Clones are physically identical and mentally separate. They are not rubber-and-ink stamps.
Things like Clone High and Afterschool Charisma are based on the annoying and annoyingly common misconception that clones are destined to be the same kind of person as the donor. (or sample source, whatever you want to call them)
I really wonder how this happened. When I was a kid, our school had a newsletter that had articles about stuff like popular books (e.g., Artemis Fowl), study tips, and science breakthroughs. I only remember two issues with any clarity. One of those had a cover story about cloning.
Of course, the article was about Dolly. There’s more to read about her, but that isn’t what I’m on about today. When I read that, I was probably eleven or twelve. And not once did I think that a clone would be exactly like the original in personality or even mental acuity.
Certainly not skill or (pfffft) destiny.
Where does this notion come from? Is it part of the immortality gambit, which itself stems from the fear of death? Are people so obsessed with the idea of “save as”-ing themselves as though human beings are some kind of computer file? Copy and paste Robert_Hayes.mhu into a new folder. That copy will be identical.
Oh, there it is. Maybe it’s simple word confusion. The idea that “clone” means “copy”.
Except for the tiny fact that humans are not two dimensional, nor pure data, and certainly not made on an assembly line. Are things like Clone High just built on the lame premise of trying to combine Histroy class with Dawson’s Creek? Just a sign of creative bankruptcy?
I have no idea why I keep phrasing things as questions. I don’t know the answers. It’s just annoying to see all of these clone stories set up as and playing out as less original and worse written than reincarnation and possession stories.
This all goes for Star Wars as well. And that one was actually one of the better.