Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
The sketchiness of the background is deliberate, but not to make a point. The author had a story he wanted to tell and he told that and little else. If I recall correctly the author states he carried the characters around in his head for 20 years and decided on cloning only because he listened or watched a program on it. The background was not at all important to the author, and it shows. To me it didn't work. I am pleased for those for whom it did work. Each to their own.
@Catlady. Whilst I think the author did little or no research on cloning I don't think this was due to laziness. I think self-indulgent is likely closer to the mark. He wrote the story he wanted to write with I suspect little consideration of readers. Sort of take it or leave it..
|
Frankly, I still don't know what story the author wanted to tell. It seemed to be a fairly standard tragic romantic triangle with flawed characters living limited lives--fine, but setting that story in a world of clones and cloning certainly indicates some grander theme or purpose, which is never realized.
Self-indulgent is a good description, but it could be argued that self-indulgence and laziness go hand in hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
Perhaps my own endeavours in the field have made me overly sensitive, but I find such judgements on an author ... presumptuous. Just because I didn't like something the author did it wrong? It's particularly obvious in a case like this where evidence abounds that a great many readers like the book very much, and the work has won considerable critical acclaim. I don't expect to like a book just because it's popular, but if a book finds favour among a significant audience then I feel that criticising the author is flying in the face of the evidence - they obviously did something right, even if it wasn't right for me.
Disclaimer: I suspect we all sometimes express a criticism as fault when we are meaning only that it wasn't to our taste, and sometimes authors really do screw up, or just aren't that good, but sometimes the expressions of fault are so explicit but seemingly out of place as to beg for correction ... or so it seems to me.
|
No, it's not just a matter of taste. I don't need to like a book to find the author credible. I just finished
Red Clocks by Leni Zumas, which I absolutely hated. But Zumas had a vision and a purpose that came across on the page; she constructed a fictional world that was plausible and fully realized. That I hated it was a matter of taste; I can still see why others have embraced it. My opinions about
Never Let You Go are different--I think the author was lazy, self-indulgent, and disdainful of the readers.
And I don't care if every critic in the world disagrees with me.