Anyway, I began Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let me Go back in January. It quickly became (or slowly as the case may be) my official book for 2 straight quarters. Instead of reading this, captivating book, I found myself reading about Anglo-American Postmodernity and learning Hebrew verbs. Well, let me get to it.
Never Let Me Go is a science fiction novel. There I said it, Sci-fi. Don't let that deter you. When I hear sci-fi, I often get nervous because I do not know how to distinguish between good and bad sci-fi. I always get nervous that I really have just picked up a book that is a giant excuse for someone to read about alien sex. I mean, I'm into intergalactic pornography as much as the next guy but, I'm in seminary and I am not ready to come up with a Christian ethic for Space porn.
But seriously, Sci-fi is a tough world to explore. The closest I have come to "sci-fi" is Kurt Vonnegut and Ishiguro and true Sci-Fi fans will tell you, this is weak sci-fi. (I'm looking at you Mark King). Also, I'm not sure either of these authors would consider themselves Sci-fi authors. Nonetheless, this book deals with an alternate world. A world set in the seventies where society has developed the ability to create and nurture clones who will eventually, "donate" or provide vital organs to non-clones or humans.
The book is written from the perspective of the clone-protagonist, Kathy. The book looks back upon her time growing up at a school called Hailsham. It is a school for these boy and girl clones to learn and grow into thinking...things. Not quite people, but not aliens. Teachers invest in these clones educating them, training them to think and have feelings.
The book follows the relationship of Kathy, Ruth and Tommy. It is an interesting love triangle that spans over 20 years as the clones move from Childhood to Adulthood to Donation.
What makes this book excellent is how (pause for vague descriptor) hauntingly prophetic it is.
Here's what I mean by that book-flap adjective, technology is working at break neck speeds. Google is watching what I search for and read to create more suitable search results when I "google" something. The Governor of Minnesota recently vetoed a bill "Banning Human Cloning" continuing the legality of human clone research in his state.
Ethics aside on both of these issues, what Never Let Me Go does is show the possible results of such an existence. In an episode of the West Wing a character discusses the role of the writer, "An artist's job to captivate you for however long we've asked for your attention. If we stumble into truth, we got lucky. And I don't get to decide what truth is." I think this quote is helpful when considering the role of fiction and society. Ishiguro creates a world where cloning is common place and in this world these individuals think, feel, love and laugh.
Now, back to that overly pretentious and cliche adjective I used above. The reason I believe this book is a bit haunting and may be even prophetic...as much as I (a literature guy) want to deny the role of science and math in the world and live in a state of ignorance of science, numbers are not going away. What this book does is places the reader in this universe and forces the reader to occupy themselves with such topics in a engaging and often times beautiful way.
Ishiguro definitely has my attention and maybe even some truth.
What if only Systematic Theology was set in an alternate universe?
Thanks for posting! It's been a while. This might inspire me to contribute a little more.
ReplyDeleteSci-fi has been strange for me. Why is it (I ask myself) that sci-fi is one of my favorite genres in the movies, but when I switch to books I'm in unfamiliar, leery territory? Ironically, I just came off a sci-fi binge. I read "Last and First Men: A Story of the Near and Far Future" (Olaf Stapledon), which turned out to be unbelievably awesome. If the genre is used right, it can turn out to say best what needs to be said. I refer to your probable distaste for systematic theology. Though what it says might be true (in the dry sense), it doesn't say best what needs to be said. Perhaps reading about how humanity in the future leave a dying Earth to settle on Venus only to exterminate its inhabitants (an indirect testimony against the evils of colonialism) says better, and effects the consciousness of the reader more acutely, than reading an arid, systematic passage out of a theology textbook. Everything in its place, I guess.
In terms of Ethics, sci-fi seems to be an excellent medium to discuss cloning! So, this blog has definitely peaked my interest! The philosophy of it comes after. Sometimes I feel like I can discuss the philosophy of something better and more justly if my nerves are affected first by a movie or a book. I'm put in the right frame of mind. It is one thing to read Hegel's theory of the dialectic of history and quite another to read "Last and First Men" and experience it.
I feel a lot of this can be made sense of with the idea of 'looking along' and 'looking at'. The arts, literature, poetry, movies, music are all aesthetic activities that involve 'looking along'. We look along the beam of light that is the work of art to a reality that we wouldn't otherwise experience if we weren't so looking. But in 'looking at' we have literary criticism, music critics, philosophy proper, systematic theology: in all this, we're looking at what we were once looking along. Each has its purpose. It is one thing to fall in love and another to discover in a biology textbook all the chemicals involved in the act of falling in love. To fall in love is to 'look along' the beam of light to the beloved; to read the biology textbook is to 'look at' the light (not the thing enlightened). Neither the lover or the biologist would be completely right in their different contexts.