apparently, it's Good News Tuesday....

[lagilman]

SF Signal has a balanced, thoughtful review of DRAGON VIRUS. He was looking for hard science, but came away satisfied with the social commentary (saying I'm writing more LeGuin than Greg Bear, which is a totally fair and utterly flattering assessment).

The best bits, pulled for your delectation:

"Gilman's stories go right to the questions of what it means to be human... Her use of young adults as most of her protagonists, a time of life marked by upheaval and change even for normal people, reinforces and deepens the themes that she is trying to evoke in the stories. On those grounds, and in that métier, Gilman is stunningly successful.... (I)f you are the kind of reader who could care less about the difference between 5-Methylcytosine and Uracil, and want to take a potent ride through a changing future, exploring themes and ideas that resonate as much in the modern day as in her darkly evolving future...Dragon Virus is definitely commended to you."

Comments

[seachanges.livejournal.com]

Sweet. Also, congrats on the review!

[firynze.livejournal.com]

But what if I do care about the difference between 5-Methylcytosine and Uracil, but I still want to take a potent ride through a changing future? *pout*

;-)

[lagilman]

you're just going to have to accept the fact that this was written about the social aspect, and not the hard-wired science bit. Watch my hands, not the science. Watchmyhandsnotthescience. watchmyhandsnotthescience....

[firynze.livejournal.com]

Personally, I usually prefer science fiction that's based in social sciences rather than hard physics, chem, or biology. I enjoy it when those are present, and accounted for, and well done, but I find that most "hard sci-fi" tends to be lacking annoyingly in anthropology, sociology, psychology, and general understanding of human nature.

So as long as you're not confusing DNA and DNS, I'm there. ;-)

[lagilman]

The reviewer's complaint seemed to be that the biological/scientific basis of the "virus" (really a genetic mutation) didn't stand up to close study, a la Greg Bear's work. My only possible response was "nope, it dosn't, as per what we know now. Until, of course, we discover it does."

I am a trained, professional liar. Do not read me as a textbook.


here endeth the warning. ;-)

[firynze.livejournal.com]

I'm just sayin' that wanting a solid scientific grounding shouldn't keep one from enjoying the social examinations that should come with sci-fi, and vice versa. It rather annoys me when reviewers complain that something isn't "hard" enough, or that it spends too much time on implications rather than causes. I can want to know the causes AND the implications and enjoy them done in equal measure!

But then, I think Ursula K. LeGuin is a fine model to aspire to, and to be compared to. :-D

[lagilman]

well, in the reviewer's defense, he DID enjoy it. It just wasn't he had been expecting, since the copy talked about genetic mutations.... (his fault? my fault? the copy's fault? probably all of the above AND none of the above.... )

As I've said elsewhere, every reader brings his or her own lunch to the picnic. You can't frisk 'em at the gate.

[princejvstin.livejournal.com]

(And here is the humble reviewer in question. Hi there.)

I wouldn't want to have been frisked.

I picked this book to read and review partially because I had such a good experience with Hard Magic. So when I saw Dragon Virus on the list of choices of SF Signal books to read, Laura's book got the nod.

Was Dragon Virus the be all and end all of what I wanted? No. But I did enjoy it. It was a good expenditure of my reading time.

[skidspoppe.livejournal.com]

I bought my copy today... looking forward to it with great anticipation!