Title: No Nabakov she
Product review: In all fairness, I didn't finish this novel so I can't attest to its literary qualities. The reason I didn't finish is because Drabble gets the essential details on the Peppered Moth Experiment, which provides the central genetic metaphor for the book--plus its title--ass backward. And she muddles other details. If she can't be bothered to get this right, I can't be bothered to read the book. There are some other silly things, too. Such as the character who wins the "Nobel Prize for Molecular Biology." There is no such prize. Nabakov criticized fiction writers for not getting right the details of the natural world. It's okay to change the details for some fictional purpose, he said, but the author should at least learn the truth first.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
