Writing Style and AP Merit

Welcome back to my blog! I have around seventy pages left in Never Let Me Go, and decided it would be a good time to discuss whether or not this book should be on an AP reading list. My initial reaction is that, no, perhaps it should not be considered of high literary merit. I say this because it is so easy to pick up and read compared to past books that I have read like Brave New World and The Handmaid's Tale. While I was reading those dystopian novels, I felt that I had to pay close attention to each detail and motif to fully understand the themes and meaning of the work as a whole. I find myself taking fewer pauses and having a greater understanding of Never Let Me Go. Why is this?

In order to answer that, it is important to take a look at the writing style. I have found that Ishiguro's style consists of three main qualities: point of view, imagery, and tense. If the book was in third person instead of being narrated by Kath, it would be rather different in my mind. Through her eyes, readers are contained in a little bubble, whether that is at Hailsham, the Cottages, or the recovery centers. This means that we only know what she knows, making readers come up with their own theories similar to how her and Tommy do. Instead of analyzing the page by page like I did with Song of Solomon, I find myself analyzing the limited information I have been exposed to and what that might reveal. If the book was in third person, the book would feel less like a coming of age story since we would not get the conversational and emotional feel that we have from Kath.

The imagery is what captivates me and creates a beautiful picture in my mind of the setting. If you asked me to draw Hailsham or the Cottages (please don't, I am an awful artist) I would easily be able to include all the little details that set the tone for Kath's memories. Every time Kath describes a new setting the writing is extremely descriptive. For example, when her and Ruth go outside to have a chat she explains, "There was a steep footpath I'd discovered leading up along the edge of the valley and just where it came out onto the road was an old bus shelter...the shelter itself--which was like a lovingly constructed wooden hut with one side open to the fields going down the valleyside--was still standing, and even had its bench intact"(199). Is it necessary to include all of this imagery in order for Ishiguro to get his points across? No, perhaps not. However, it is what makes the book special and intriguing, furthering its merit.

One aspect of the book that is hard to ignore and important to pay attention to is the switching between time settings. The book not only switches between past and present, Kath also skips around in her memories and does not always explain things in chronological order. I think Ishiguro uses this style to make connections between two ideas or relationships that become relevant later in her life.

What I also find interesting is how much Kath gives away from the beginning, both big and small revelations. We know that Ruth is dead and Tommy is also most likely dead. There are also little things that she gives away, for example she tells us early on that her and Tommy find the tape she loses at Hailsham later in Norfolk. This memory connects both her adult life and childhood, showing that she struggles to let go of her past. Although the order in which stories are told can somewhat be confusing, I do not have too much trouble understanding it as a whole.

Now that I have considered the writing style, let's get back to my previous question of whether or not this book is "AP worthy." I think that through his detailed approach, Ishiguro handles many important subjects such as love, growing up, and life values. It is easy for the reader to get caught up in the love triangle between the three friends and lose track of the dystopian setting. I think the choice to make the characters clones questions many ideas of what it means to be human. These themes make me rethink my initial reaction that the book is not of literary merit. I think that after reading this book and coming to this conclusion, it is important for me to understand that although a book might not be difficult to read, that does not mean the messages and analysis are any less challenging to understand.

If I were to teach this book in class I would focus on the connection between the coming of age style and dystopian society. I would ask questions like how does the fact that they are clones psychologically affect the kids? How do people act differently when the purpose of their life is to die?  What are some examples of the characters acting differently from "normal" humans? I find that these questions could be both targeted to a psychology class or English class.

Writing this blog post has made me think quite a bit about the meaning of the work as a whole. Hopefully, after I finish the last few chapters I will have a better understanding. Check back next week for my final reactions!