First of all, I'm neither a relative or friend or acquaintance of Dolnick's (and the assumption that he's got relatives etc. writing positive reviews here is a cheap shot). I enjoyed "Zoology" very much. In some ways it reminded me of Jonathan Tropper's The Book of Joe Yet what's unusual about "Zoology" is that Henry is such a well-drawn character that we feel his hope and love, his sadness and his despair, while at the same time we see the world through his limited understanding. I don't think there are loose ends, or plot lines that are brought in and then dropped-- we don't understand so much about Henry's parents' marriage, because what (grown) child does? We don't know the details of his brother's relationship troubles, because Henry doesn't. He's wrapped up in his own life, and he's young and not fully intuitive about others: that's all internally consistent in the book. A real bonus for me was the tenderness with which Dolnick writes about animals-- Newman, especially, but others too. (That an animal named "Newman" is lost by Henry at that point in the narrative is pretty telling.) The idea here is that other animals can comfort us in ways humans often cannot: how true! I've noticed that the Amazon reviews of my own book Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion amount to a really fascinating mix of positive and not so positive. This has made me take notice when critiques seem to wish for a different book than the one the author has chosen to write! Why not at least consider WHY Dolnick chose to leave us with not-fully-resolved issues in Henry's world? Varied opinions, obviously, are the stuff of book reviewing; I just hope the negative reviews here don't turn people off, as "Zoology" has a lot to offer.