I recently did a socratic seminar for college that discussed this book, and this happened to pop up in my recommended tab. Love hearing people talk about their perspective on the novel, and I really enjoyed this interpretation of the theme of art. Great video!
All this talk about the power of art reminds me of when I visited the Jewish Museum in Prague last year, where an entire exhibit is filled with drawings from the children who were imprisoned in the ghetto there during the Holocaust. It was thanks to one woman's bravery of providing secret art classes and sneaking these drawings out in suitcases that they survive today. Like in Never Let Me Go, these children created art while death hung around them, but not as a means to deny then the truth like Halisham does, but to give an escape and reason to live in distressing times. If there's one lesson I take away from this book, it's that art is not inherently good or bad, but a tool, a powerful one that people and society at large can use. It's up to us to make sure art is ultimately uplifting and not distracting from problems at large. Art shouldn't numb us, it should broaden our worldview.
This is so amazing. Never let me go is not one of my top 3 fav books/movies but it's the one that has made me cry out the most. And I just realized it's because it's a slap to the two pillars that I guide my life: art (the power to express, materialize and bond people's imagination) and love as a geniuine force. This is a beautiful interpretation, thank you :)
Great analysis, thank you. I would only add that authority figures (e.g. Madam) who take some students artwork (for the mysterious 'Gallery'), are taking pieces of some students for free. This unpredictable seizure by authority figures will repeat later when other authority figures ('normals'/doctors) also take pieces of the student for free. Literal pieces... organs.
Brilliant commentary Amor! I am reading this book in my 10th grade english class and you helped me better understand the authors prominent theme of art.
i always thought that the school was trying to find out whether there was a possibility that , in addition to body parts, they could harvest souls as well- though i was pretty stoned when i came up with this idea!
Wow, what an amazing insight. I only disagree with the last point, though. Cruelty will not save the characters, but only serve as a tool to justify further oppression. Ruth was cruel to both Tommy and Kathy and it only made her realize how she wasted her time on it so she tried to at least correct that.
The analysis is great - and accurate if we take the Nobel at face value. But I don’t think I see it that way. I see it as allegorical. Art does indeed show us the humanity of the clones who think it will save them - and even of their benefactors who think it will compel others to pity them. But the redemption of art is not in saving their lives, which would be impossible in every reality: we will all die no matter how much meaning and transcendence we achieve. However, the art of loving and believing does redeem our characters at an individual level. Kathy is able to reminisce about her friends with enough solace to retell their story and comfort us through what seems like our very own donations - because she is able to interpret their lives with more meaning than the mere facts would allow. Tommy is able to find the inherent worth of his vision by not subscribing to the traditional model of art as a commodity (something that others ascribe value to), and his animal drawings continue to be an interest for him to the very end. And most dramatically, Ruth is able to redeem her petty, self-serving ways by finally apologizing to her kind friends when she sees them through the lens of the love story that she believes might save them. The people who are not saved by the depth of true art and true caring are Madame and Ms. Emily, who believe themselves spared the indignities of mortality due to their higher rank in this heinous caste system. For them art is not something you live and that saves a deeper part of you in the midst of human suffering. No, for them art is a commodity. The students should be so lucky they had an existence full of art appreciation - and they kind of were. But she did not share in that in any real way. She doesn’t see herself as their equal. Ms. Emily misses their humanity entirely (preferring to care for her beautiful antique furniture than to continue comforting them), and thus misses her own as well. The same is the case for Madame on the opposite extreme. She pities our protagonists, seeing them as unfortunate creatures, and therefore also misses an opportunity to care for them by seeing them as her equals. In a world in which there is no escape from mortality, and in which those afforded comfort by their status can’t see the least fortunate as equally human, the only solace is art and love. The only escape from the tempting inhumanity of seeking status (like Ruth) or paying mere lip service to kindness (like Ms. Emily), is the depth of truth or true love and true art. That’s why Ruth is my favorite character. She barely manages to escape the worst instincts of humanity by asking for forgiveness.
I would also like to share this interview of Kazuo Ishiguro himself with you. By the end of the book you might be wondering, why didn't they just run away? It's the last question he answers in this interview: th-cam.com/video/_jCB59pPG7k/w-d-xo.html
The novel horrified me not because of dystopia but becsuse they were reading Proust thinking and hoping lit had redeeming quaities when they know it's just a cruel facade. Which means love and friendship too are cruel for the same reasons. What is to be done? Not escape? That state of passivity is what Ishiguro says interested him when writing the book. I wonder how he holds his gaze on his subject matter.
Love you for mentioning your existential crisis. You're bound to undestand this novel best:You've said it: It is about 'existential crisis'. Thank you for giving me this clue. And my very best wishes and the power of my heart for you, for your luck and for your future❣️
I recently did a socratic seminar for college that discussed this book, and this happened to pop up in my recommended tab. Love hearing people talk about their perspective on the novel, and I really enjoyed this interpretation of the theme of art. Great video!
Thanks!
All this talk about the power of art reminds me of when I visited the Jewish Museum in Prague last year, where an entire exhibit is filled with drawings from the children who were imprisoned in the ghetto there during the Holocaust. It was thanks to one woman's bravery of providing secret art classes and sneaking these drawings out in suitcases that they survive today. Like in Never Let Me Go, these children created art while death hung around them, but not as a means to deny then the truth like Halisham does, but to give an escape and reason to live in distressing times. If there's one lesson I take away from this book, it's that art is not inherently good or bad, but a tool, a powerful one that people and society at large can use. It's up to us to make sure art is ultimately uplifting and not distracting from problems at large. Art shouldn't numb us, it should broaden our worldview.
This is so amazing. Never let me go is not one of my top 3 fav books/movies but it's the one that has made me cry out the most. And I just realized it's because it's a slap to the two pillars that I guide my life: art (the power to express, materialize and bond people's imagination) and love as a geniuine force. This is a beautiful interpretation, thank you :)
Great analysis, thank you. I would only add that authority figures (e.g. Madam) who take some students artwork (for the mysterious 'Gallery'), are taking pieces of some students for free. This unpredictable seizure by authority figures will repeat later when other authority figures ('normals'/doctors) also take pieces of the student for free. Literal pieces... organs.
Brilliant commentary Amor! I am reading this book in my 10th grade english class and you helped me better understand the authors prominent theme of art.
Awesome. Glad it helped.
Amazing video series, thank you for it! Will discuss many topics tomorrow at our book club.
i always thought that the school was trying to find out whether there was a possibility that , in addition to body parts, they could harvest souls as well- though i was pretty stoned when i came up with this idea!
Really fantastic. What a great reading
Glad you liked the book and hopefully my take on it
This is a wonderful video and analysis!!
Thank you!
i always wondered why the school was called Hailsham - i just discovered that the town of Hailsham is famous for livestock markets
This has been great. Thank you.
This is brilliant
Thanks :)
Now that we all have finished the book, it's time to listen to the actual song "Never Let Me Go": th-cam.com/video/TWRzWkfbu0M/w-d-xo.html
Wow, what an amazing insight. I only disagree with the last point, though. Cruelty will not save the characters, but only serve as a tool to justify further oppression. Ruth was cruel to both Tommy and Kathy and it only made her realize how she wasted her time on it so she tried to at least correct that.
The analysis is great - and accurate if we take the Nobel at face value. But I don’t think I see it that way. I see it as allegorical. Art does indeed show us the humanity of the clones who think it will save them - and even of their benefactors who think it will compel others to pity them. But the redemption of art is not in saving their lives, which would be impossible in every reality: we will all die no matter how much meaning and transcendence we achieve. However, the art of loving and believing does redeem our characters at an individual level. Kathy is able to reminisce about her friends with enough solace to retell their story and comfort us through what seems like our very own donations - because she is able to interpret their lives with more meaning than the mere facts would allow. Tommy is able to find the inherent worth of his vision by not subscribing to the traditional model of art as a commodity (something that others ascribe value to), and his animal drawings continue to be an interest for him to the very end. And most dramatically, Ruth is able to redeem her petty, self-serving ways by finally apologizing to her kind friends when she sees them through the lens of the love story that she believes might save them.
The people who are not saved by the depth of true art and true caring are Madame and Ms. Emily, who believe themselves spared the indignities of mortality due to their higher rank in this heinous caste system. For them art is not something you live and that saves a deeper part of you in the midst of human suffering. No, for them art is a commodity. The students should be so lucky they had an existence full of art appreciation - and they kind of were. But she did not share in that in any real way. She doesn’t see herself as their equal. Ms. Emily misses their humanity entirely (preferring to care for her beautiful antique furniture than to continue comforting them), and thus misses her own as well. The same is the case for Madame on the opposite extreme. She pities our protagonists, seeing them as unfortunate creatures, and therefore also misses an opportunity to care for them by seeing them as her equals.
In a world in which there is no escape from mortality, and in which those afforded comfort by their status can’t see the least fortunate as equally human, the only solace is art and love. The only escape from the tempting inhumanity of seeking status (like Ruth) or paying mere lip service to kindness (like Ms. Emily), is the depth of truth or true love and true art.
That’s why Ruth is my favorite character. She barely manages to escape the worst instincts of humanity by asking for forgiveness.
I would also like to share this interview of Kazuo Ishiguro himself with you. By the end of the book you might be wondering, why didn't they just run away? It's the last question he answers in this interview: th-cam.com/video/_jCB59pPG7k/w-d-xo.html
The novel horrified me not because of dystopia but becsuse they were reading Proust thinking and hoping lit had redeeming quaities when they know it's just a cruel facade. Which means love and friendship too are cruel for the same reasons. What is to be done? Not escape? That state of passivity is what Ishiguro says interested him when writing the book. I wonder how he holds his gaze on his subject matter.
This video came on out of weirdly specific time it is not helping me with my existential crisis.
Love you for mentioning your existential crisis. You're bound to undestand this novel best:You've said it: It is about 'existential crisis'. Thank you for giving me this clue. And my very best wishes and the power of my heart for you, for your luck and for your future❣️
Not so Wrong... 😶🌫️
Please stop jumping from here to there its hard to concentrate
Ok. I've stopped doing that