Talk:Darwin's Radio

Untitled

I added this into the category for 1990s science fiction novels. Transcendentalist01 (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Darwin's Radio/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article on this book is quite difficult to read. I came to this page after reading a little about the book and wanted to find out more about it. It's not my wish to offend and it's obvious the writer cares about the subject, but the article writer has led with an unnecessarily dense technical description of the underlying science behind the plot. The plot and themes are left almost completely unexplored. Upon reading the article, I still know almost nothing about the book. Articles about literature should be description of the book as a piece of literature - not a science textbook. It's fine and even admirable to include commentary about the science driving the story. But shouldn't that come after one has written a proper and readable plot summary?

Last edited at 05:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 12:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)