In his novel, Never Let Me Go, Kazuo Ishiguro humanizes clones, despite their creation for the single purpose of donating their organs to the "normal" members of society.
Firstly, Ishiguro names each of his clones common names, such as Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy, rather than calling them by a serial number, which adds character and depth. If Ishiguro simply named his characters with numbers, the reader and other characters of the book could view them simply as science experiments. He educates each on all subjects ranging from art to geography in the clone's boarding school Hailsham. If the clones did not have a human element to them, there would be no need for this society to educate their organ-donating members.
In Hailsham, the guardians emphasize how the clones should rely on one another for almost everything, which is similar to the rest of society. Not only do these clones talk and play together constantly, but a majority of their prized possessions also comes from the Exchanges, essentially a swapping of each other's artwork. The guardians thought teaching them to put others first would prepare the clones for lives of looking after each other because most regular people did not want anything to do with clones. At the Cottages, the clones rely on each other to complete their chores, go on trips, and for entertainment. Because the clones are not simple science experiments that can be successful on their own, Ishiguro again underscores how parallel their interdependence is to regular members of society. Both depend on others to be happy and to survive.
Finally, Ishiguro reveals that the normal members of society still have reservations about the cloning experiments. Originally, Hailsham is created as a "more humane and better way" to raise the clones (Ishiguro 258). The emphasis on being creative and on their artwork is to "prove that they had souls at all" (260). Although the rest of society may have been in doubt, advocates, such as Madame, try to illustrate to the rest of society that clones do in fact have souls. When the clones travel outside of the Cottages, Kathy is under the impression that everyone she meets would shiver in disgust if they knew what they were. And even Madame, who largely believes that the clones have souls in the same way as everyone else, is "afraid of [the clones] in the same way that someone might be afraid of spiders" (35). In this manner, Ishiguro again demonstrates that even while the clones are being raised for organ harvest, the rest of society still sees a human aspect in them rather than just an experiment.
I agree that Ishiguro humanizes the clones throughout the novel. I believe that he does this to encourage the reader to empathize with the characters and to consider what their lives must be like. If the clones were not so relatable to the reader, it would be very difficult to empathize fully with their situations. Like you said, the way that Ishiguro describes the relationships between the students allows the reader to think back to their own childhood and further relate with the characters. The students interact very similarly to the way any young children interact. Because of this, the reader is forced to consider what it must be like to be faced with such a horrible reality at a young age.
ReplyDeleteAnother way in which Ishiguro humanizes the clones is by making them look entirely normal. When Ruth, Kathy, and Tommy go to Norfolk to find Ruth’s possible, they encounter an art shop worker who asks them if they are art students (163). It is entirely possible that they could have blended in as normal people in Norfolk. Because there is nothing distinguishing them physically from normal people, readers are much more likely to empathize with the characters in the book and examine the harshness of their realities.
Caroline, I agree with your claim that Ishiguro purposefully humanizes the clones in the novel, particularly for the purpose of allowing the characters to be more relatable. As you mentioned, the inclusion of common names, such as Ruth, Kathy, and Tommy, strengthens the relatability that readers can feel towards the clones. If Ishiguro had simply referred to the characters with numbers, the entire essence of the novel would have been lost. Furthermore, adding to your argument, the characters begin to develop intimate relationships with each other, including sexual relationships, which enhances the humanization that readers associate with the clones. For example, Ishiguro reinforces that the characters engage in sexual relations with the statement, “For a start, Tommy and I finally started having sex” (Ishiguro 238). This subtle inclusion represents a conscious choice by Ishiguro to allow the characters to be more humanized.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I believe that Ishiguro’s decision to humanize the clones allows the central theme of mortality to be recognized more prominently within the minds of the readers. If Ishiguro had not elected to make the characters appear to be normal humans, the entire premise of the novel may have been lost. As Kathy reveals, “I lost Ruth, then I lost Tommy, but I won’t lose my memories of them” (Ishiguro 286). Our ability to sympathize with the human aspects of the characters enables these ideas of human mortality and the relatively abbreviated nature of life to be fully realized as the main characters complete their donations.
I agree that Ishiguro does humanize the clones throughout the novel. While this allows for the readers to connect to them more, and it also helps to prove to the rest of the surrounding community that they are more than just science experiments. Since the readers are given the opportunity to connect with the characters, it makes it harder to want to send them off to be donors, even though that is the whole purpose of their existence. Ishiguro emphasizes that fate and facing one's mortality is central to the book's theme, but giving the clones human characteristics brings to question the morality of what they are doing. At the very end of the novel, Kathy and Tommy go to talk with Madame about deferrals, and happen to run into Miss Emily as well. They begin talking about the idea of the art gallery and it's purpose, and Miss Emily uses this as an opportunity to defend the existence of donors by saying "Look at this art! How dare you claim these children are anything less than fully human? Oh yes, there was a lot of support for our movement back then" (262). By proving that the donors have souls and that they are just like the other children, I would think that it would but just that much harder to accept the fact that they are there to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of everyone else, especially at such a young age. This brings to question the morality of not only the staff at Hailsham, but the surrounding community who support this as well.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete