Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
33 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
good science, bad story, April 16, 2001
This was the first novel I read by Greg Bear and, overall, I am rather disappointed. The science behind the disease which gives the book its title is fascinating and lies within that intriguing realm of sci-fi which leaves you wondering where the real science has ended and the extrapolation begun. However, what made Darwin's Radio a disappointing read for me was not the heavy handed ecological and epidemiological jargon (some of which clearly could have been excluded), but the poor characterization, tiresome CDC and NIH politics and ultimately unsatisfying conclusion. I found myself trudging through pages of "intrigue" between the factions of various government agencies which really could not have been more dull. Perhaps this sort of thing would be more palatable to others who are more interested in politics. The characterization starts off strong but ultimately sinks into cliche, with one character (Mark Augustine) metamorphosing into a cartoonish evil scientist of monstrous proportions and another vanishing almost completely (Christopher Dicken). The main characters, Kaye and Mitch, who are initially presented as brilliant and dedicated (if somewhat troubled) scientists, abandon science altogether in order to solve the mystery of SHEVA by basically experimenting on their own bodies with nothing more than faith as their guide. Further, their romance is ludicrously two dimensional and peppered with such cringe-inducing dialogue as, "Mitch, be my man." Blech. The conclusion of the novel is incredibly abrupt and leaves so many facets of a very complex story unresolved I found myself thumbing through the dictionary at the back thinking perhaps the rest of the ending was hidden behind it. Alas, it was not. Overall, the science and speculation behind Darwin's Radio is top notch, but the characters used to flesh it out leave much to be desired. I found this to be a very unsatisfying book which failed to live up to the great promise of its premise.
|
|
|
20 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Intriguing material handled in typical Bear fashion, February 4, 2000
This is an interesting book with an interesting theory behind it, but I can see why the last third disappointed many of the readers below. If you want "scientific gimmickry" throughout your read, this isn't for you. Bear establishes the idea of sudden evolution with alot of science early on (whether the science is accurate or not is difficult to tell), then chooses to pursue the social consequences of such a change rather than explain every last detail of it. Thus, as with other novels of his, there are some scienctific loose ends--things not learned about the "science" within the timeline of the book. Personally, I think this is a good decision and I think his take on how society would react is depressingly accurate. However, you have to be prepared for a radical shift in perspective as he pushes a number of storylines aside to focus on two specific characters. Several below have also suggested that the ending pretty much requires a sequel. I'm not so sure. Bear does a good job of suggesting the future by highlighting what happened in the distant past. One could construct a socio/political sequel to this book (which fills in the remaining science), but I doubt that many hard-core science fiction fans would want to read it. All in all, a good novel that gets one thinking about the human animal and his place in the world genome. Thoughtful rather than action/science oriented, but there's a place for that in the genre.
|
|
|
53 of 62 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Possibly the ultimate hard science fiction biological novel, March 13, 2000
I have allways held a strange opinion about Greg Bear. I thought him to be a quite a good writer, but I simply haven't read anything by him I loved. I read a few short stories, and 'Foundation and Chaos', and they were all good, but nothing to addict me.Alas, neither was "'Darwin's Radio" But don't let that stop you. Darwin's Radio is certainly worth reading. I'll start with what I didn't like. The characters, while all different, didn't seem all that interesting. The only one I really cared about was Christopher, and to a lesser extent Saul. They were different and came alive. Bear spent alot of time about the rest of the characters, especially Kaye and Mitch, but I never cared for them, or for the romance. The other main complain, is that there really isn't too much of a plot. The book is marked as a Techno thriler, but there really isn't any action or advature. The characters are more or less passive spectators, watching Sheva, speculating about it, and trying to survive the catastrophes the world throws at them. In a sense, there's no story here. OK. Then why should you read the book? Simply, because the ideas behind it are mind blowing, and well explained. Yeah, sometimes I was lost in the science, but I truly enjoyed Bear's scientific imagination. Bear does something that science fiction rarely does - he expands scientific ideas, and he should be commanded for that. Also, the book deserve notice for Bear's ability to make the scientific method, and the scientists, not only comprehensible but also fascinating. The tensest moments of the novel are scientifical exchanges of ideas and theories. At its best, you read with wide eyes as characters present incredible ideas, that seem strangely likely.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|