It's one thing not wanting your characters to be coloured by real people, it's another not getting your facts straight! This is the letter I sent to Lisa Jewell in which I set out my issues with the book:
"Dear Lisa,
I hope it's ok to write to you like this, I just really wanted to talk to you about your new book The Making of Us.
I'm a donor-conceived (DC) person (sperm donor) and as soon as I read about your book I had to go straight out and buy it. It's going to reach such a large audience, I had to know what was in it and how we, DC people, were represented. After reading the synopsis I was mainly worried it would argue that DC people don't need to know who their donors are, that the only important family members are the ones who raise you and "love is enough" (myself and most of the DC people I know are sick to death of that old chestnut). This is so incredibly important to us, many of us are currently campaigning for more rights under the law and I feel your book has the power to do that campaign either a big favour or a big disservice.
I'm now halfway through and whilst I was relieved to see that it seems the relationship between Daniel and his offspring is going to be stressed as meaningful, I was disappointed by a number of factual errors that distort the reality of what it is actually like to be a DC person.
Firstly, the 10 family limit. The 10 family limit does not mean each donor can only donate once to 10 families! They can donate an unlimited amount of times - in theory a DC person can have 40 or 50 DC half-siblings, plus siblings as the result of the donor's personal relationships. In practice donors are on average only responsible for 1.9 live births. But the 10 family limit was only introduced as a result of the changes in the law in 1991 - before that there was no limit to the number of families donors could donate to: they could, and did, donate hundreds of times. Most DC people of Lydia's and Dean's generation, which is also my generation, have dozens of half-siblings. Personally I feel like I've been an unwilling participant in a grotesque social experiment. Apart from anything else DC people are at an unacceptable level of risk of consanguinuity (unintentional incest) - this is exacerbated by the fact that many DC people don't know they're DC because their parents simply never tell them. (It's good that you touch on the issue of possible incest through Robyn's storyline).
Secondly, access to identifying information about your donor. It is NOT the case that people born after 1991 are given their donor's details i.e. identifying information they can use to trace their donor, as Lydia is in the book. The law lifting donor anonymity, which gave DC people the right to access identifying information about their donor when they turn 18, was only passed in 2005, meaning it will not be until 2023 that any DC people will be able to trace their donors this way (the law is not retrospective - it doesn't apply to people born before 2005). People born after 1991 can only access non-identifying information about their donor - eye colour, hair colour, occupation etc.
Thirdly, donor codes. After 1991 some parents were given their donor codes (e.g. donor 32), some weren't. Some applied to Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to be told their donor codes. However the HFEA has now stopped giving out donor codes because, so they say, donor codes weren't systematised and are therefore not a completely reliable way to establish a genetic relationship. I don't know of anybody born before 1991 who knows their donor code, and I'm active in what you could call the UK DC community. Many donors would not even have had codes. There was no regulation at all. Which brings me on to point 4...
Fourthly, clinics do not, in my experience, send out nice helpful letters telling you how many siblings you have and whether they are boys or girls. This is partly because clinics were not required to keep records, because of the aforementioned lack of regulation, so often they just don't know; partly because some clinics believe they have a duty of confidentiality to your parents that means they can't discuss anything relating to your parents' treatment with you; and partly because they are not required to answer your queries and many can't be arsed to. It's damn difficult to get information about your donor and siblings, which brings me onto point 5...
Fifthly, UK Donor Link vs. Donor Sibling Register. So far UK Donor Link has had one mention in the book and I imagine laypeople will find that confusing because there's no explanation of what it is or how it functions. This is kind of criminal. One, because I'm not aware of anybody in the UK having found a sibling through the Donor Sibling Registry, though it's not impossible, because of the issues with donor codes outlined above. Everybody I know who's found a sibling has done it through Donor Link. And two, because Donor Link has just had its funding from the government pulled and is in grave danger of closing later this year, so it needs all the support it can get. It is still highly unusual to find siblings.
All of these things, but particularly the errors concerning the 10-family limit and access to donor details, have interfered with my enjoyment of the book so far - the characterisation and relationships are done well. I can, if you like, let you know what I think once I've finished reading. Please e-mail me if you have any questions or comments at all.
Best wishes,
Alex"
Still haven't finished the bloody book because this is so hugely important to me I could hardly bear it if the second half continued to be less than it should be! Yes, unfortunately for some of us this is our lives.