![]() That’s not to say they’re impenetrable, more that someone with a strong scientific background will be able to get more out of these. There’s not much hope of fully following either of these novels unless you have a PhD in a science. The thing is, Watts is undeniably clever, but he couches his work in so much jargon, in so many lofty concepts, that his work is clearly pitched for specialists over the average reader. Ultimately Echopraxia took all the problems I had with Blindsight and was willing to overlook and inflated them to the point that I could no longer ignore them, actually managing to diminish my opinion of its predecessor in the process. In fact, quite a lot of it feels like descriptions of floating around a spaceship, which isn’t exactly riveting. ![]() The former’s strong suit was a very interesting idea to explore, whereas Echopraxia is less focused in its vision and its story takes a while to coalesce. That issue remains though perhaps not as bad as it was in Blindsight you still get a bit lost in the highfalutin sci-fi of it all, but the writing itself feels a little more polished, mature. ![]() ![]() I said in my Blindsight review that sometimes it felt like a clause was missing-some small but necessary line that would make the scenes flow better. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |