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)

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)

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)

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.
• Whilst it is natural to think of the "donations" as organ donations, I don't think the word "organ" is used in the book. The details about what happens are left vague.
• 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.