagueness could be stated in the introduction? A vague plot summary is no more an adequate summary of an ambiguous book than a cut-up plot dump is an adequate summary of The Soft Machine! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.193.109 (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The plot summary shouldn't be written in the style of the book, it should simply be a summary of the plot of the book. We don't need to worry about spoilers or trying to work into the plot summary the same strengths of the plot. --198.240.128.75 (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I just saw the film, and wondered if the nature of the donors was any clearer in the book than in the film. In the film the children are not actually described as 'clones', and it is implied at the end of the film that they are regarded as not fully human. Their behaviour is also strange and seems slightly 'backward'. There is no reason why clones should behave this way, and it isn't clear what advantage they would have as a source of spare organs, except of course for the individuals from whom they are cloned. I assumed at first that this was the point - that they were being kept as sources of organs for the benefit of wealthy 'originals'. But then it turned out that the 'originals' were probably the dregs of society. It all seems a bit incoherent. I suppose I will have to read the book now to see if it makes any better sense!86.173.161.33 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Following up my own comment, I found an interview with Ishiguro here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4629918 where he explicitly refers to the children as having been cloned. But I don't think he knows anything about cloning from a scientific point of view. He seems quite confused about what a clone is. In the interview he talks about 'humans' and 'clones' as if they were different things, whereas, obviously, a cloned human is a human. 86.183.76.8 (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've mentioned further down, the science or lack thereof is really secondary to the plot. It's about human relationships, and in this respect it underlines your point that cloned humans are indeed, just more humans - A fact that Hailsham staff tried so hard to point out, and which the larger society chooses to ignore. It may also be worth pointing out that the book reveals that all clones are "notified" for donation at some point. Perhaps they aren't particularly able or willing in their initial role as carers, or they have simply had enough of it after several years. This is important because at the end of the book, it seems to be the only option left open to Kathy. 109.180.251.51 (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Just referring to the fact that you said the clones' organs would be of no use to anyone but the originals, that is incorrect. given an extensive enough spread of genetics, it is almost impossible that there would not be an appropriate tissue and blood match to suit any recipient of an organ. they don't have to be genetically identical,they just have to have matching tissue and blood types. just a FYI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.84.124 (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

actually I said that clones would not have any *advantage* as a source of donor organs, except to the 'originals'. Of course they could be organ donors, but they would be no better than anyone else for the purpose. I just checked this page again as I am reading the book at the moment. It does actually use the word 'clone' at one point, but I haven't (yet) found any explanation of the medical advantage of using clones. 86.186.7.169 (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The advantage would be convenience. Normally organ donation requires finding not only a compatible donor but someone who's either willing to give something they can live without or someone who's died very recently and signed up as a donor. That's a lot, lot rarer than someone who's compatible. Relatively few people even give blood and they're not really losing anything. This method eliminates that problem. The children are raised from birth, before then even, to donate, and their willingness is either assumed or irrelevant. So all they have to do is search the, presumably hundreds or thousands, of clones for a match and they've got their organ. Danikat (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It would not be necessary to go to all the trouble of creating clones if all you need is a willing 'victim'. All you would need to do would be to adopt unwanted babies at birth, and raise them in special homes like those in the book/film, indoctrinating them to become donors. Of course that would be ethically dubious, to say the least, but no more so than the scenario in the book. 86.171.219.208 (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, from what I have read, the author did not try to make a book specifically about clones or the scientific part of it. I think the book is about a group of children who have been ostracized from society because of what they mean to them. The author makes very clear that "the humans" don´t think of the "clones" as equal and they´d rather not think of what happens to them. They have an specific purpose, and in that way are disposable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValLut (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The science behind all this is unspoken and need not be got into because it's completely secondary to the novel. Similarly, the remains of the day is not a historical novel but a tale of human relationships in a particular context. What is very clear is the absolute certainty of the characters' fates. If this was Hollywood Kathy would raise an army and break free of it all along with the other clones, but there is never any suggestion that this could ever be possible. Whether it is because the clones are so indoctrinated or because the greater society finds it easier to treat them as less than human than to give up a source of easy repairs is also not much discussed. Fighting back is simply, absolutely impossible, and that's what makes the whole situation so distressing. 109.180.251.51 (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the Book, not the Film

I've just read the book and I haven't seen the film. I think the plot description here has either been influenced by the film or has assumptions presented as fact. In particular:

• I do not recall any mention of Hailsham being in East Sussex.
• After Ruth and Tommy split up, "Kathy resolves to begin a relationship with Tommy". I don't think she did. I think some other people expected her to.

I get the impression that people are contributing to this page without having read the book. This is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmody (talk • contribs) 10:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is just a follow-up to note that the OP above is entirely correct about the location of Hailsham. At no point in the novel is it made explicit that Hailsham is in East Sussex. Although there is a long tradition of British organizations being named according to place names, this is a large point of contention within the novel. What the novel *does* make explicit is that the Hailsham students do not know where Hailsham is. Coupling this with the fact that their geographic education included East Sussex it does not make sense, within the context of the novel, that Hailsham is in East Sussex---or, at the very least, it makes the relationship between the name of the school and Hailsham parish indeterminate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.112.60 (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw the film and read the book. I now stortened the Plot and removed the last bits of text that may have been about the film. --Judith02 (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Watashi wo Hanasanaide (Never Let Me Go) and Ayase Haruka

I have added the official Japanese cast listing which is in Japanese because it is more likely to be permanent. There is a "Now showing" on TBS international[1] which has her name in English, but that will disappear at the end of the series.Kuitan (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Never Let Me Go (novel)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This significant recent novel is rated "B" although it could really do with more material to create a ==Literary significance & criticism== section. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Which is why I rate it only "C" (and this is optimistic): The article is plot and not much else.--Oneiros (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 01:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography

Williams, Chanda (2020). "Abject Adaptations: Disability in Clone Culture and Adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go". The Midwest Quarterly. 61 (2): 274. Williams’ article suggests that adaptation studies can either critique or reinforce the norms presented in Never Let Me Go.RyanArian (User talk:RyanArian)RyanArian (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The "background"

The background section of this book is a huge spoiler! 2A02:1811:1C77:4200:B45F:586C:1086:B7B3 (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Relationship to forced organ harvesting in China

Was the theme of this novel inspired at all by involuntary organ harvesting in China? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)