Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro is one of my all-time favourite books – in fact, the only thing stopping it being my overall favourite is nostalgia for books that are particularly special because of where I was in my life when I read them, because I think objectively Never Let Me Go is the best book I've ever read. I was thinking about it this evening, and I noticed a very interesting self-referential observation that I wonder whether the author intended.
The book's title is named for the main character Kathy's favourite song – a track on a cassette she has by a singer called Judy Bridgewater (who is fictitious). Kathy imagines the song to be about a woman who's been told she can never have children, but by some miracle she does have a baby, and she's clutching the baby to her and promising to never let it go because she's afraid of losing what she has. However, although Kathy likes to think about this, she does acknowledge that that isn't actually what the song is about.
The reason I think this is meta is that I find this to also be true about the real Never Let Me Go, the novel. Every time I read the book I feel like it's about something different. I'm sure that a lot of the metaphors I've seen it in were the author's intention – but there are so many different ones that I've thought of that I doubt they all could have been. Sometimes this has included some things that are specific to me personally; there's one particular experience I had in my childhood that on a really deep and personal level the whole book feels like it could be about. And, like Kathy, I'm sure that this isn't actually what it's about, but, like her, I find myself able to easily link it to my own life and situation (in Kathy's case, she's unable to have children herself, and you get the impression that she would like to).
Never Let Me Go captures so much of the human condition that I find you can interpret it as being a metaphor for almost anything, and I'm sure I'm not the only person to have seen bits of my own personal life story in it. I wonder if the author was thinking, when he wrote about Kathy's deeply personal interpretation of the song, that this is also something that readers could do about this very book?
by georgemillman
20 Comments
This is the thing about criticism/analysis of any media really, but especially books. So many people read something and they are convinced that while the writer was writing about X it was actually a very complicated analogy meaning Y… And so on.
And in so many cases when these interpretations are presented to the author they say that they had no idea anyone would interpret it in that particular way because they never intended to bring Y into it at all and never even thought about Y as they were writing about X.
So did Ishiguro include the whole thing about Kathy’s interpretation of the song as some kind of observation on how people could interpret the entire novel? I don’t know. Quite possibly. But it doesn’t really matter. If you interpret it in that way, then, fine. The beauty of art is that you can relate to it in your own way, isn’t it?
I really don’t think novel writers are spending much time designing metaphors, especially subtle and ambiguous ones. They’re just telling stories. If you want to belabor the meaning of something which is intentionally obscure, that’s what poetry is for!
Such a beautiful perspective.
I just finished listening to it the other day. I’m not familiar with what crumpets (like with tea) are, but I imagine they’re like biscuits. Listening to *Never Let Me Go* was like thinking I’d try crumpets for the first time, but they just tasted like fifteen hours of eating dog biscuits. I only finished so the book would be completed.
I like this analysis. I do think the book is about more than one idea, and whether the author intended the metaphor or not I think it works. I think it’s interesting that it’s a book about this horrible thing that is going on but instead of being a thriller about people hating it or trying to stop it (which would not be bad either!) it’s more about little human things people do to try to cope with it.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. This is one of my favorite books, and I only discovered it last year.
I don’t really think that books that touch on relatable topics or situations are the same thing as “meta”
In the book XX by Rian Hughes, one of the characters picks up a random book off a table, opens to a random page – the same page number you’re on when reading the actual, physical novel. That’s meta.
My favorite meta-fact about *Never Let Me Go* was that it was unputdownable.
And *Remains of the Day* I read in one long go, finishing just as evening fell.
I did not care for this book, I had to force myself to finish it. It’s been years so I don’t remember all the details, but I did not relate.
This book is so excellent and I have an interesting theory about it I keep re-examining:
The whole point of the school and teaching them art was to try and prove that they have souls, essentially that they are fully human, but the entire book can give you the impression that they don’t have souls.
Kathy misinterprets a love song to be about a baby, almost like a large language model might get the wrong idea from a piece of music if it only had lyrics to analyse and didn’t understand tone or euphemism. The teacher crying whilst watching her dance like this might be sad that their mission may prove a failure.
All their affection they show one another in couples doesn’t come to them innately, they learn it from the older clones, who themselves maybe learned it through imitation.
Essentially I think Ishiguro is asking the question, “what _does_ show that someone has a soul? Isn’t that such a hard thing to show or prove? None of us really know.” It would be tempting for Kathy’s story to show unambiguous examples of innate rebellion or “human” moments and to take the stance that _of course_ they are human. I think it’s such an interesting way of presenting the characters in the book like the question of whether they have souls is unanswered, and can be interpreted either way. It also folds into the world building so perfectly because if they _knew_ they were human, it might be self evident to them that the system is unjust and so they _must_ seek to escape or destroy it. Their accepting of the system shows their ambivalence or uncertainty as to the answer to the question of whether they have souls.
“Never Let Me Go” always felt like a strong allegory for factory farmed animals to me and the way humans disregard suffering and pain they cause because they provided “a good life” and therefore are entitled to a body.
That’s not meta, but I’m glad you were touched.
Totally see what you mean with Never Let Me Go. It’s like the book changes with you. Maybe Ishiguro planned it, making us find our own stories in his. Really makes you think
I was so disappointed with this book.. I felt it went no where and was a waste of time. I don’t get it at all?!
Ishiguro is top tier
I read this story about the time the movie The Island came out, with its similar theme. I found it (book) very depressing.
This is a great analysis and also one of my all time favorite books. I think it’s possible it was intended or that it wasn’t. So many of Ishiguro’s books are like this in that there’s always some new understanding hidden in the pages. I think that’s my favorite part about his writing- and all of my favorite books to be honest- that the deeper they go into character development and world building the more themes and insights are woven into the story. Even if this meta philosophical parts aren’t necessarily intended for the reader, they make the book(s) one(s) that stick with us long afterwards and that we return to.
Such a thoughtful post and an interesting take. Never Let Me Go is one of my favourites too.
I’m sure Ishiguro is very aware that people take their own meanings from art, including his books. And that feeling is what led him to come up with the song idea in the book. Clearly the idea is very important to him because it became the title of the book.
So I’m going to say yes, I think it is a deliberate, meta choice.
Ah, the meta-ness of Ishiguro’s masterpiece never ceases to amaze. Truly a book that leaves you pondering the nature of life, even after the last page.
No way! Actually good fiction has important things to say about the human condition??? People can interpret actually good fiction??? I don’t believe it! Who knew?! This is groundbreaking stuff.