This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 14 March 2011. Further details are available here. |
Retranslation (back into english) of translated title seems faulty:
Dutch: "Laat me nooit alleen" (Never leave me)
I'm German and once lived close to dutch border. Dutch is pretty similar to German, too.
Therefore my educated guess on the meaning of
"Laat me nooit alleen" is
"Lass mich nicht allein" in German which literally translates into
"Let me not alone" or to put it into correct grammar
"Don't leave me alone" in English
The close resemblance of the first three sentences makes me confident in my educated guess.
By the way the German title is
"Alles, was wir geben mussten" (All we had to give).
Please note that "had to" is used as past tense to "must".
--
84.63.159.136 (
talk) 16:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I can confirm (as a bonafide Dutchy) the translation is wrong in a literal sense (and you deduced its meaning correctly), this can attributed to the poetic license the Dutch translator/publisher have taken
[1]
[2], as with the German title, even though the close resemblance to the English title might be confusing.
81.206.39.122 (
talk) 11:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
References
The plot synopsis is very detailed... but it does not anywhere explain that the children are clones and are being grown to donate their vital organs! I have not read the book and so don't know where to insert it but all of a sudden we're talking about "donors" with no clue as to what that means. 10:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.128.75 ( talk)
I just saw the film, and wondered if the nature of the donors was any clearer in the book than in the film. In the film the children are not actually described as 'clones', and it is implied at the end of the film that they are regarded as not fully human. Their behaviour is also strange and seems slightly 'backward'. There is no reason why clones should behave this way, and it isn't clear what advantage they would have as a source of spare organs, except of course for the individuals from whom they are cloned. I assumed at first that this was the point - that they were being kept as sources of organs for the benefit of wealthy 'originals'. But then it turned out that the 'originals' were probably the dregs of society. It all seems a bit incoherent. I suppose I will have to read the book now to see if it makes any better sense! 86.173.161.33 ( talk) 19:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Just referring to the fact that you said the clones' organs would be of no use to anyone but the originals, that is incorrect. given an extensive enough spread of genetics, it is almost impossible that there would not be an appropriate tissue and blood match to suit any recipient of an organ. they don't have to be genetically identical,they just have to have matching tissue and blood types. just a FYI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.84.124 ( talk) 11:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The advantage would be convenience. Normally organ donation requires finding not only a compatible donor but someone who's either willing to give something they can live without or someone who's died very recently and signed up as a donor. That's a lot, lot rarer than someone who's compatible. Relatively few people even give blood and they're not really losing anything. This method eliminates that problem. The children are raised from birth, before then even, to donate, and their willingness is either assumed or irrelevant. So all they have to do is search the, presumably hundreds or thousands, of clones for a match and they've got their organ. Danikat ( talk) 18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, from what I have read, the author did not try to make a book specifically about clones or the scientific part of it. I think the book is about a group of children who have been ostracized from society because of what they mean to them. The author makes very clear that "the humans" don´t think of the "clones" as equal and they´d rather not think of what happens to them. They have an specific purpose, and in that way are disposable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValLut ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I've just read the book and I haven't seen the film. I think the plot description here has either been influenced by the film or has assumptions presented as fact. In particular:
I get the impression that people are contributing to this page without having read the book. This is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmody ( talk • contribs) 10:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
This is just a follow-up to note that the OP above is entirely correct about the location of Hailsham. At no point in the novel is it made explicit that Hailsham is in East Sussex. Although there is a long tradition of British organizations being named according to place names, this is a large point of contention within the novel. What the novel *does* make explicit is that the Hailsham students do not know where Hailsham is. Coupling this with the fact that their geographic education included East Sussex it does not make sense, within the context of the novel, that Hailsham is in East Sussex---or, at the very least, it makes the relationship between the name of the school and Hailsham parish indeterminate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.112.60 ( talk) 13:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw the film and read the book. I now stortened the Plot and removed the last bits of text that may have been about the film. -- Judith02 ( talk) 15:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I have added the official Japanese cast listing which is in Japanese because it is more likely to be permanent. There is a "Now showing" on TBS international [1] which has her name in English, but that will disappear at the end of the series. Kuitan ( talk) 14:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Never Let Me Go (novel)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This significant recent novel is rated "B" although it could really do with more material to create a ==Literary significance & criticism== section. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 12:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 22:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 01:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Williams, Chanda (2020). "Abject Adaptations: Disability in Clone Culture and Adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go". The Midwest Quarterly. 61 (2): 274. Williams’ article suggests that adaptation studies can either critique or reinforce the norms presented in Never Let Me Go. RyanArian ( User talk:RyanArian) RyanArian ( talk) 14:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The background section of this book is a huge spoiler! 2A02:1811:1C77:4200:B45F:586C:1086:B7B3 ( talk) 20:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Was the theme of this novel inspired at all by involuntary organ harvesting in China? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 01:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 14 March 2011. Further details are available here. |
Retranslation (back into english) of translated title seems faulty:
Dutch: "Laat me nooit alleen" (Never leave me)
I'm German and once lived close to dutch border. Dutch is pretty similar to German, too.
Therefore my educated guess on the meaning of
"Laat me nooit alleen" is
"Lass mich nicht allein" in German which literally translates into
"Let me not alone" or to put it into correct grammar
"Don't leave me alone" in English
The close resemblance of the first three sentences makes me confident in my educated guess.
By the way the German title is
"Alles, was wir geben mussten" (All we had to give).
Please note that "had to" is used as past tense to "must".
--
84.63.159.136 (
talk) 16:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I can confirm (as a bonafide Dutchy) the translation is wrong in a literal sense (and you deduced its meaning correctly), this can attributed to the poetic license the Dutch translator/publisher have taken
[1]
[2], as with the German title, even though the close resemblance to the English title might be confusing.
81.206.39.122 (
talk) 11:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
References
The plot synopsis is very detailed... but it does not anywhere explain that the children are clones and are being grown to donate their vital organs! I have not read the book and so don't know where to insert it but all of a sudden we're talking about "donors" with no clue as to what that means. 10:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.128.75 ( talk)
I just saw the film, and wondered if the nature of the donors was any clearer in the book than in the film. In the film the children are not actually described as 'clones', and it is implied at the end of the film that they are regarded as not fully human. Their behaviour is also strange and seems slightly 'backward'. There is no reason why clones should behave this way, and it isn't clear what advantage they would have as a source of spare organs, except of course for the individuals from whom they are cloned. I assumed at first that this was the point - that they were being kept as sources of organs for the benefit of wealthy 'originals'. But then it turned out that the 'originals' were probably the dregs of society. It all seems a bit incoherent. I suppose I will have to read the book now to see if it makes any better sense! 86.173.161.33 ( talk) 19:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Just referring to the fact that you said the clones' organs would be of no use to anyone but the originals, that is incorrect. given an extensive enough spread of genetics, it is almost impossible that there would not be an appropriate tissue and blood match to suit any recipient of an organ. they don't have to be genetically identical,they just have to have matching tissue and blood types. just a FYI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.84.124 ( talk) 11:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The advantage would be convenience. Normally organ donation requires finding not only a compatible donor but someone who's either willing to give something they can live without or someone who's died very recently and signed up as a donor. That's a lot, lot rarer than someone who's compatible. Relatively few people even give blood and they're not really losing anything. This method eliminates that problem. The children are raised from birth, before then even, to donate, and their willingness is either assumed or irrelevant. So all they have to do is search the, presumably hundreds or thousands, of clones for a match and they've got their organ. Danikat ( talk) 18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, from what I have read, the author did not try to make a book specifically about clones or the scientific part of it. I think the book is about a group of children who have been ostracized from society because of what they mean to them. The author makes very clear that "the humans" don´t think of the "clones" as equal and they´d rather not think of what happens to them. They have an specific purpose, and in that way are disposable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValLut ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I've just read the book and I haven't seen the film. I think the plot description here has either been influenced by the film or has assumptions presented as fact. In particular:
I get the impression that people are contributing to this page without having read the book. This is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmody ( talk • contribs) 10:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
This is just a follow-up to note that the OP above is entirely correct about the location of Hailsham. At no point in the novel is it made explicit that Hailsham is in East Sussex. Although there is a long tradition of British organizations being named according to place names, this is a large point of contention within the novel. What the novel *does* make explicit is that the Hailsham students do not know where Hailsham is. Coupling this with the fact that their geographic education included East Sussex it does not make sense, within the context of the novel, that Hailsham is in East Sussex---or, at the very least, it makes the relationship between the name of the school and Hailsham parish indeterminate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.112.60 ( talk) 13:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw the film and read the book. I now stortened the Plot and removed the last bits of text that may have been about the film. -- Judith02 ( talk) 15:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I have added the official Japanese cast listing which is in Japanese because it is more likely to be permanent. There is a "Now showing" on TBS international [1] which has her name in English, but that will disappear at the end of the series. Kuitan ( talk) 14:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Never Let Me Go (novel)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This significant recent novel is rated "B" although it could really do with more material to create a ==Literary significance & criticism== section. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 12:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 22:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 01:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Williams, Chanda (2020). "Abject Adaptations: Disability in Clone Culture and Adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go". The Midwest Quarterly. 61 (2): 274. Williams’ article suggests that adaptation studies can either critique or reinforce the norms presented in Never Let Me Go. RyanArian ( User talk:RyanArian) RyanArian ( talk) 14:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The background section of this book is a huge spoiler! 2A02:1811:1C77:4200:B45F:586C:1086:B7B3 ( talk) 20:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Was the theme of this novel inspired at all by involuntary organ harvesting in China? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 01:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)