Some reviewers commented on the length and structure of the novel, and made varyingly favorable comparisons to "Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand". A review for the "Charlotte Observer" was critical of "Dreamsnake", saying that nothing substantial occurred for much of the book, and that it was an example of why even excellent short stories ought not to be expanded into novels, while Estes also commented that it had "lost some of the subtlety" of the original short story. Other reviewers commented negatively on Arevin's brief appearances in the story, as being unnecessary. Wendell wrote in 1982 that the device was a reversal of a usual fictional trope, and that these reviewers may have been uncomfortable with a female protagonist solving her difficulties on her own. Brian Stableford commented that "Dreamsnake" had "little in the way of a plot", but that the story didn't rely on its plot for its effectiveness; he described it instead as a "novel of experience", written with a "good deal of thought and sincerity", and very readable. Card wrote that he was initially hesitant about the expansion of "Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand", which he called a "gem perfectly polished". He was also critical of some passages, writing that some, such as the characterization of Melissa, were maudlin, while others dragged on too long, but that ultimately, he did not wish for the book to end.