AH and Clones

[Gangree]

Alex Rider shows a lapse in character in this novel. The thing is, AH seems not to be aware of it, and may well even endorse the beleifs of his character. This occurs when Alex squares off with the evil clone of Dr. Grief, who is actual surgically altered to look like Alex. The clone accuses Alex of killing his father. And Alex replies something like this "You don't have a father. You're a freak. Handmade like a cuckoo clock in the Swiss Alps." In the context of the story, the clone is as evil and sadistic as the man who made him. But does Alex attack the clone for stupidly obeying the orders of his master? He does not! He attacks the manner of the clone's birth. This means that that in Alex's opinion (and by extension AH's), ANY cloned person would be exactly of the same moral worth, whether they happned to be evil or not.

[t10z12]

so basically your trying to say that clones should have rights?

[Gangree]

Yep.

[t10z12]

if the clone is sent to murder you then i think its ok not give it its rights

[Gangree]

I agree--killing the clone in self-defense is something else. But that's not what I was talking about. I'm talking about the fact that Alex chastized (is that the right word?) the clone, not for trying to kill him, but for being a clone.

[kingofjapan]

Alex wasn't insulting the clone because he was a clone, well he was. But that wasn't the real reason. He was just trying to provoke the clone so Alex would be able to attack him when he was weak/angry.

Also, that doesn't mean that AH doesn't believe that clones don't have rights. (Note: Human clones don't exsist yet, so this is partially irrelevant) And that also doesn't mean that you can say that AH is attacking clones because they are clones.

AH never had the intention of denying clones rights or being racist in any way when referring to clones. Neither did Alex. He's made fun of plenty of people throughout the series because of their differences. Mr Grin, for example. That doesn't mean that Alex and AH are directly chastizing people without tongues.

[Gangree]

Alex wasn't insulting the clone because he was a clone, well he was. But that wasn't the real reason. He was just trying to provoke the clone so Alex would be able to attack him when he was weak/angry.

Also, that doesn't mean that AH doesn't believe that clones don't have rights. (Note: Human clones don't exsist yet, so this is partially irrelevant) And that also doesn't mean that you can say that AH is attacking clones because they are clones.

AH never had the intention of denying clones rights or being racist in any way when referring to clones. Neither did Alex. He's made fun of plenty of people throughout the series because of their differences. Mr Grin, for example. That doesn't mean that Alex and AH are directly chastizing people without tongues.

We don't know for sure AH's true feelings as regards clones, should they someday exist. For all we know, he might fully support clone rights. But still, having this in his book, especially putting this in the mouth of his hero, doesn't bode well.

Since as of now, no human clones exist, AH is technically insulting no one. But to understand what I mean, just imagine a similar situation, where the hero confronts a villian who is of a minority group which does exist. And say he attacks this villain's minority status by spouting racist epithets. It wouldn't matter how much a slimeball this guy was, or his motive in doing so; the author would still be taken severely to task, especially  for offending any readers who might belong to the same minority of the villain.

This is a bit ironic, since Point Blank attacks racism directly.

In today's PC climate, it's become so that even having a villain belong to minority groups is cobsidered racist (An opinion I don't share). But in my book, AH still goes over the top in giving this sort of dialogue to Alex--who, like all of AH's heros has been ill-treated himself all his life.

Remember, cloned kids may one day exist. And they will remain kids for a long time in world fed with film images of evil and inferior clones. Ponder that.

[DilanMelis]

You need to think of it like this-

When AH was creating the character of Alex, I'm sure he had in mind to give him flaws, like any other human. Therefore it would only be normal that Alex at times can be cruel/stereotypical/pre-judgemental- we all do it at some stage, and it's only natural to see Alex to behave in the same way.

Now that leads me onto the idea that Alex is a hero. But even the most famous of heroes, say Odysseus, were flawed. Odysseus cheated on his wife, and yet he's a mythical character that's the archetypal hero. Which is why it's easy to accept that Alex could have said something "bad" so to speak.

Other than that, the idea/view is probably not the same as AH's. Authors use their characters all the time to say things that they themselves are opposed to- it lets you see things from the other side. But more to the point, I don't believe AH really meant much by it, he probably just wanted a means to show exactly how frustrated/angry the character of Alex  would be feeling

[Gangree]

You may be correct. I'm sure this is exactly what AH was trying to do when he had Matt Freeman steal for kicks. He was trying to make him a basically good character with flaws--more realistic perhaps, then Martin Hopkins  ( I disagree with him making his hero less admirable this time around, as I've said before, but that's only me.)

But I'm not sure this is what he was doing in Point Blank with clone incident. Cloning itself is widely feared and something to be avoided. Whether or  not that's the case, this fear often bleeds over intofear of clones themselves. The very fact  that AH made his clones extemely evil bears this point out. When writing this dilogue for Alex, AH may not have really considered the implications of  this (that ALL clones are therefore artifical production-line freaks of little worth).

[DilanMelis]

You may be correct. I'm sure this is exactly what AH was trying to do when he had Matt Freeman steal for kicks. He was trying to make him a basically good character with flaws--more realistic perhaps, then Martin Hopkins  ( I disagree with him making his hero less admirable this time around, as I've said before, but that's only me.)

But I'm not sure this is what he was doing in Point Blank with clone incident. Cloning itself is widely feared and something to be avoided. Whether or  not that's the case, this fear often bleeds over intofear of clones themselves. The very fact  that AH made his clones extemely evil bears this point out. When writing this dilogue for Alex, AH may not have really considered the implications of  this (that ALL clones are therefore artifical production-line freaks of little worth).

Perhaps, but I'm sure that AH would have taken into account the fact that his readers would notice this- these clones were evil because of the man that 'brought them up'. Even if it were a cute little rabbit, the fact that it was brought up/taught by such an evil man meant that they were evil themselves. Not because they were clones, rather because of their upbringing.

[Gangree]

One more thing:  Look at the overall picture. AH is really the one who deliberately made the clones evil, since it's all a work of fiction. There's a at least an assumption on his part (if not an intentional message) that cloning is dangerous. In getting his point across, he not only made the scientist evil, but the clones themselves. In fact, made them copies of the evil scientist. Of course, AH gave a scientific explanation--they had to be conditioned, not just sharedGrief's DNA. Not to do so would have made the story scientifically unfeasible. It would have been a shock if one of Grief's doubles switched to Alex's side--It's still not a foregone conclusion that a clone would turn out evil, in spite of both genes and conditioning.
Did AH, however, make one of the clones good or neutral, IN SPITE of Grief's DNA and conditioning?
 No, he did not.

[DilanMelis]

I thought that it would have been impossible anyway. Anything else and it would have been too unrealistic.

Like Cinderella, brought up by her evil step-mum and still turning out sweet and kind. Highly unrealistic.

[Rainbowstar]

Ah, but Cinderella isn't really brought up by her evil stepmum.  By the time her father remarried, most of the brickwork of her personality was already laid by her real parents.

With Dr Grief's clones the situation is different, he could really raise them from when they were babies, and thus make sure that they are in his line of thinking.  Quite a big deal of planning would have gone in to this, and I can't help but wonder if AH didn't get his Inspiration from "the Boys of Brasil" (at least I think that's how it was called, with the Hitler clones)

If these were raised by just any family from babies, then that family would have influenced their personality, and they could have come out nice, however this is not the case.  Grief specifically raised them for his purpose, and for that purpose, they had to be nasty.

I don't think AH meant to raise any more issues about cloning humans, than the author of Boys of Brasil did, I think they just wanted to have a good storyline, and the clones were part of that.

[Gangree]

Ah, but Cinderella isn't really brought up by her evil stepmum.  By the time her father remarried, most of the brickwork of her personality was already laid by her real parents.

With Dr Grief's clones the situation is different, he could really raise them from when they were babies, and thus make sure that they are in his line of thinking.  Quite a big deal of planning would have gone in to this, and I can't help but wonder if AH didn't get his Inspiration from "the Boys of Brasil" (at least I think that's how it was called, with the Hitler clones)

If these were raised by just any family from babies, then that family would have influenced their personality, and they could have come out nice, however this is not the case.  Grief specifically raised them for his purpose, and for that purpose, they had to be nasty.

I don't think AH meant to raise any more issues about cloning humans, than the author of Boys of Brasil did, I think they just wanted to have a good storyline, and the clones were part of that.

Well, growing multiple clones of oneself before the fist sheep was cloned isn't very realistic either. I think whoever wrote Boys from Brasil --one of the first movies on the subject of cloning--did have an agenda. It was this: if cloning is allowed, one of the perils is that evil indviiduals like Jospeh Mengala (or iDr. Grief) will use it for neferous purposes.  AH may have had a similar purpose in Point Blank.  The idea that cloning ( and often clones) are evil has become pretty much become cliche by now, though. Just like the evil scientist.

[Rainbowstar]

Nobody said clones are evil on their own.  In the boys of Brasil it was very obvious that everything had to be exactly like in Hitler's life to make them as evil as Hitler, and that if that hadn't been so, with the intellect they would have (cause Hitler was intelligent) they would possibly become people doing much good.  So yes, perhaps his agenda was to show that people can do evil with clones, or use them for evil, but it's not necessarily always true.

In Point Blanc, I didn't get the feeling either that AH thinks all clones are evil.  These just are because they were made and raised in Dr. Grief's image.

Although, studies with identical twins have shown that even when raised by different families, some personality traits still remain the same, so I'm not sure whether it truly is nurture over nature, I think it's a mix of both.  So Dr Grief's clones would have some talent for evil, regardless of who raised them, whereas clones of Ghandi would have talents for pacifism.  But having the talent for it, doesn't mean you have to become that, and that's where Nurture stepped in.  And I think both in the Boys from Brasil, and Point Blank, that it is clear that the true evilness comes from how their life has been up to now, not merely because they happen to be clones.