Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
[...]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.
|
If Kathy equates cloning to sterility (I'm not sure it was ever that bluntly stated) this is just an example of her experience/knowledge not being a reliable guide to the science of that world. Why should it be?
The author chose to make the clones sterile, but the book never says how sterility (or cloning) is achieved, and it never states cloning=sterility as a fact. (Saying that the clones in this story are sterile is
not the same as claiming that one causes the other.) The book gives very little in the way of science fact, and is very unadventurous in the science it uses, so it's almost impossible for it to be wrong. (It may be improbable or unbelievable to you, but that's different.)
For the rest ... I understand. I disagree in this case, but I can see what you are dissatisfied with and empathise - particularly since I have difficulty describing exactly why this book worked for me. As a science fiction fan I should have been pickier about that side than you, and as a person that prefers books with strong plots and forward drive I should have had more trouble with this book than I did. Instead, I picked it up and within a few pages I was happily ensconced in that world, accepting things as Kathy presented them, and driven forward by my desire to hear her out. And I finished the book both satisfied and contemplative - which is a sign of a very good (for me) book.