Quote:
Originally Posted by issybird
This is why du Maurier worked for me and Ishiguro didn't. There is the fantasy element in du Maurier that says, "Just because," and that's good enough for me - which is why I wish she hadn't made that silly comment about DNA. Ishiguro, otoh, to me created a "real world" setting that invited scrutiny; it didn't come across as fable or fantasy to me. But clearly a MMV issue.
|
I think they both created real-world settings. But du Maurier contrasted the real world with an illusory alternative world, and we could understand the appeal and the protagonist's fascination with it. Ishiguro gave us a setting that focused on only one slice of a real world, and didn't contrast it with the real world of which it was a part.
Another way look at it, perhaps, is that in the du Maurier, without the hallucinogen/time travel element, there's no story. You have to suspend disbelief. In the Ishiguro, the cloning isn't integral; the story could have involved any triangle of doomed people. So everything that isn't explained about cloning is a huge distraction. At least to me.