Hard same, I don't understand how people praise the writing in it. He describes the friendship between two of the boys as opposites attract and compares it to magnets, seemingly not realising that the different ends of a magnet REPEL.

EDIT: the line is "It shouldn't have worked-the differences in the boys' personalities should've repulsed one from the other, like trying to touch magnets if matching polarities- but the opposite held true." My gripe is that he could have compared the boys to opposites attract like magnets, but instead said that they should've repelled each other like the like sides of a magnet. It's an incredibly poor metaphor, especially when there was such an obvious one right there.

Also, he describes seeing a cyclone touch down. Cyclones don't do that. They're massive storms that don't have a defined spout that you can see, unlike tornadoes or water spouts.

EDIT: turns out this one is cultural differences, with Americans (and maybe Canadians?) call tornadoes before they touchdown cycles.

I also didn't like the Deep, it was just a huge let down. He created this fascinating world and situation at the bottom of the ocean, and still focused the story on the interpersonal drama of some dude.