Is being a clone really that different from being a 'shard' like Hope?
YES. Because clones exist in real life, and there is a word (okay, phrase) for them. It is "monozygotic twins". Sorry, but it really gets on my nerves when people treat "clone" like another word for "carbon copy", when that's not how genes/cloning/people work.
If Maddie and Jean were twins separated at birth, and Scott behaved the way he did, would anyone attempt to claim that he was in any way exculpated because Maddie was "just" Jean's second-born twin? Of course not! But that's what cloning is.
Sometimes I feel that anyone writing SF needs to get hit with a large stick labeled "CLONING DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY". It would have a nail in it.
no subject
YES. Because clones exist in real life, and there is a word (okay, phrase) for them. It is "monozygotic twins". Sorry, but it really gets on my nerves when people treat "clone" like another word for "carbon copy", when that's not how genes/cloning/people work.
If Maddie and Jean were twins separated at birth, and Scott behaved the way he did, would anyone attempt to claim that he was in any way exculpated because Maddie was "just" Jean's second-born twin? Of course not! But that's what cloning is.
Sometimes I feel that anyone writing SF needs to get hit with a large stick labeled "CLONING DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY". It would have a nail in it.