Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
There was no denial of fact (sterile clones is a red herring - the book never defines cloning and sterility as cause and effect). You are looking for explanations and the author offers none. It was quite deliberate, not lazy. That you didn't like it is quite understandable, but that doesn't mean that the author was showing disdain for his readers as it is evident that the approach worked for a significant number of readers.
|
The point is that the author made the clones sterile for no reason. Why do it? I believe I used the analogy earlier that an author might choose to say the clones had three eyes. Fine, if he wanted to make that up, I'd go with it, but I'd have a right to expect it to MATTER to the story in some way. The sterility was neither factual nor relevant; nor was there any relevance to the lessons in how clones and nonclones had different views of sex and clones needed to be aware of that.
Quote:
|
Normally I'd be right there with you in thinking the book a waste of effort. I normally prefer a more conventional plot, and more clearly explained reasons for peculiarities in the setting. Fiction is generally a comforting entertainment because it offers the explanations and closure that real life fails to provide, and I have enough unexplained things in my life without looking for more. So I find it hard to define exactly why Never Let Me Go worked for me, but it did.
|
I assure you, I am quite happy to read fiction that is uncomfortable, challenging, and disturbing, but the author still needs to make it plausible and provide a semblance of reality.
An author needs to know every detail about the world he creates, whether the specifics end up on the page or not--when he doesn't, it shows. This author doesn't seem to have any idea of how his fictional world actually functions.