The first person point of view develops the novel into an amazing piece of writing through seamless story telling. Kath takes the readers from one memory to the next, as if she is talking right to you during a long car ride. One moment she will be thinking about one of Miss Emily's lectures about sex and the next she will transition into a story about Tommy's injury to his elbow. At moments I forget what leads Kath to a certain memory, but she ties it all together with an important message or contemplation.
Last time I blogged I unknowingly stopped reading at a perfect place in the book. Chapter 7 starts with a clear transition from Kath's telling of her childhood to her recollection of their teenage years. She says, "In my memory my life at Hailsham falls into two distinct chunks: this last era, and everything that came before"(77). This "last era" is filled with sex, confusion, and hidden fear, all of which intermingle in Kath's memories of her last two years at Hailsham.
Miss Lucy, the guardian who's moral beliefs appear to clash with the donor system, introduces the idea of students being "told but not told" about their future beyond the boundaries of Hailsham. I think this idea is what explains the difficulties donors have throughout their lives. For example, they have been told what to expect physically as a donor, but are not able to be taught about the emotional battles they might go through. Therefore, when Ruth dreams of working in an office one day and Kath dances with her imaginary baby, no lessons from Hailsham can prepare them for the loss they will experience from the inability to attain these things later in life.
During this section of the book, a major transition takes place that tests the characters and their relationships with one another. They move from Hailsham to a transitional living area on a farm called the Cottages. At the Cottages, Ruth, Kath, and Tommy live with other donors from around the country, awaiting the next stage in donor life, whatever that may be. Kath explains how they react to a new sense of freedom, "Of course, in practice, especially during the first months, we barely stepped beyond the confines of the Cottages"(116). I think that their uneasiness at the Cottages reflects how isolated Hailsham is from society.
Although they know just as much history and literature as "normal" people, they have never experienced many aspects of life. Looking back, Kath realizes the strength of their connection to Hailsham. She says, "...somewhere underneath, a part of us stayed like that: fearful of the world around us, and--no matter how much we despised ourselves for it--unable to quite let each other go"(120). No matter where they go, Hailsham is always the safe and pure place in their minds. I think this passage is an ode to the title of the book. Even in adulthood she is not able to let her past go, along with the people in it.
Ruth and Kath's relationship is tested further at the Cottages. As Ruth visibly tries hard to fit in with the older kids, I feel just as annoyed as Kath who confronts her for the behavior. It is clear that Ruth has not changed from the girl with mysterious pencil case, and Kath continues to let her brag on false terms. I think Kath feels loyal to Ruth and would be somewhat lost without her friend. Although she says she would never point out Ruth's flaws to other people, I could see her doing so in a brief fit of anger. I am also interested to see how Tommy fits into the equation. It is hinted that he has feelings for Kath, and vice versa, so we will see if their special connection develops any further.
There is so much to talk about! For example, we found out that the donors are actually clones. After I learn more in the next section, I will get back to that. In the mean time, I am going to start posting questions I have at the end of my blog posts. Cheers!
Questions:
What happens to unhealthy donors?
Is the donation process created to just fix the problem of lack of organ donors in the country or is there more to it?
Why is it important that donors create artwork?
What is the gallery?
What happened to Miss Lucy?
Where do they go after the Cottages?
Hi Carley! I don't know if you've noticed this, but after reading this blog post, it seems to me that there are a ton of similarities between Never Let Me Go and The Handmaid's Tale. In both books, the first person narration is a disjointed recollection of the main character's past in a stream of consciousness style. Also in both books, the novel takes place in a mysterious society with rituals and rules for which readers must discern purposes and implications. Do you agree?
ReplyDeleteHello! I have definitely noticed those similarities and I am glad that you are able to draw the same conclusions by reading the blog. One main difference between the two books is that in The Handmaid's Tale you are unaware of Offred's current status while in this book, Kath is still very much apart of the society, preparing to end her career and become a donor. I wonder if that means I will learn more about her fate unlike the ending of HMT (I hope so!).Another main difference is the tone in which the characters reflect. Since Offred is not raised in the new society and is instead a first generation Handmaid, she is more negative. While on the other hand, Kath is raised as a clone who does not have any idea of how the society was before her time, making her less skeptical. Keep an eye out for my new blog on Friday, see ya!
DeleteHi Carley!!!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog post. Even though I have no idea what the book is about, I got a sense of the structure and basic premises through your writing.
My questions to you are: does the narration in first person make it more difficult to read? Do you find it hard to follow when Kath goes into her tangents? Do you feel like you get a better sense of Kath as a character because she is the narrator? Do you think you loose an aspect of the other characters because you can't hear their thoughts?
Sorry for so many questions, I'm just curious to know how the POV affects your idea of the book!
Hey! I'm glad you enjoy the blog so far. I think the first person narration makes it easier to read because it is more personalized and reflective, as if she is talking to me directly. Kath's tangents beautifully flow together so that they are not random and without a reason. I think I get a better sense of Kath as a character because she is able to reflect on her actions and thoughts as a young woman, realizing past mistakes and commenting on her relationships with others. I definitely am not able to understand the other characters as well as I am with Kath because of the limited perspective. However, her interactions with them and reflection on their relationships is helpful in understanding the importance of Ruth and Tommy in regards to Kath. I am glad you are curious and stay updated by reading my blog on Friday!
DeleteCarley,
ReplyDeleteI love your blog, and I am glad that you are enjoying the book so much! I am too! I am finding it very easy to get lost in, and very hard to put down. At this point in the novel, I share a lot of your questions, and I am excited to read more.
I was wondering what your thoughts are on the author's choice to narrate the story from Kath's older perspective as she is looking back at her childhood. I think it would also have been interesting, yet very different, if the book was told through her eyes in present time as the events unfold. I think we, as readers, might feel even more of a sense of mystery about the things that are happening because the kids in this society know very little about their situation, even though they are "told but not told" (as you mention). How do you think the story would be different if it was told in real time? Would it be as intriguing?
I am looking forward to following your blog and finishing the book with you!
Hello! I think it would be very interesting to follow Kath as she grows up instead of having her reflect. However, I think it would lose the sense of maturity that her older self provides as she thinks about her life. In many cases, I find that while thinking about her arguments with Ruth, she is able to understand why they each act a certain way, and I do not think she would have this understanding as a teenager. If it was told in real time, I think we would miss out on some of the connections between the time she spends with Ruth and Tommy as donors and their childhood. I agree that you would feel a stronger sense of curiosity if it was told as she is growing up but I think with her reflection on the past, she still leaves a lot up to the imagination. I also look forward to keeping up with your blog! Thanks for the thoughts.
DeleteCarley, you've asked some good questions at the end of the post. Many of them will be answered by the end of the book, though not all, if I'm remembering correctly.
ReplyDeleteYou mention really liking the style of the book. Is there anything in particular that you could say about the style?