Never Let Me Go left me feeling rather odd about the statements Miss Emily made in reference to Marie-Claude’s gallery. She says they took away the best art because they “thought it would reveal [the students’] souls. Or to put it more finely, [they] did it to prove [the students] had souls at all” (260). The way she presents it is as a method to force the public to realize the students were clones, yes, but capable of deep thought and feeling; she tells Kathy and Tommy she would say, “‘Look at this art! How dare you claim these children are anything less than fully human?’” (262).
She has a fair point about forcing people to see where the organs came from instead of “[growing] in a kind of vacuum” (262). From that standpoint, it’s similar to what someone said in class about Hailsham being comparable to a free-range farm where the animals are brought up well and given room to move. This would be a logical reason to seek better treatment for clones; Miss Emily says that “around the country…there are students being reared in deplorable conditions,” so seeking to create a healthier environment would be beneficial for the clones and therefore for whomever receives their organs (260-261).
Nevertheless, I’m curious about why she never goes further in-depth about the people wondering “whether [the clones] should have been brought into existence at all” (263). She does mention that by the time those questions were raised “by then it was too late,” that “There was no way to reverse the process. How can you ask a world that has come to regard cancer as curable…to go back to the dark days?” (263). It’s fair — if depressing — to say that the world is set in its ways and a change would be difficult to implement.
However, this would be a more compelling point if she and Marie-Claude had not spent such a significant portion of Part One collecting things for the gallery in order to prove the clones have souls. I’m confused as to why, with “All those paintings, poems, all the things…[Marie-Claude] gathered over the years,” why neither Miss Emily nor Marie-Claude made the argument that, since the clones have souls, the entire system of cloning and harvesting organs from living beings should be stopped (253). Surely by this point they would have enough convincing evidence to back their claim, especially from the couples that came to them asking for deferrals.
We talked in class about how this novel is about accepting fate; is there some of that acceptance in the fact that abolishing the clone system never gained traction? Is the world in Never Let Me Go so stubbornly blind that it refuses to see clones as people, to the extent that even Miss Emily and Marie-Claude believe it as well?
I don’t think the world in Never Let Me Go is anymore blind than our world. You can find parallels between the Clones “rights” and the rights that were fought for by African Americans. In the beginning, many people did not view African Americans as humans. Being human can be characterized as having a soul. It’s what often separates us from animals. However, even once African Americans were viewed by more people as human, segregation still existed. I don’t believe that Miss Emily and Marie-Claude refuse to see the clones as human, though. They do have some stereotypes for sure. As humans, we generalize, whether they are good or bad, because of the culture that surrounds us. I think that they at least want to believe the clones are humans. Otherwise, they would not have devoted so much of their lives to this cause. However, they are only human and become disheartened as they see their cause failing. It is easier to view it as a cause that was doomed from the beginning than you failed at your task. Basically, I think they are aware the clones are human, but they want to believe it is hopeless. They are no different from other humans who have had a movement fail.
ReplyDeleteMiss Emily and Marie-Claude may think intellectually that the clones are people with souls like any other, but deep down they don’t seem to believe it. They both show fear and even disgust toward the clones. Miss Emily says, “We’re all afraid of you. I myself had to fight back my dread of you almost every day...I’d feel such revulsion” (269). These are the two people who fought hardest for the rights of the clones, and Ms. Emily spent every day living among them. If they feel this way it is hardly surprising that the general public considers them to be soulless and inhuman, and if they weren’t human it could be morally acceptable to harvest their organs. From a certain perspective it would be immoral not to. How could someone justify letting their own friend or family member die just to protect the life of something that wasn’t even human? Philosophical arguments tend to fall away when a person is watching someone they love die, especially if something can be done to prevent it. This is what Miss Emily meant when she said that “there was no way to reverse the process” (263). I do not agree with this line of thinking but I can certainly see why someone might. It is highly probable that no one, not even the clones’ greatest advocates, would try to stop the donation process altogether.
ReplyDelete