Critique of “Never let me go”

Human beings are complex creatures who tend to act in ways that can often be hard to predict,
and sometimes the outcome of their actions might cause a shiver to run down one‟s spine. In
his dystopian novel, Never Let Me Go, Kazuo Ishiguro, in an engaging manner describes the
nuanced features of human society. He talks about free will, love, clones, and many more
topics. But his main focus was on the fact that society will discard their morality if they wanted to
fulfill their needs.

In the novel, the author highlights the atrocities that were being conducted on the clones around
the world. In the conversation between Tommy, Kathy, and Miss Emily, Miss Emily said “All
around the country, at this very moment, there are students being reared in deplorable
conditions, conditions you Hailsham students could hardly imagine.” (p.124). The word “reared”
sets not only a negative tone to the overall sentence but also has a negative connotation. The
fact that the word reared is associated with clones‟ means that they were treated like animals
on a farm. Just like animals, they were being brought up just for their contents, in this case, their
organs. But one can say that they were being treated even worse than animals because even
animals need optimal conditions for a healthy life. But in the case of the clones, they were being
treated in a sickening environment, which is evident from the word „deplorable‟. So one can say
that the main aim of the society was just to somehow get the organs of the clones, and the
procedure for doing that did not matter; even if it meant treating them worse than animals, even
if it meant depriving them of their freedom. This highlights the fact that the society was inclined
to fulfilling their needs and to do that they were willing to discard any know human norm.

The author also illustrates that even though the people knew that this practice of organ
extraction was wrong; they still kept on doing it, which is clear from when Miss Emily said “The
world didn‟t want to be reminded how the donation program really worked. They didn‟t want to
think about you students, or about the conditions you were brought up in.” (p.125). This tells us
that society, even though they knew that what they were doing was wrong, continued their
heinous practices. They did not care about what happened to the clones because their desires
and needs were being fulfilled: they were getting the organs that they needed. Moreover, society
did not even deem to consider them as „humans‟ because they did not even want to
acknowledge the fact that they were being raises in unfathomable conditions. This ties back to
the argument given earlier in the text and further reinforces the fact that humans in times of
need were ready to discard their morality.

At this point, a counter-argument could be made, by saying that there were some people in the
society who even in the times of need did not discard their morality; rather they worked towards
making the lives of the clones better. This statement can be supported by Miss Emily‟s
comment, “Most importantly, we demonstrated to the world that if students were reared in
humane, cultivated environment, it was possible for them to grow to be as sensitive and
intelligent as any ordinary human being. Before that, all clones - or students, as we preferred to
call you- existed only to supply medical science.” (p.124). On a careful review, it can be seen
that this is a hypocritical notion. This statement has negative connotations like „reared‟ and
„cultivated‟ which compares the clones with animals. It gives a sense that even though the
clones were being considered as intelligent and sensitive, they still were like animals.6
Moreover, a person can argue that the reason they were being treated in a more humane
environment was in the end to benefit humans. This scenario can be compared to that of a
cattle rancher, who takes great care of his animals because, in the end, great care would ensure
a higher quality of meat. The same can be said to be the case with Hailsham; they were treating
the clones more humanely to get a better and high-quality organ yield.7 This argument can be
rebuked by saying that Marie-Claude worked for the betterment of the lives of the clones, but
this too was hypocritical as she was afraid of them: how come a person work for the betterment
of someone else when he is afraid of their existence. This is supported by the comment made
by Miss Emily, “Is she afraid of you? We‟re all afraid of you.” (p.128). This tells us that even
though the people of Hailsham tended to work for the clones, they too were scared of them.
This further solidifies the fact that the clones were not genuinely cared for like humans; they
were seen as monsters because the guardians were scared of them. Moreover the fact that the
clones were being nurtured to become more intelligent, but were still being killed for their
organs, is also a case of immorality because the gaining of intelligence makes the clones as
close to humans as possible: it is almost the same as to kill a human being. Finally, it can be
said that Hailsham did nothing for the clones, as still, just like before, they were being cultivated
for their organs; nothing had changed.

All the arguments made so far only justify the argument made by the author: The society will
discard their morality if they wanted to achieve their desires. The author tells us how fragile
human morality is and how it is discarded at the first sight of need. This notion of morality is
prevalent throughout the novel and gives us room to think about our mortality and that of the
society we live in.