February 28, 2014

Daniel Suarez's Influx Is Super Fluxing Bitchin'!

I loved the book, and couldn't--wouldn't--didn't--set it down. With Influx, Daniel Suarez becomes the master, and Michael Crichton should be honored by the comparison.

By Stephen L. Macknik

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

Daniel Suarez has just released his new opus, Influx. It’s a technothriller in the Crichtonian tradition. But better. Don’t get me wrong—and all props to the astounding Michael Crichton—who credibly resurrected dinosaurs. But whereas Crichton sometimes glossed over thorny neuroscientific issues that arose in his stories—to keep the drama flowing—Suarez manages to face those issues head on—and keep the drama flowing. You’ll hear a lot of reviewers compare Suarez to Crichton, including me for his previous book Kill Decision. And Suarez deserved the honor it in the truest sense… he had achieved a truly Crichton-level of storytelling. But with Influx, Suarez becomes the master, and Crichton is the one who is honored by the comparison.

The book starts strong. Jon Grady has just invented a way to reflect gravity. It’s an incredible, stupendous discovery! Too bad he’s caught in the act by anti-technologists, hell-bent on suppressing such revolutionary developments. They not only kill Jon, but they’ve killed everybody before him in the last several decades who almost changed the world. You think the biggest technological advance in the last decade was Facebook? Think again. The world was almost changed time and time again. Almost.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

I loved the book, and couldn’t—wouldn't—didn’t—set it down. On the neuroscience, which I’m obligated to address: it’s well done. And Suarez’s handling of machine-brain interfaces is error free. Though, you know, its fiction… but its error free in the sense that he didn’t write anything dumb, or anything that I know to be definitively wrong.

I envy you. You’re going to go read the book now, and also love it, whereas I have to wait another year or two for his next one.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American