tobesmagobes's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
mysterious
tense
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? Yes
5.0
Maybe my second favorite thing (Gideon/Harrow #1) I read all year yes it's the future, your narrator is a severe criminal, and there is a hugely important political meeting where everyone is fingerbanging someone.
Ahhhghhhhhh
This was amazing perfect space opera politics like stuff I have no words how did they make me love these monsters so much I'm reading the next one literally NOW
Ahhhghhhhhh
This was amazing perfect space opera politics like stuff I have no words how did they make me love these monsters so much I'm reading the next one literally NOW
music_maker's review against another edition
challenging
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.75
A wild ride. Ada Palmer throws wrinkle after wrinkle into a story set in a world already riddled with them. It's easy to get lost, dazed, and completely emersed in the book, but after finishing it and gaining some distance, any reflection tends to elicit not fondness or interest, but simply leaves one thinking: What?
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexual content, Violence, and Rape
Moderate: Suicide attempt
grid's review against another edition
DNF - I got through probably not even a third of this. Too much religion and boring philosophy for my tastes. I liked some of it, and could imagine pushing through, but there are too many good books on my to-read pile right now.
royvdb's review against another edition
4.0
Maybe I'm not used to more complex science fiction. But although I liked a lot of it, I just don't understand it. I tried reading synopsis and reviews to understand stuff... So many names, factions, events, places and weird words that aren't really explained. It feels like I would like the movie or tv-series better if there was one. A little bit more dumbed down for the likes of me.
chirson's review against another edition
2.0
Oh wow, I noped hard reading this one. I pushed through swearing and making faces. Because while I really wanted to find the answers to some of the questions, and to see what happens with the premise, the journey... yeah, the journey was mostly interesting and sometimes gripping but... NOT enjoyable. And not for the right reasons, either.
The short version: this book is very messy and some of it is on purpose but I'm not convinced it's worth it, while other ways are (I think) not on purpose, and they make me question this book's point. Also: maybe book 2 will solve everything, but this one doesn't deliver on any of its premises (despite a fairly cool final part) because it doesn't have an ending, and also, for this reader at least, its interest in the Enlightenment doesn't amount to much more than fannish enthusiasm without deeper insight.
And now, let's go into TL;DR territory.
I mean, sure, there are some pretty cool elements to it. The stylisation itself is interesting verging on really interesting, even to one who, like me, doesn't care all that much for the Enlightenment. The narrator is awful but the narration is mostly () enjoyable; I'm always a sucker for self-assured and even self-aware narration. But it didn't make up for fundamental flaws for me.
I'm really tired and I've spent a lot of time thinking about this book already, so have some disjointed thoughts. Maybe even worse disjointedness than usual.
Several days ago I saw a major Polish newspaper link back to an article from a few years ago. I bravely didn't click; I remember seeing it back then though. The item came from a psychologist making some sweeping claims about how equality in a relationship is a pleasant but impossible ideal, and in truth, without difference and thus, inequality, bed death is unavoidable. I mean, can people want to have sex without having one person wash the dishes and take on a subservient role? Where's the fun in that? Where's the frisson?
That sort of retrogressive BS gets its own spin here. The society of 25th century is one of deep censorship where gender expression and religious expression are concerned. That seems like a potentially interesting enough thought experiment, or premise. Alas, what this leads to is
I mean, I don't deny that can be fun. Is it the only way for sex to be fun? Is it fun for all?!
I've read reviews that claim this book has something interesting to offer in particular to queer readers. Your mileage may clearly vary here, because to me, this book's operations with binarisms were the furthest thing from queerness, or from pushing the envelope.
So is ironic racism still racism, though I'm not even sure this is meant to be ironic or just bizarre. The book uses the point of view of a character who fetishises not only gender (sex) but also ethnicity, claiming to see it clearly etched into features of characters, racialising them incessantly and stereotypically (no one is thin and small in this way but Asian women(except lots of tiny old Polish ladies and also my own sister)! this is an Indian way of blushing! Also note that there is hardly any culture attached to it; nation states are mostly gone, and people no longer live geography-bound lives and most cultures seem to have disappeared completely [even without a trace]; Asian and European nations argue with each other over influence, but characters, particularly POCs, don't have ethnicities beyond physical features and maybe an armband).
The worldbuilding is original... I guess. It's also clearly not intended to make much sense beyond being a thought experiment where everything stays blurry except the parts we're meant to see (what don't we see? The South other than Asia, since apparently it's all Eurasia all the time, the rest of the world either destroyed itself or has and has had nothing to offer, at least so far, unless I missed something).
It's difficult to avoid a comparison with Walton's Thessaly series. Yet, while Thessaly was a love letter to the Antiquity, it took one foundational text and few "Great Men" (ugh, that phrase) and managed to do a lot with it by seeing it/them for its/their flaws and strengths. In contrast, this love letter to French Enlightenment seems so far to be far too enamoured in its subject (see all those references to how something/someone was the greatest) despite the dystopian elements while, for me, saying very little of any value about the Enlightenment itself! That makes for worldbuilding that is sketchy and inconsistent (but hey, the Olympics somehow still matter to people a lot! Until we forget about them. Like importance of celebrity. Or Bridger. Or sports. Generally, this book does a lot of bringing things up that sound cool only to abandon them completely because they don't really matter, or at least not yet, or at least not as much as pondering how great Diderot or Rousseau was. Spoiler alert: the book says super great, but doesn't really support it by using them in a meaningful way beyond stylisations and some pretty stock elements (wigs! but little about rights of [wo]man, or capitalism, or much of anything, really), so I think I'll stick with Wollstonecraft's opinions on Rousseau).
We have a world of billions of people and yet it feels like about 99% of that is just numbers made up to create stakes for real characters (people) to play with (sometimes quite literally).
There were entire sections of this book that I could barely get through because of the sexposition. Remember when HBO did that? It was decried. Clearly they should have had Littlefinger reference de Sade and now instead of being a cheap marketing move we've got ourselves a postmodern masterpiece of playing with 18th century conventions. Alas, for me it was quite simply self-satisfied and annoying.
And the final way in which this book uses its 18th century inheritance is by flaunting genre and using elements of so many conventions all together. We have a bit of. We have political intrigue, crime story, dystopia, philosophical dialogues, metaphysical fantasy, pornography. The author wanted to do it all. Good for her! Maybe she could have done it in separate novels, since this blending doesn't quite come together for me. And... you know what she didn't manage to do? Finish a single novel. Because this one doesn't have an ending. It just... breaks. Buy the second half of the book, published as a separate long novel.
And the worst thing is, although I *won't* buy it, I *will* borrow it from a friend and read it because as annoyed as I was with this book (and I was SO, SO annoyed - and not in a "wow, it makes me think" way, but "wow, could we get on with the point/ could we not do this thing" way), I was fairly gripped most of the time, and I want to get the ending. I don't like DNF-ing and finishing with this novel feels close to that.
The short version: this book is very messy and some of it is on purpose but I'm not convinced it's worth it, while other ways are (I think) not on purpose, and they make me question this book's point. Also: maybe book 2 will solve everything, but this one doesn't deliver on any of its premises (despite a fairly cool final part) because it doesn't have an ending, and also, for this reader at least, its interest in the Enlightenment doesn't amount to much more than fannish enthusiasm without deeper insight.
And now, let's go into TL;DR territory.
I mean, sure, there are some pretty cool elements to it. The stylisation itself is interesting verging on really interesting, even to one who, like me, doesn't care all that much for the Enlightenment. The narrator is awful but the narration is mostly (
Spoiler
orgies and brothel scenes excludedI'm really tired and I've spent a lot of time thinking about this book already, so have some disjointed thoughts. Maybe even worse disjointedness than usual.
Several days ago I saw a major Polish newspaper link back to an article from a few years ago. I bravely didn't click; I remember seeing it back then though. The item came from a psychologist making some sweeping claims about how equality in a relationship is a pleasant but impossible ideal, and in truth, without difference and thus, inequality, bed death is unavoidable. I mean, can people want to have sex without having one person wash the dishes and take on a subservient role? Where's the fun in that? Where's the frisson?
That sort of retrogressive BS gets its own spin here. The society of 25th century is one of deep censorship where gender expression and religious expression are concerned. That seems like a potentially interesting enough thought experiment, or premise. Alas, what this leads to is
Spoiler
love letters to de Sade by a rapist protagonist (who cautions us he is not one - protagonist, not rapist, I mean) and sweeping generalisations about a world in which somehow a significant enough portion of a 7 billion (10 billion?) population all frequent the same brothel to get a fix of that addictive mixture of not just some gender roles but 18th c. gender roles. Because who *doesn't* get off on that. And how can you get off on anything else once you've tasted the joys of wearing corsets / taking off corsets and pursuing blushing maidens / being pursued.I mean, I don't deny that can be fun. Is it the only way for sex to be fun? Is it fun for all?!
I've read reviews that claim this book has something interesting to offer in particular to queer readers. Your mileage may clearly vary here, because to me, this book's operations with binarisms were the furthest thing from queerness, or from pushing the envelope.
Spoiler
First: we're constantly being told that the world has become "neutered" and "degendered" but the only way in which it seems to be true is that people say "they" (although the narrator doesn't and somehow lots of others don't either). But... why would that mean de-gendering??? Is a gender binary opposing masculine/feminine the only possibility of gender? While we are told that in light of taboo against gendering a near-universal fetishism of gender has developed, the world as shown doesn't even reflect that. Clearly performing gender and its connection to sexuality is still very much a thing - see also the existence and the popularity of Sniper. It just... makes no coherent sense if you think about it from a perspective of even 20th much less 21st century gender studies.) Second: I found the use of the aforementioned verb "neuter" to be off-putting. So was that one use of "she-man" (somehow the narration doesn't foresee the same problems here it lampshades when calling a character a witch). There's only so much we can lay at the feet of the intentionally off-putting narrator before the text has to take responsibility; ironic cissexism is still cissexism. Just because the stereotyping of "feminine" doesn't always go with "female" in the book doesn't mean making movers and shakers men (rather than making men movers and shakers) and having female/feminine characters exert influence through motherhood and extremely fetishised sexual power play doesn't make the book ridiculously sexist in some ways.So is ironic racism still racism, though I'm not even sure this is meant to be ironic or just bizarre. The book uses the point of view of a character who fetishises not only gender (sex) but also ethnicity, claiming to see it clearly etched into features of characters, racialising them incessantly and stereotypically (no one is thin and small in this way but Asian women
The worldbuilding is original... I guess. It's also clearly not intended to make much sense beyond being a thought experiment where everything stays blurry except the parts we're meant to see (what don't we see? The South other than Asia, since apparently it's all Eurasia all the time, the rest of the world either destroyed itself or has and has had nothing to offer, at least so far, unless I missed something).
It's difficult to avoid a comparison with Walton's Thessaly series. Yet, while Thessaly was a love letter to the Antiquity, it took one foundational text and few "Great Men" (ugh, that phrase) and managed to do a lot with it by seeing it/them for its/their flaws and strengths. In contrast, this love letter to French Enlightenment seems so far to be far too enamoured in its subject (see all those references to how something/someone was the greatest) despite the dystopian elements while, for me, saying very little of any value about the Enlightenment itself! That makes for worldbuilding that is sketchy and inconsistent (but hey, the Olympics somehow still matter to people a lot! Until we forget about them. Like importance of celebrity. Or Bridger. Or sports. Generally, this book does a lot of bringing things up that sound cool only to abandon them completely because they don't really matter, or at least not yet, or at least not as much as pondering how great Diderot or Rousseau was. Spoiler alert: the book says super great, but doesn't really support it by using them in a meaningful way beyond stylisations and some pretty stock elements (wigs! but little about rights of [wo]man, or capitalism, or much of anything, really), so I think I'll stick with Wollstonecraft's opinions on Rousseau).
We have a world of billions of people and yet it feels like about 99% of that is just numbers made up to create stakes for real characters (people) to play with (sometimes quite literally).
Spoiler
Those few real characters are also fairly interchangeable with some few exceptions, since they are all related by bash or marriage and meet for sex parties because, once again, who isn't into passionless kink-for-kink's sake 18th century re-enactmental incestuous role-playing while talking religion... unless, of course, you're into cannibalistic murder & rape orgies that somehow contribute to saving the world, maybe. That, or building colonies outside of Earth, thank goodness for Utopians.There were entire sections of this book that I could barely get through because of the sexposition. Remember when HBO did that? It was decried. Clearly they should have had Littlefinger reference de Sade and now instead of being a cheap marketing move we've got ourselves a postmodern masterpiece of playing with 18th century conventions. Alas, for me it was quite simply self-satisfied and annoying.
And the final way in which this book uses its 18th century inheritance is by flaunting genre and using elements of so many conventions all together. We have a bit of
Spoiler
Thomas Harris-like psychothriller (ugh, nope)And the worst thing is, although I *won't* buy it, I *will* borrow it from a friend and read it because as annoyed as I was with this book (and I was SO, SO annoyed - and not in a "wow, it makes me think" way, but "wow, could we get on with the point/ could we not do this thing" way), I was fairly gripped most of the time, and I want to get the ending. I don't like DNF-ing and finishing with this novel feels close to that.
colinyjchung's review against another edition
challenging
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
ungoliant1234's review against another edition
challenging
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
znnys's review against another edition
4.0
This book is so much.
At times the density was kind of overwhelming, especially in the beginning, when it felt like you were being thrown new information every page. As it continuer and settled, though, I got really invested in the political intrigue plot. Initially I was put off by Mycroft's narration but ended up liking him, against my better judgment. It's interesting to read a book that's very explicitly told from a biased and unreliable narrator and I'm curious to see how much of these events unfold outside his perspective
This is definitely one of those books where it's not didactic so much as just presenting a scenario and exploring every facet of it - this is a world that's tried very hard to deliberately be egilatarian but remains flawed. Sex and gender are a really interesting theme all throughout. I don't think Palmer is trying to say any one particular thing about gender, but that it means many things at once to many people. I was also really interested in the whole concept of servicers - this neo-slavery in what is ostensibly a utopic society. The controversial set sets, too, and the taboo of religion. It's all really fascinating.
I was admittedly a little put off by the scenes with Bridger because he acts way too young for a thirteen year old. At times the 18th century writing style got kind of grating. But overall I enjoyed this book and the revelation at the end made me yell.
At times the density was kind of overwhelming, especially in the beginning, when it felt like you were being thrown new information every page. As it continuer and settled, though, I got really invested in the political intrigue plot. Initially I was put off by Mycroft's narration but ended up liking him, against my better judgment. It's interesting to read a book that's very explicitly told from a biased and unreliable narrator and I'm curious to see how much of these events unfold outside his perspective
This is definitely one of those books where it's not didactic so much as just presenting a scenario and exploring every facet of it - this is a world that's tried very hard to deliberately be egilatarian but remains flawed. Sex and gender are a really interesting theme all throughout. I don't think Palmer is trying to say any one particular thing about gender, but that it means many things at once to many people. I was also really interested in the whole concept of servicers - this neo-slavery in what is ostensibly a utopic society. The controversial set sets, too, and the taboo of religion. It's all really fascinating.
I was admittedly a little put off by the scenes with Bridger because he acts way too young for a thirteen year old. At times the 18th century writing style got kind of grating. But overall I enjoyed this book and the revelation at the end made me yell.
gloamglozergay's review against another edition
5.0
Staggeringly complex both in its speculative worldbuilding and unfolding storyline. The narrator is bonkers, very unreliable, and very fun to read. Probably not everyone’s cup of tea - it is REALLY weird, and the narrator gets bogged down both in the intimate detail of the world and in his own tangents. Dialogue often gets broken up by so much exposition that I had to read it once, and then go back and read just the dialogue by itself to follow the conversation. There are a lot of characters, and it’s hard to know who is going to be important or even appear in person more than once; there are a lot of locations, demographic distinctions, and systemic structures, and I found it likewise hard to remember what went with which, or figure out what I needed to remember. I should have taken notes, and I think I’d benefit from a second read just for the sake of keeping track of everything. But if you like complex storylines and rich, unique styles, this is good. I can’t not read the next one. I’m interested to know if there will be an actual thesis behind the structure of the society and how different characters perceive it - sex/gender, religion, and nation seem too heavily featured and too thematically relevant for the author not to be saying something about them, but I don’t yet feel like I have an idea of what that is.
rebekahg876's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
funny
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5