This story is a cheap cover for an autobiography. All the elements of Heddle's life are present in "Aaron" (aka David Heddle): physics, the conversion, meeting the girl via a note left in a trashcan...barf.
If you want Heddle's mind and writing, visit his blog: http://helives.blogspot.com/”>
That’s all well and good except the reviewer left a big clue that he didn’t actually read the book. There is nothing in the book even remotely close to “meeting the girl via a note left in a trashcan.” Something is found in a trashcan, but it's not a note and it has nothing to do with a girl.
It is fairly clear that the reviewer, one Steven XXX, read the synopsis which ends with:
When Aaron detects signals from Leila, an undergrad beauty, uncertainty rules. She’s his student, which makes misreading the signals costly. Then a trashcan provides a golden opportunity for Aaron. But is it one that he can accept?and connected dots that actually remain quite separate in the story. (Although it does point out that the synopsis probably does deserve a bad review.)
I have always figured someone I have annoyed would decide that writing a bad review would be just recompense. I just expected him to be more clever.
UPDATE: I now have some more reviews, one of which also points out that the scene described by S. Daniel Morgan does not actually occur in the book.
UPDATE 2: Mr. XXX’s review has been removed from Amazon. I don’t know if Mr. Morgan retracted the review, in which case I thank him for doing the right thing, or if a reader reported the fact that the review was fabricated to Amazon. I wish Mr. Morgan had read the book—he fits into the niche audience of science graduate students. I think he might have enjoyed it.
FYI the reviewer deleted it himself. And would appreciate if you would change the name above into initials. Thanks!
ReplyDelete