[Catlady]

Originally Posted by darryl

I think it is just that he was so focused on what he wanted to write that he regarded anything else as unimportant. He had the characters, he had the "story" he wanted to tell and he was just looking for a setting. The problem is that accurate science simply doesn't work for the assumptions he required for the "story". Perhaps he could have made the "story" work with modern science, but he just wasn't interested in doing so. It didn't matter to him. Similarly, he ignored possible rebellion or escape, because it was not the story he wanted to tell. This is something he states clearly in the video posted earlier. Addressing both points would have made for a much more credible book, but he had no interest in doing either. He simply ignored them to the maximum extent he thought possible. I don't know that I'd call it laziness. Just an extremely narrow focus. And I think it detracts substantially from what might otherwise have been a very good book.

I agree that it detracts. If a coherent and logical story didn't matter to him, why should the resulting book matter to me? I don't even know what story he wanted to tell: Was it the story of a love triangle of three doomed people? Was it a story about a dehumanized population?

I'm not saying there needed to be an escape or rebellion; I'm just saying that in light of the quest for a deferral, which is an important story element, why not include a sentence or two about why escape isn't considered a possibility--fear of the unknown, fear of punishment, some kind of surveillance, etc. That would have stopped me from being distracted about it from the point when the veterans first brought up deferrals.

@Catlady. Am I wrong in assuming that there is zero chance of you ever reading "The Girl With All The Gifts"? Even the first couple of chapters?

You are not wrong.

Originally Posted by gmw

I had thought - hoped - we'd gotten past the "science". There is no scientific presentation in this book, there are no facts to argue about. I saw nothing scientifically impossible in this book. I've certainly seen bigger stretches in other science-fiction - most of it (because the "science" of Never Let Me Go is not particularly interesting). Most of the details that have been questioned have some possible explanation. Whether the explanations are probable is another matter, but we've been through them so there is no need to repeat.

You're missing my point. When I asked about why the author chose to make the clones sterile, it was not a question about science, it was a question about his choice to add that to the story, when it is contrary to scientific fact. It's analogous to an author writing about a real-world setting but saying that his humans have three eyes--and then not using that invention to any purpose. I read something that's odd, and I think, OK, something's going to come of this. But nothing did, and that's distracting.

Same thing with the donations, and the general maximum of four times. I was distracted wondering what spare organs could be gleaned from living donors. Kidney and bone marrow, what else? It wasn't until very late that there was mention of organs being used for miracle cures, but even with that invention, still, there's the problem of what can be safely taken.

Now, if the author had decided to posit that the cloning process created beings with extra sets of various organs that could be harvested, I would not have questioned it as scientifically crazy or demanded explanations; I would have been perfectly willing to go along with it as something the author wanted for purposes of the story.

I find it curious that a rebellion or escape might be thought to make the story more credible. How can that be? Whether any attempted rebellion or escape was successful or not, it in no way changes the credibility of the starting situation, it only changes how you feel about it. Don't you find that a bit interesting?

As I say above, all I wanted was a sentence or two. The initial mention of a deferral set me up to expect that there might be a failed escape attempt at some point; I kept waiting for something, and that was a distraction.