at least one of the reviewers has complained the satire is "too broad".

That is too funny.

Someone famous once said something along the lines of: the main difference between fiction and nonfiction is that fiction has a responsibility to maintain plausibility, whereas nonfiction has no such constraints. It might have been Mark Twain, I don't know.

Ond day I'm sure "Dragons" will make the leap from "too implausible" to "not fictiony enough." I would actually bet money on that, and I am not a betting man.