I mean that he gave it a personality that it didn't really have, and it was sort of misleading.
Here is the section from my review where I talked about it:
"I also had a problem with his personification of the virus. He repeatedly referred to the virus's 'trying to break into the human population' like it was something the virus particles were cooperating to accomplish. That is not the case at all and I think it gives people an incorrect sense of how viruses work. The particles are spread, and if each one ends up in a place it can grow in organism it can infect, it does. If not, it doesn't. There is no 'trying' to do anything. "
This is an example of the kind of stuff that bugged me. I found myself shaking my head, thinking, "That's now how it works at all." I figure either the author didn't really understand himself, or he took some artistic license with the facts to achieve the sensational tone he was looking for, but I just wasn't able to get past it.
no subject
Here is the section from my review where I talked about it:
"I also had a problem with his personification of the virus. He repeatedly referred to the virus's 'trying to break into the human population' like it was something the virus particles were cooperating to accomplish. That is not the case at all and I think it gives people an incorrect sense of how viruses work. The particles are spread, and if each one ends up in a place it can grow in organism it can infect, it does. If not, it doesn't. There is no 'trying' to do anything. "
This is an example of the kind of stuff that bugged me. I found myself shaking my head, thinking, "That's now how it works at all." I figure either the author didn't really understand himself, or he took some artistic license with the facts to achieve the sensational tone he was looking for, but I just wasn't able to get past it.