In the article, it states, “Where the book falters, I think, is in its imagination of disaster.the survivors do not think, act or speak like people struck by such a cataclysm” (Nunez). Most of the time, the pandemic isn't even a part of the novel and is more like background music. Hunger, thirst, and exhaustion are all alluded to throughout the novel, making it seem unrealistic and losing the spark it could have had when incorporating the pandemic. Another flaw in the article is the lack of emotions that were evoked. Sigrid Nunez, from the New York Times, says, “...I did not feel as if I was in the presence of that kind of suffering. The hairs never rose on the back of my neck; my eyes never filled with tears” (Nunez). Due to the ambiguity of the characters' suffering, it causes the value of the novel to diminish because of the connection lost between the audience and the novel. Besides the two flaws stated above, there were more compliments given than flaws stated. Another credible article reviewing Station Eleven praises the novel, along with the author. The article states, “Mandel displays the impressive skill of evoking both terror and empathy.”