sillypunk's review against another edition
5.0
I love Information: https://blogendorff.com/2018/12/27/book-review-state-tectonics/
jada's review against another edition
4.0
i liked the progression of information from the first book to now. It's interesting because it allows us to imagine what could be and the problems that would arise because of it. must have taken a lot of research to write this.
jazzypizzaz's review against another edition
4.0
an auspicious time to be reading about attempted coups and information's role in democracy! exciting & suspenseful plot as always
fastasashark's review against another edition
5.0
This was absolutely the best book of the trilogy for me, a really awesome conclusion to the Centenal Cycle. Malka Older really gets to the crux of a lot of issues happening today, even though its set at the end of the 21st century. I think this is also a really interesting and on-point imagining of the future 80-100 years. It was a book that really made me think about a lot that goes on today, and I think a lot of the issues that she brought up (like with AmericatheGreat and the Nakia Williams trial) were very relevant to today and where we're headed in the future. As with the other books in this trilogy, Malka Older is really a master at bringing in her real world expertise and applying it to a sci-fi context. For me, everything (especially the global politics) felt very real as though it could very well be a natural progression from where we are today.
The rest is less of a review and more of a "me spewing random thoughts that popped into my head while reading this". Spoiler tags in case it accidentally spoilers anything/I know I'm one of those people that likes discovering even certain small aspects of a book for themselves.
I think this book also excels at writing in characters ranging from a variety of perspectives, and even when they might superficially have the same/similar goals in mind they have entirely different visions for what the future should look like and why. People want the end of a particular system for different reasons and those reasons matter. Not to mention all the people caught in the middle who are doing the "grunt" work for something that may no longer be in their best interests, or the fact that most people wouldn't much care as long as relative stability is maintained.
I think the book excelled as well in discussing the idea that giving people access to the correct, most unbiased/factual information will inherently sway them into caring enough about injustice or particular issues to change the way they live, vote in particular ways etc. The idea that the right facts will sway people more than emotion, or will override the willingness to stick with perceived stability...and honestly that's not so much a criticism of that reaction in people as much as a comment on the need to come to terms with that reality. People want to be safe and want their loved ones to be safe, want life to continue as normal, in a somewhat predictable way even if that predictability might be unjust.
One of many quotes that struck me: "Information has spent the last twenty-five years trying to force people to pay attention to issues they don't care about. And despite all your meddling, people still care more about their friends, and clothes, and sports, and what to eat for dinner, and whether they can find a better job or where to go on vacation, than about any question of governance. And how has that worked out?"
And I don't think that quote is really meant to be condescending towards people's concerns at all. In a sense I think that relates to the idea that "the personal is political"...the personal is, indeed, political and always will be, but I think a lot of times certain meanings of the phrase have gotten too lost in theory about what people "should" care about more than other things.
The rest is less of a review and more of a "me spewing random thoughts that popped into my head while reading this". Spoiler tags in case it accidentally spoilers anything/I know I'm one of those people that likes discovering even certain small aspects of a book for themselves.
Spoiler
A lot of thoughts came up while I was reading this, especially to do with the current capitalist system, the current "liberal democracy" that is in many ways so undemocratic, problems that occur in a lot of left wing circles, and also the popular assumption about centrism as inherently neutral/unbiased etc. or even the idea of what "status quo" even means. Whether its about the reality or illusion of stability.I think this book also excels at writing in characters ranging from a variety of perspectives, and even when they might superficially have the same/similar goals in mind they have entirely different visions for what the future should look like and why. People want the end of a particular system for different reasons and those reasons matter. Not to mention all the people caught in the middle who are doing the "grunt" work for something that may no longer be in their best interests, or the fact that most people wouldn't much care as long as relative stability is maintained.
I think the book excelled as well in discussing the idea that giving people access to the correct, most unbiased/factual information will inherently sway them into caring enough about injustice or particular issues to change the way they live, vote in particular ways etc. The idea that the right facts will sway people more than emotion, or will override the willingness to stick with perceived stability...and honestly that's not so much a criticism of that reaction in people as much as a comment on the need to come to terms with that reality. People want to be safe and want their loved ones to be safe, want life to continue as normal, in a somewhat predictable way even if that predictability might be unjust.
One of many quotes that struck me: "Information has spent the last twenty-five years trying to force people to pay attention to issues they don't care about. And despite all your meddling, people still care more about their friends, and clothes, and sports, and what to eat for dinner, and whether they can find a better job or where to go on vacation, than about any question of governance. And how has that worked out?"
And I don't think that quote is really meant to be condescending towards people's concerns at all. In a sense I think that relates to the idea that "the personal is political"...the personal is, indeed, political and always will be, but I think a lot of times certain meanings of the phrase have gotten too lost in theory about what people "should" care about more than other things.
catsnflags's review against another edition
adventurous
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.5
tsprengel's review against another edition
adventurous
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
davidtene's review
adventurous
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
3.75
lautir's review against another edition
4.0
I'm sad to be done this trilogy D: And sad that Older left so much morality open to a readers choice when I wanted to be shown the good and true way of privacy/surveillance/transparency. But I guuuuuesss I can try to form my own opinions.
I'm happy with this as a conclusion to the series, but I do still very much enjoy the first installment, but I think I'm partial to it because it just felt so inspiring and unique in both it's depictions of technology as well as democracy.
There were a few lose pieces character-wise that I feel could have been explored more, especially since they were hinted at as early as the first book. Feels like there is more to tell for lots of the side characters, which is what makes me sad about the trilogy being over. But the central story gets told, and I'm still grappling with the conclusion. It's one that I think will linger with me, since I'm a touch disappointed with the way things ended politically. But it did seem like the natural path of the story.
I'm happy with this as a conclusion to the series, but I do still very much enjoy the first installment, but I think I'm partial to it because it just felt so inspiring and unique in both it's depictions of technology as well as democracy.
There were a few lose pieces character-wise that I feel could have been explored more, especially since they were hinted at as early as the first book. Feels like there is more to tell for lots of the side characters, which is what makes me sad about the trilogy being over. But the central story gets told, and I'm still grappling with the conclusion. It's one that I think will linger with me, since I'm a touch disappointed with the way things ended politically. But it did seem like the natural path of the story.
anywiebs's review against another edition
3.0
I did enjoy this a bit more than the second book in the series again. Just like in the other books there is political intrigue and a budding relationship in the center of the story. I liked that we got a lot more of other favorite characters again and quite an unexpected development (at least for me).
I listened to this on audio again and really enjoyed it. Despite the many different point of views I never got confused as to where we were and whose store we were following.
I listened to this on audio again and really enjoyed it. Despite the many different point of views I never got confused as to where we were and whose store we were following.