Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
Your interpretations are not reflected in any way in the text. I do not believe that this author, who glossed over so many details that would have added veracity, sat down and thought out the sterility angle at all. I think it more likely that he didn't bother to research if cloned animals could or could not reproduce.
And if the interaction with normal society is extraneous, why was sex with non-clones specifically mentioned? I can't be the only reader who thought that that would lead to some subplot.
|
That is one of the biggest problems with the book. There is an awful lot not reflected directly in the text. It is sometimes a useful device to leave some things to the imagination of the reader, but in this case my opinion is that it is badly overdone. The sterility angle is just one anomaly in a science that is entirely incidental and almost totally invented. Human organs and other products harnessed from humans do not provide cures for cancer and all diseases, nor is it likely that they will ever do so, amongst other anomalies. It is imaginary science, and any attempts to reconcile it with real science is doomed to failure. To use real or reasonably projected science would have involved the author in telling more stories than he was interested in telling and likely more than he ever bothered to imagine.
Sex with normal people could indeed have lead to a very different story if the author had wanted to go that way. Instead it serves the very minor object of furthering the isolation of the clones from that normal society. I agree that, like much in the book, it raised expectations that were not realised. You have focused on some of these elements, I on others. In my case I have been left disappointed and frustrated and feel that the book is largely incomplete. Your experience seems to be similar. Others have been able to ignore all of these aspects and enjoy the book for what it is.