I thought that the use of the term 'donations' was very clever. Depending on your interpretation of the word you might feel, like I did, that it was used by the authorities to disguise the fact that there was no other choice but to donate. I suppose it might have made it easier for the children to deal with - appearing to be a voluntary act rather than an enforced one.
What bothered me was the acceptance by the donators/carers that their entire lives consisted of live, donate, and die. That's it. No protests, no question. Unless I missed something (not unlikely ).

All in all I'd say it’s worth reading, if only because it makes you think. An interesting question is this: if you had a clone of your current self would you expect and accept it to have the same rights as you (in light of the story you've just read and of the medical implications of having a clone)? Distressingly, I can't answer

I actually liked the way in which we weren't told the real reason for their being at the school and knowing that they are different. I actually thought that after Tommy had his tantrum playing football that there was actually some physical or mental disability as they were treated so differently. And the way Madame acted when she saw them as though she couldn't bare to look at them because they weren't 'normal' when physically they were.

It did seem like such an ordinary story and then did change dramatically when the truth was discovered but almost to the unbelievable. I'd hate to know that I was going to be donating organs to the point where it led to death and when Kathy and Tommy discovered the truth was emotional - they still had to live in the real world but were so innocent and uneducated that they didn't even realise the truth.

I agree - why not just say no rather than accepting that as your destiny. Kathy managed to stay on as a carer for longer than she probably might have done but considering they were actually to be carers before becoming donors and seeing what was actually going to happen would make you think they'd want to say no!

As I said before, I took a while to get into the story - and I have since been back & re-read the first 20 pages. On the surface the first part of the book reads a bit like Chalet School - or the 4th form at St Ethelbrudas or something like that! However Ishiguro's hints and more obvious "That was before..such & such a thing..." keep you reading & reading. I read the whole thing in about 4 days and thats VERY quick for me as I'm a busy bee. I rather enjoyed the way Kathy was talking to me personaly, or so it seemed. The Students (AKA donors) are very self repressed & in denial about what is to come. They do not think about the long term future - what child does? The 'care' of these kids is certainly done on the cheap! The way they are so naive about the outside world is quite endearing. I found myself wishing for such a sheltered childhood - but then again...maybe not. I found I did not like Ruth one bit, but I did identify with Kathy. Now I have finished it I wonder what order they took organs in? you could certainly donate more than 4 organs & still live - but maybe they took more than one at a time - before a donor 'Completes' - the word die is hardly ever used is it?

If they were dontaing their vital organs, which I'm guessing are things like kidney, liver, lungs, heart even how could they function enough to walk round looking at boats and stuff? Maybe I got it all wrong but surely they would be more sick than Kathy put across. Surely after 3 vital organs being removed from you you wouldn't be able to have sex like Kathy and Tommy were at the end?

I think this book worked for me BECAUSE he did not explore how we think the students would be feeling. I too wondered why there were no 'Rebels' who refused to accept their lot! However they were bought up to know nothing else, they accepted it, were conditioned to it. The simplistic style that he talks about student life - kind of lulls the reader into this 'ideal' world of theirs - no money worries to speak of - no worries of danger. They mentaly blocked out the day they would start to donate. I did at one point wonder if they were given drugs to make them placid. Presumably they were all sterile? Was this engineered - or achived by drugs? I can't remember much about that, other than them saying they would never have babies. Thinking about organs - you can live without quite a few of them, you don't need a spleen, you can manage with one lung, one kidney, one eye, and you can manage with just a third of your liver. I expect the heart would be the last organ to donate - but then the body can be kept alive on machines while they 'harvest' anything else - like the pancreas for example. I'm diabetic & if anyone has a spare pancreas I'll take it!! To be honest I WOULD take one that had been grown in a jar from stem cells - how different is that in principal from Ishiguro's world? Or Jodie Picoult's my sisters keeper?

Loved the book but my biggest question was why they just accepted their lot as donors, I felt that there would be at least one or two who rebelled. No matter what the conditioning everyone would be different. They also mentioned that they were produced from prositutes etc but I am left wondering what their true "parentage" is male and female.

I think the reason no one rebelled is probably because the thought never even occurred to them that they could-they were probably only taught what history it was thought they might need to know and some of the well known leaders who stood up and rebelled(such as martin luther king for example) were likely omitted from all they were taught.If they were taught any history.
They were also more than likely psychologically conditioned by their surroundings and teachings or there is the possibility that meals they ate were laced with say prosac or an equivalent to make them more docile and easily controlled.
I personally wouldn't want an organ unless it had been created independently thru stem cell research or such like-definetly not if it came from a human life form.
Did none of you not think THAT BY EDUCATING THE CLONES AND BY STIMULATING THEIR EMOTIONS AND teaching them at the school it was a bit like teaching say farm animals to read,write and communicate before leading themn to the slaughter to be eaten?
Made me feel a bit like a hypocrite for eating meat because if I had to know the ins and outs of what is done to them I probably wouldn't eat the animals and if i wouldn't eat a pet what gives me the right to eat a cow or sheep?If i am willing to do this surely i should feel nothing about accepting organs from clone donors?
Also made feel like life is futile and that,in our own way,we follow our own set paths unquestionably just as the students did-go out to work,have babies,retire and then die-made me wonder why more of us don't rebel against the system and do something more meaningful with our short existence.(told you the book had upset me)
I personally thought this very well written and very thought and emotion provoking-what would happen to KaTH NOW,ALL HER COMFORTERS,HER FRIENDS ,HER CARERS WERE GONE -WHo was gonna look out for her during her donations?
Regarding the donations-maybe the reason the clones seemed so well and could do so much afterwards was because only less important organs were removed and they had been genetically predisposed to be slightly faster at recovery than we would-there were strong hints that not all clones completed after the last donation and were kept alive on machine so that eyes etc could possibly be harvested

in this book the clones are not allowed to read or write or communicate,are kept on a farm and treated as little more than animals watched over by robots and a caretaker human.

I really enjoyed this book. I loved the conversational style the author used, I felt like it was a private conversation between myself and Kathy. In contrast to an earlier comment I liked the way Kathy kept going back to another point before telling us what she wanted to say – I found that very natural.

I also loved the suspense of never being quite sure what was going on – it made it very intriguing. I think I had a fair idea what “donations” were pretty early on, but wasn’t sure what to make of Hailsham. The ending was a bit of a surprise.

I think, in relation to the subject matter, that the idea of breeding humans for spare parts is more science fiction than science fact. It would be too costly to keep humans alive when they can “grow” the organs in labs (I think!). I don’t think the book made me think too much about the rights and wrongs of the ideas of cloning and such – I just took it a brilliant story with a gripping narrative and suspenseful plot!

the argument towards whole bodies rather than organs being cloned as explained in michael marshall's "spares" is that whole humans can be cloned from individuals so that there is no organ rejection and so that ,like a future investment,there are always parts available should you say lose an arm. in an accident...then later an eye etc etc till the clone is used up!!

This is an amazing book. It appears to be a very simply written tale but underneath there is a seething mass of unanswered questions. From reading other members' reviews/comments, we all appear to have read it on different levels and that's because it's such a clever novel with so many layers although I guess it would not appeal to "action/thriller" fans.

As soon as I finished the novel, I thought I'd connected with the characters or certainly felt deeply moved by their plight but then I realised that I couldn't even tell you what they looked like or their personal make-up. I think it was then I realised that I was perhaps more touched by the fact that their "lives" mirror our own lives - what is our purpose in life?, what and where are we "supposed to be"? (the last words of the novel), we criticise the clones seeming disinterest in escaping their fates but perhaps they have more purpose and do more with their pre-determined lives than we as supposedly free-willed individuals do?

Now, before I get too morose, it's obviously not a comfort read and we have no daring adventures but it's all the more poignant for it's lack of "bling". I found it so funny when they were standing outside the office window and Tommy says in total awe "It's their lunch break but they don't go out. Don't blame them either".

I found the first part about Hailsham really set the atmosphere of repression and secrets. One minute I thought it was the Chalet School and the next it sounded like that place Jane Eyre went. I think Tommy knew more about their future than the others wanted to admit so they made an example of him, he was the one who didn't play the game and eventually, even he had to suppress his own emotions and join in the farce. Ruth was intensely dislikeable - a bully and a manipulator whereas Kathy was destined to be a "carer" with her rather bland, gentle nature. The one scene in Hailsham which really stands out in my mind, was the time Madame seemed to shudder as the children came towards her - a bit like a horror film although I was growing more fond of the "horrors" with every sentence.

The second section "Cottages" was like a limbo or waiting room before the real horror of their fate began. They didn't do very much, did they? - a lot of fafffing around - reminded me of my student days (guilt, guilt..)

In the third part where Ruth and Tommy become donors and Kathy a carer, Madame and the old headmistress eventually reveal what the purpose of the art collecting was. Their attempts to try and justify what they were doing reminded me of the attempts of Nazi war criminals to get off the hook by saying they were only obeying orders. Had they done any good by making Hailsham an idyllic place compared with the organ farms or had they made it even harder for the Hailsham "students" when they had to leave - surely the fate of the clones was always the same whatever their background. I'm still wondering about that one, as I suppose they gave the clones some good memories to sustain them as they awaited completion, something to stand in for the lack of parents in their lives?

Since they are clones they have no parentage like we would call it, i.e. a mother and father whose DNA made that person. A clone would have the exact DNA of one person so there is no real parent except the original person whose DNA was used (does that make sense? )