Echoes of humanity: Reflections on Never Let Me Go
If you havent read the novel please be aware that this article contains spoilers
Never Let Me Go is novel about three protagonists telling their lives through Kathy’s perspective. She describes where she grows up, who her friends are, her crush, and her teenage experiences. Yet, from the very beginning, there is an undertone: something is different about Kathy, her classmates, and friends from Hailsham, which is the school she attends. t’s clear in the tone, but also through the words Kathy uses when describing her childhood : her teachers are not teachers but “guardians'“, there is a special attention to them being healthy and doing nothing at all to harm their bodies. I had a lot of guesses in the beginning as to where the story would lead but I never expected the “twist”. Right from the beginning you try to understand, grasp the difference as to why the students and protagonists seem off. But you won’t fully understand until page 80ish where you get the answer, yet you had so many clues pointing to it (I’m slow I didn’t get it).
I was lucky, because I didn’t know anything about the novel before reading it, so I discovered bit by bit the storyline and the fate of these protagonists.
Again: Spoiler alert for those unfamiliar with Never Let Me Go
As the story unfolds, it becomes clear that Kathy, her friends, and their peers, who are unmistakably human in their emotions, thoughts, and relationships, were in fact created to fulfill a biomedical purpose. They were born and raised with the sole intention of ultimately donating their organs to so-called "normal" human beings. They are being farmed and once they are grown, their organs will be harvested right on them. The students are clones, bred specifically to become organ donors. Their purpose in life is to provide organs to prolong the lives of others, and they are destined to die young after several donations (referred to as “completing”)
By the time I understood that, I did not grasp it because what did distinguish these people from …us? other human beings. I was genuinely like “what?”
Assigned Fates
And that made me think. A lot. Because Kathy shares her story in the tone of a memoir, much like someone recounting the arc of a life nearing its end. But unlike an elderly person, or someone facing illness or a known cause of death (like a natural death, even if unfortunate), Kathy is dying for one reason only: she is fulfilling a role that society assigned her from birth. A quiet, unquestioned sacrifice carried out in the name of others’ survival.
The novel is an exploration of the meaning of life, what makes our life human - 2006 interview with Cynthia F. Wong and Grace Crummett, Ishiguro shares« were here for a limited time » (Ishiguro, K., Shaffer, B. W., & Wong, C. F. (2008). Conversations with Kazuo Ishiguro. http://catalog.lib.kyushu-u.ac.jp/en/recordID/1001447916)
Also who and what decides a human to be a clone rather than a « normal » human being . Like Daniel Vorhaus says « While Ishiguro’s tale has an unmistakable air of science fiction to it, it is difficult for the reader to view its protagonists as anything other than remarkably normal » (Vorhaus, D. (2007). Review of Kazuo Ishiguro,Never Let Me Go.1∗. The American Journal Of Bioethics, 7(2), 99‑100. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160601112451)
If I was a « clone » would I do the best of the time given to me, acceptance as the protagonists have or would I be drowned by the « injustice » of it all - questions about why « me » and how could someone else decide that fate for me ? There would be the question of classification between human beings. - because the clones were created only to « die » to save lives but they remain humans after all.
A conversation about our own mortality: the quest for meaning
The fundamental question of why we engage in life’s pursuits when death is inevitable challenges the very essence of human motivation and meaning. If all efforts, ambitions, and experiences ultimately culminate in the same unavoidable end, what justifies the value we assign to our actions? How can one find significance in choices made under the shadow of mortality - but also what does this imply about the human condition and our ethical responsibilities toward ourselves and others?
And also the question of : what explains the donors’ lack of resistance or rebellion against the system?
The truth is, as human beings, we are all aware of our mortality—even though we do not know when or how we will die—and yet, we do not actively resist death. This acceptance stems from the recognition that death is inevitable; ultimately, it renders resistance futile. Faced with this certainty, we choose to carry on and strive to make the most of the time we have.
We tend to ignore the reality of death in our daily lives—most mornings, I mean, I don’t wake up thinking, “Oh my God, I could die today.” However, as I have grown older, that awareness has gradually become more present.
I find myself increasingly aware of the passage of time and the experiences I want to live before becoming too old, falling ill, or—inevitably—dying. I mean it could, it can happen at any given time without a warning…And that was not something I did think about before a few years ago - because the younger you are the less you are confronted to that.
But this awareness raises a deeper question: why do I invest time in learning, work hard, and endure the daily struggles and challenges, when ultimately, no matter what I do, I will face the same fate as every other human being—death? In the end, their lives in the novel are brief and marked by inevitability, they are doomed —but so are we.
In the end the « clones » in the novel are just a reflexion of our human condition anyway: they live and will die, and even though while reading I had some sort of « distance » to the protagonists because I’m no clone, yet, upon reflection, : I am no different (—except for the fact that they face organ donation and death at a young age, one donation at a time, around their thirties)
So the donors do not rebel because they don’t need to : they are human in a way the people receiving their donations are not in the book (I felt closer to Kathy because she was empathic, she told me her life and everyday experience as would a friend when talking with them) whereas the « humans » in the novel where the more « inhuman » personas - since they are taking away other peoples life to save their own, defying the life of someone who did not consent at any time to do so.
When I die, if my organs are still viable, I will willingly donate them, really, but in the meantime my body is mine. I want to decide what to do with it. Like Kathy, I was brought into this world without consent or warning—I simply was born. Now, I strive to make the best of the life I have been given.
And Ishiguro does not differentiate the clones from other humans in any significant way—although they cannot reproduce sexually, but event that: this limitation is not unlike certain instances found among humans in our own world. That makes us face Kathy and Tommy and all the protagonists as someone like us, like ourselves.
The fact that they are clearly humans (even if clones) and resemble us that much questions the very notion of human being - what makes us more human than another human? And ultimately this reflection also extends, in my view, to the justification of war: what legitimizes taking another person’s life? In the novel, the need for healthy bodies is framed as a medical necessity—a reason to sacrifice one life to save another - but what about war victims whose lives we sacrifice - for what? Lives are lost for reasons far less clear or justified
Photo
Another horrible detail that strikes me is the fact that Hailsham seems to be an exception : there is this moment in the book when Kathy is taking care of another donor and he wants to hear all about her growing up but refuses to talk more about his own childhood (he grew up Dorset). This subtle exchange hints at a broader, more unsettling reality: most of these children likely grew up in far less humane conditions. Hailsham, with its emphasis on art, education, and emotional development, was a rare attempt—perhaps even an experiment—to treat the clones with dignity. And yet, even in that more privileged setting, they were still raised for one purpose alone.
“The problem, as I see it, is that you’ve been told and not told. You’ve been told, but none of you really understand, and I dare say, some people are quite happy to leave it that way. But I’m not. If you’re going to have decent lives, then you’ve got to know and know properly. None of you will go to America, none of you will be film stars. And none of you will be working in supermarkets as I heard some of you planning the other day. Your lives are set out for you. You’ll become adults, then before you’re old, before you’re even middle-aged, you’ll start to donate your vital organs”
This speech made me want to cry because in a way Miss Lucy when addressing finally the ‘thing’ is just taking every ounce of hope or dreaming away - and in a way one should ask « is it right? » because if they can dream… again: how are they different from us?
Another aspect I found particularly cruel was the way the characters felt compelled to prove they possessed a soul. When Tommy struggled with art, he perceived it as a personal failure. Yet, in the end, one must ask: what does it matter to have a soul when you are destined to something as dying? I mean, then again, does that mean we do not need to be kind, have a soul, have passion because we know life in the end ends the same for those who were creative, kind, full of passion and love and those who preferred being unmoral, mean, didn’t find ‘a place’ in the world.
They believed that possessing a soul might grant them a reprieve—a few more years of life through what Ishiguro calls a “deferral.” Yet this hope also isolates them further from the rest of humanity. Paradoxically, I found the clones to be more human in their emotions and struggles than many people I know IRL.
So by now you gave understood that struck me most—perhaps even unsettled me—is how the clones in Never Let Me Go often appear more human than many of us. They exhibit a profound sense of duty and social awareness. They do not revolt or take their own lives in defiance. Instead, they treat their bodies with care—not out of self-preservation, but because they understand that their physical integrity serves a greater, predefined purpose (I’m thinking of that passage where Tommy scratches his elbow).
“Why did you have to prove a thing like that, Miss Emily? Did someone think we didn’t have souls?”
Their acceptance is neither blind nor passive; it carries a quiet dignity. In witnessing this, I found myself confronted with a kind of moral mirror. Kathy and her peers accept their fate with a grace that challenged my own way of thinking. I, unlike them, have choices—freedoms they were never granted. They could not decide their life’s purpose, nor how to spend the years they had. Yet within those constraints, they lived with intent and honor.
There is, strangely, something beautiful in that: in embracing the duty assigned to us, in recognizing and respecting our place in the world—not as submission, but as a conscious act of meaning-making. It reminded me that the freedom I have comes with a responsibility they never had the luxury to bear, and perhaps I ought to carry it more deliberately.
Final words (for now)
I hope I gave you some insights on what really struck me within this writing and book, and if you read my article without having read the novel I hope it gave you the motivation and reasons as to why it was a really good book that sticks with you some time and engages into a conversation with yourself (and others). In embracing their limited time with grace and intention, the clones reveal a striking lesson—perhaps a call to action—for us all: freedom is inseparable from responsibility, and true humanity lies not in the mere fact of living, but in the choices we make within the boundaries imposed upon us.
