Review: HUMAN BLEND

 Stars: 3/5

 Format: Paperback

 Read: March 14, 2012

This book had a catchy title, a promising synopsis, and an interesting promise of science and healing. The major problem, however, was the writing.

Had this book been written by a more mature writer, I would have raved and gushed over it. As it is now, however, I am reluctant to buy its sequel because I cringed as I made my way through the pages. Much of the book was telling instead of showing, with choppy sentence structure, characters that were so close to being rounded that it made you cringe with the promise of it all, and terrible dialogue.

The writing would not be an issue if it was a middle grade book. However, it is most definitely not a middle grade book what with the amount of cursing and the adult circumstances dealt with called for a higher caliber of storytelling. I can overlook the semantics of a book if the plot is especially riveting and engaging, but it just wasn’t and I had a hard time ignoring the flat “He said”, “She said”, and “He thought”. Hardly engaging dialogue words, to say the least.

The other main problem, though not quite as prominent as the writing, is the fact that the perspective changes so frequently and unexpectedly that it throws you for a loop. You’re reading about one character and mid-thought you’re reading about another character. Then you double take, make sure you haven’t just read the entirety of the scene with the wrong character in mind, and you get lost.

Being a scientist, I also have a problem with the “biology” portion of this book. It’s hard to explain this without spoiling anything, but you go through the book thinking one thing and, out of the blue, the conclusion is totally different, a very illogical jump with nothing solid to back it up. That was completely frustrating to me and I wanted to shake the author and plead for better transitions and science. It’s fine and dandy to create your own laws, but at least make them more consistent. The law of physics can be ‘bent’, but there’s a (mostly) reasonable explanation as to why. Pescatore’s laws always clashed with each other and often cancelled each other out.

I gave this book three stars because of its promise, but honestly I don’t recommend reading it unless you have high hopes and are able to silence the writer portion of your brain.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under 3 stars, Review

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s