Sophia Naeem
Professor Walker
Engl 151W
29 April 2018
Never Let Me Go and Powers of Horror
In the book, “Never Let Me Go” by Kazuo Ishiguro, we learn about the childhood of a woman named Kathy H. Throughout the beginning and into most of the book, Kathy describes her recollection of memories from her life at her town of Hailsham where she was a student of a special institute, although we aren’t aware it’s a special institution in the beginning. Though her narration is very vague in the beginning when she talks about events from her childhood at this school, we are led to believe that she was very privileged to have came from such a place. We see this earlier in the book when Kathy introduces herself to the readers as a ‘carer’ and tells us a brief story about a ‘donor’ that was in her care who wished to be told stories of Hailsham by Kathy so he could imagine it like he was there and as if her memories at Hailsham were his own. As carer, Kathy was in charge of making the overall quality of life better for the donors during their donation process. The words ‘donor’ and ‘carer’ were mentioned in passing from the beginning of the book, as if they’re not important factors in the story, when in fact these were some of the most important key points to know in order to have a better understanding of the book. The story goes on a few chapters with detailed recollections of Kathy’s childhood with her friends Ruth and Tommy, until we eventually find out that these students at Hailsham’s special institute, including Kathy, Ruth and Tommy, were all clones and apart of a special new government program that explored the idea of treating clones with special care and attention. These students were created as clones in order to harvest new organs for the public to receive—thus they received the name ‘donors’. Although Kathy H was also a clone, she was not considered a donor in the beginning and instead worked as a carer because she had elected to do so, which entailed her taking care of the donors during the process of them donating their organs. However, the clones were only allowed to work as carer for only a short amount of time, as they soon were required to eventually stop work as carer and become donors themselves. The life of these clones were very short, since they all essentially died by the time they were approximately in their 30’s, as a result of multiple donations of their organs, usually dying after about 3-4 donations.
At Hailsham, Kathy recounts her time at the school, where she spent most of her time with her friends Ruth and Tommy. Her recollection of her childhood begins after she mentions seeing Ruth when they got older and becoming her carer throughout her donation process. After she tells her account of memories from her past, which were not in chronological order and instead just retold based on what came to her head, Kathy begins to discuss more recent events following Ruth’s “completion” which was the term used for when the donors died after completing their donation process. During Kathy’s childhood, Ruth and Tommy were a romantic couple, even though Ruth always knew Kathy had feelings for Tommy. While Ruth was in Kathy’s care during her donation process, Ruth made an effort to make right by Kathy before “completing” since she felt she had always been a barrier between Kathy and Tommy, by convincing her to find Tommy since he was a donor and to enjoy whatever time they could together as a couple. As what seemed to by a last good dying deed to clean her own conscious, Ruth also informs Kathy about a rumored ability for donors to request something called a deferral, which would allow them both to defer their donations on the premise that they were in love. Unfortunately, while in pursuit of finding ex-officials of the Hailsham school to discuss the potential of being granted a deferral in order to spend some quality time with Tommy, after waiting so long to have the opportunity to be with him, Kathy and Tommy both find out the rumor was just that—a mere rumor. Tommy ends up dying after he completes his donation process and the story ends with Kathy driving away.
In Powers of Horror, Julia Kristeva discusses abjection, which Kristeva explains as the feeling of horror you experience as a result of something that threatens you such as the feeling of looking at a corpse and knowing the inevitability of death. She explains that this feeling is what causes us trauma. In “Never Let You Go”, some of the clones lived most of their lives in curiosity about their existence and what lies beyond the gates of their school in Hailsham, as rumors were surfacing among the clones, that the teachers were keeping them safe from a terrible threat that lurked outside.
Another reading that is similar in certain areas with “Never Let Me Go” from our class is “Frankenstein”. Just as the clones were created without any knowledge of their purpose in life, the creature from Frankenstein also had some similarities as he also searched for answers and looked for knowledge and seeked information. He longed for a partner the same way Kathy H from “Never Let Me Go” longed for Tommy, but never could be with him because of Ruth. Also, the clones and the creature from Frankenstein wished to have a parent like figure in their lives, but in both stories, the clones and the creature were shunned upon because they were different.
- Could there be a possibility of “Never Let Me Go”, happening in the near future, where clones are used to harvest human organs for the public with the approval of the majority public?
- Could perhaps the interpretation of the readings be biased because of an exaggeration by the narrators to describe difficult times using extreme analogies?
- Were the clones from Hailsham in “Never Let Me Go” dying at such an early age in life because of the concept of abjection, which is explained by Julia Kristeva in Powers of Horror, where the fear of death was more traumatic to them than their actual donation process?
I think these themes of donating organs is very similar to the major theme of growing organs on animals in “Oryx and Crake”. I do think that organ growing and harvesting from domesticated animals will be much closer in the future than harvesting organs off of human clones. Today, it will be extremely difficult to carry out experiments on cloning of the human kind in most countries because of legal limitations. However, I have mentioned before how owning a driver’s licence and agreeing to organ donation is very similar to farming organs. Of course, if the clones had developed into a society where they can earn their own drivers licence and donate organs on their own merit would be a lot more ethically acceptable.
I personally do not see “clones” harvesting organs to later donate them to society in the near future or future all together. Being a biology and chemistry major, I personally do not see how such a thing would be possible. However, we have the ability to donate our organs after we die. In a sense we are carers while we are alive, and have the ability to be donors after our death. With science continuously advancing, I believe that we will learn to preserve organs more efficiently, but without the use of clones. It is quite likely and very possible that abjection contributed to death. Our psychology plays a substantial role on our well being, and the thought of dying while donating could potentially trigger death. Personally, I believe that if I were told that I would have to donate my organs as a young adult, the fear for my life would have devastating effects. The mind is very powerful, and has the capability to trigger physiological changes in our body. It is unlikely that fear alone would cause death, but, in the case of an actual donation of an organ it could be the difference between life and death.
I personally think that there could be a possibility of “Never Let Me Go” happening in the near future. We really do not know what the fate of the universe is. We also do not know what kind of diseases or extreme instances may happen to humanity that may force us to these extremes. Although it is no ethically realistic or acceptable, it may have a place in society if push comes to shove. In my opinion harvesting organs from domesticated animals is far much closer than the rest. Animals are the closest thing to a human being.
At the very beginning, I was confused about the meaning of “donors” and “carer” in the book. I was also addled because why if Kathy was proud to have worked as a carer, then she starts having memories of her childhood. The fact that she was a donor and therefore a clon who was might die soon made her remember and bring up important moments of her life.
I don’t believe that in the future clones can be used to harvest human organs for the public with the approval of the public. However, I do believe that people can bear children in order to use an organ or cells to save other’s life. This topic reminds me the movie “My sister’s keeper” in which the child was conceived to donate her kidney to her ill sister.
I think the idea of dying at a mid-age is scarier than when an individual is a kid or teenager. The need of being happy and discover themselves were factors that the donors needed to fulfill to be able to die. As Frankenstein, it’s noticeable that the man always has the need to learn about his past, his roots, learn about emotions, sentiments, be able to love and be loved.
I think a lot of the current books we have read deals with societies without morals. It seems that in the societies of Oryx and Crake and Never Let Me Go, the moral compass has turned south and we see the result of apocalyptic societies. While cloning is already happening in science, to allow clones to be grown for the sole purpose of organ harvesting is not ethically realistic. I don’t see any institution like the Institutional Review Board, FDA, or any government body allowing something so unethical to pass. Anything that is remotely morally ambiguous does not have a great chance of gaining traction in modern society.
Any narrative that comes through one particular point of view lens is subject to bias. We are only getting the scope of one particular personality and their personal opinion. That is usually the goals of most authors. They want you to see it one way, and let the audience be the eventual judge on what actually happens. Based on contextual evidence, themes, and description the reader makes his own interpretation out of it.
Personally, I do not see what happens in “Never Let Me Go” to happen to us in the future. I cannot see humans harvesting organs for others to use, but we do see that in people after they die. With science and medicine always advancing I believe there would be no use for clones to be harvesting organs, especially when the experimentation of cloning is not accepted by many.
`I feel as so any narrative of any book will try to sway you the way they are thinking. Similarly, how when we tell someone a story it is always in our perspective and tends to lean in favor of ourselves. It is our jobs as readers to try to look beyond the narrator and make our own interpretation.
1. I don’t know if this really could happen in the future. Creating human clones doesn’t seem to be very fathomable with our technology, and I also think the public wouldn’t be very accepting of it. I think, if they were to exist, the public would be more accepting if they didn’t know the clones were among them. They wouldn’t be able to differentiate, and therefore the clones would be considered more human.
2. I definitely there there are some biased interpretations in this novel. A first person novel is bound to have them because the main character is the one speaking and telling the story. Maybe a mix of first and third person narrative would provide a more “two-sided” novel, perhaps the view of Kathy and then a non-clone.
3. This is an interesting idea. Fearing death could possibly bring one closer to death, but one could say this only really applies to humans, whereas the clones are not human. However, the novel mainly surrounds the idea that these clones actually do feel emotions, which makes them very human. So maybe Kristeva’s concept does apply to them. Or, dying at a young age can just really be because of how the clones are “programmed.”
I feel harvesting organs will still be a thing even if there was clones because we still could have a use for something else especially since science is finding something new everyday in the world we live. Scientists will try to develop new and improved ways to preserve organs.
Donating organ is very serious because there is also the factor of your body rejecting that organ or even potentially dying while trying to save your own life.
I think interpretation is always biased. It is the perception of the individual reading or hearing the facts and creating their own mental construct of what they feel is right, wrong or not important. That is why you hear that there are always three sides to an argument involving two people: yours, mine and the truth.
I think that the use of humans in scientific experiments was a much greater fear during times when the leaders of countries had less eyes watching and fighting amongst populations was prevalent. 50 years ago there as no internet. There was no social media and no way to get a story out to the public of the world quickly or even efficiently. Horrific scientific experiments such as these “clones” (given the technology) would have gone unnoticed more easily than today. While it would be nice to think that finding a way to ensure anyone who needed a new organ could easily get one by way of a clone or pigoon I don’t think that the public views of today’s society would allow it. There would be too many moral and ethical questions raised that highlighted just how wrong the concept was. There is also the argument that while many in need of an organ are deserving of ne why should we give an organ to someone who was responsible for the failure of their first one. An alcoholic might need a new liver due to the onset of Cirrhosis but if they are still an alcoholic then there is not benefit.
I do believe that the idea of creating clones just to use them as our personal organ donors will be brought up to the public eye in the future, but only if our technology allows us to. We’ve figured out how to clone other animals but we haven’t given that process any purpose yet, it’ll be more difficult to even try to clone humans because our anatomy is so complex and interconnected. And I can only imagine the controversy it would start since it goes against many of society’s religious and ethical values.
The clones knew that their collective purpose as a “human creation” was to be as healthy as possible to donate their organs. I don’t think any of them saw their life experience beyond that, once they were introduced to death it becomes a traumatic experience since it essentially dictates the end of the only purpose they’ve known. We experience the same feeling when we hear about individuals dying early in their lives, the first thing we think about is “What if that happened to me? Did my life have any purpose?”.
Great blog post! I really appreciate how you made such a complex and contradictive idea so simple to understand.
I do not believe that clones to harvest human organs will be possible in the near future, mostly because it is such a new idea and people in general are resistant to change. There are no regulations for this, and because of this its very hard for the idea to even start to grow.
I feel like the fear of death would have played a big part in their life, as learning this will start to wonder what their life was about. Learning that you would eventually die young as a teenager will hurt a person, especially if they are building relationships with each other. Kathy as an adult starts to accepts things for how they are, showing how things change as a person grows up.
I do believe there could be a chance of neve let me go happen in the future. You never know what the future holds that may make us have to harvest human organs for the public with the approval of the majority public We do eat animals which obviously is much more accepted than humans. Even though the thought of harvesting human orgam is disgusting to me, you never know what could happen in life that will make us have to make this decision, and that will have to make humans do this.
I think it would be very hard for this situation to happen anytime in the future, I like to think people have gone beyond that kind of cruelty. But at the same time, I do fully believe that we are capable of it. If you look through history and see the things people have been able to “justify” it really makes you wonder if there’s anything we’re not capable of. And obviously humans are no strangers to using actual humans as commodities, so I doubt they would have any issue using beings they don’t consider humans as such. But once again, I’d like to think we’ve morally gotten past the point where that would be allowed.
With the current rise of technology and the way human beings are continually becoming self-centered, there is a possibility of development of clones to be used on harvesting human organs for the public. Although from the ethics viewpoint it may not be good, majority of the people nowadays does not regard ethics since they are obsessed with prolonging life.
I think that it is possible that there will be clones to harvest human organs. It probably would benefit society in a positive way because then there wouldn’t be a long waiting list for people who need organs, and probably less deaths. But in a way that could be bad because if clones cant produce the organs the right way or just are over producing organs, then the Earth can become over populated.
I also think that the clones were more scared of death because they didn’t get to experience life the way that they wanted.