Talk:Never Let Me Go (novel)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Translation of translated title 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Plot

message: 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)
thread_title: This is the Book, not the Film

message: 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 which has her name in English, but that will disappear at the end of the series.Kuitan (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watashi wo Hanasanaide (Never Let Me Go) and Ayase Haruka 

message: Substituted at 01:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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)
thread_title: Annotated Bibliography

message: 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)
thread_title:  The "background" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Relationship to forced organ harvesting in China