Varying Reviews of The Sparrow

THE GOOD

By 'scientification' I mean the Jules Verne, H.G. Wells and Edgar Allan Poe type of story -- a charming romance intermingled with scientific fact and prophetic vision."

Hugo Gernsback, in "Amazing Stories" (April 1926)

The Characters

“But the strength of The Sparrow comes not from its plot (which is fairly typical in speculative fiction), but from its ability to draw the reader into the agonies of its characters” (1).

“The best part of Russell’s book is her characters” (2).

 “Emotionally The Sparrow is a love story, albeit one of a priest’s love affair with the Divine . . .” (3).

 “She does a fine job, by the way, making her priests into real people, not just religious stereotypes” (4).

THE BAD

"Science Fiction is a branch of fantasy identifiable by the fact that it eases the 'willing suspension of disbelief' on the part of its readers by utilizing an atmosphere of scientific credibility for its imaginative speculations in physical science, space, time, social science, and philosophy."

Sam Moskowitz, in "Explorers of the Infinite" (1963)

“A handy short definition of almost all science fiction might read: realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the scientific method.  To make the definition cover all science fiction (instead of 'almost all') it is necessary only to strike out the word 'future'."

Robert Heinlein, in "The SF Book of Lists", p.257, ed. Malcolm Edwards & Maxim Jakubowski, New York: Berkeley (1982)

"Science fiction is that branch of fantasy which, while not true of present-day knowledge, is rendered plausible by the reader's recognition of the scientific possibilities of it being possible at some future date or at some uncertain period in the past."

Donald A. Wollheim, in "The SF Book of Lists", p.258, ed. Malcolm Edwards & Maxim Jakubowski, New York: Berkeley (1982)

Plausibility

“The problem with Russell’s world building is that, while the aliens are very alien in some ways, they’re also disturbingly similar to humans in others.  For instance, they breathe the proper mixture of air and seem to express concepts in essentially the same way as humans . . . the biology of Rakhat is similar enough to be incorporated into human digestive systems; and the aliens engage in disturbingly human practices like “pressing charges.” Finally, the climax of the novel depends upon Rakhat’s aliens and humans also being physically compatible, in extremely disturbing—but ultimately implausible ways” (2).

 “It would be very easy to pick holes in Mary Doria Russell’s basic plot.  After all, planets that have conveniently Earth-like atmospheres, abundant plants that are edible to humans and roughly human sized bipedal aliens that can learn English are easy to criticize.  Not least when the aliens live in an apparently low-tech world but are able to broadcast their singing four light years across the galaxy” (6).

“Russell’s character’s are carefully drawn, but (a) I hate the clever-clever way they constantly talk; and (b) for supposedly brilliant minds, they are dumber than dirt (running out of gas on an alien planet?!).  This interstellar expedition is highly implausible – basically a group of friends saying, ‘Hey, who wants to go to another planet? I’ll pack the sandwiches!’ ” (7).

THE ??????

The Structure

“The structure of the book, designed I suppose to generate impact at the end, drove me up the friggin’ wall.  Russell devotes 360 pages to foreshadowing the final 40 pages.  The chapters set in Naples – about half the book – warned me over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that something awful was going to happen on the planet, until I just didn’t care anymore” (7).

 “The key similarity between the novels is that narrative structure is absolutely essential.  Neither could be effectively told in any other form” (8).

 “Russell’s plotting is superb . . . we are treated to two different storylines . . .Russell knows just how to dangle it [the disaster] before us without it ever feeling like she is artificially heightening the feeling of inevitable tragedy” (5)

The Issues

“Finally, I don’t find Russell’s theological issues nearly as profound as she seems to believe . . . in the final analysis what you have is an obvious and tiresome study of a priest who’s having a crisis of faith because God allows bad things to happen” (7)

 “Russell, who never fails to write long, does religious discourse to a degree that, to a secular reader . . . seems at times blaringly sophistical” (10).

“Russell . . . leaves questions unanswered, but frames them so well that the reader must address them in order to come to resolution about the book” (1)

“Spiritually The Sparrow evokes consideration of some of Life’s Big Questions . . . MDR eloquently presents such questions within a fresh context and an enthralling narrative” (3).

The Category

"It is that thing that people who understand science fiction point to, when they point to something and say 'That's science fiction!"

Frederik Pohl, in "The SF Book of Lists", p.257, ed. Malcolm Edwards & Maxim Jakubowski, New York: Berkeley (1982)

“The Sparrow is a superb novel, that functions as SF, while addressing a number of the concerns, and having a depth of theme, typical in good mainstream novels” (4).

 “ . . . the result is a book destined to bring Science Fiction writing closer to the place of respect to should have in our definitions of literature” (11).

“While both books [The Sparrow and Children of God] are written with SF trappings, they both transcend the genre to explore the details and workings of faith” (1).

“Whether or not The Sparrow is SF is another matter. . . . If science fiction that relies on science to create a framework, then this isn’t SF” (6).