Too Like the Lightning (1 of 2)

Under normal circumstances I would never have finished this novel. But it's a 2017 Hugo nominee and I am voting and want to know what for (or not).

The story is set in the 25th century and told by Mycroft Canner, a criminal whose punishment is to be a slave to all of society. Mycroft is writing a history of events that changed his world although in this first book it is never quite said how the world changed, all the reader gets to see is Mycroft's contemporary world and the child Bridger who is going to be the reason for the change. But most of the story revolves around the investigation of a crime in which Bridger plays no role at all, even though Mycroft insists the child is the protagonist.

So this book is at the same time great and not. Great because of the wonderful world-building and the complex plot (more on that below).

Not great because of the constructed archaic format, it's seeming fascination with itself, the overdone and inconsistent "un-genderedness" of the pronouns which at times seems to be a caricature of [b: Ancillary Justice|17333324|Ancillary Justice (Imperial Radch #1)|Ann Leckie|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1397215917s/17333324.jpg|24064628], the continuous breaking of the 4th wall, and in some parts the amounts allusions to and quotations from enlightenment philosophers showing us how very smart and educated the author is. Also most characters while they have quirks, and details have little in the way of an actual personality. And those that have this play too small a role. Mycroft dominates the story in every aspect while at the same time trying to make us believe he is just a witness.

But the world and the plot deriving from this world ended up being too interesting to pass up. The basic premise of the world is that when somebody made flying cars that could round the globe in 4 hours, traveling anywhere became trivial and it ended up breaking the nation states we know today. There was war and revolution and what not.

I had a lot of trouble getting beyond the first couple of chapters mostly because due to the extensive world-building there were so many names and concepts that were confusing me in the beginning ...

So in the 25th century humanity is split into 7 Hives (Masons, Cousins, Humanist, Europe, Mitsubishi, Gordian, Utopian). A young adult - upon passing the adulthood competency exam - can decide for themselves which Hive to join or stay Hiveless. Each Hive has distinct characteristics (compassionate Cousins, Humanists are into sports, Utopians look to the future) and certain fashions (f.e. Cousins wear a "wrap" and Humanists have special boots, while Utopians have coats made from a cloth that shows the future world they believe in).

Besides a Hive a person can wear a variety of insignia denoting his hobbies, job, nation-strat (nations still exist as a "choice"). Hives are not bound to one continuous land mass like a nation state, they are scattered all over the world. Every Hive has different laws and different types of government (most of which are described in the book and some are rather fascinating). Everything is choice in this world, even gender (or whats left of it, since Gender has become a taboo topic so a person will never be referred to as he or she but always as they, Mycroft keeps using the old pronouns and keeps making a fuss over it). At the same time that this seems to imply an overall freedom, everyone is also wearing a so-called tracker which on the one hand is their interface to the net and at the same time their trackable identity. Much of the plot is about how someone built a device that can slip through this tracker system ...

People in the future do not live in small families but in a "bash" that can consist of several sets of parents and children, adopted children, married spouses and so on. A bash can be formed new or have existed for decades or even centuries. The older generation are the ba-pas or ba-parents of the younger, and the younger generation are ba-sibs to each other.

The bash that plays a major role in the plot is the "Worksbooth-Saneer" bash. As a group they have a very important role in the world, as they control the transit system (flying cars) of 6 of the Hives (everyone but Utopia). The center of this are a couple of so-called "set-sets". A set-set is a human computer, raised from childhood in such a way that they can interface with a large computer system and process large amounts of information like the flight paths of millions of cars.

Another important concept is how religion is dealt with. Organized religion has been outlawed because of the last great war between the major religions. Instead each person has a "sensayer" a modern type of priest who guides his charges to a discovery of a unique and personal faith. Sensayers must study all beliefs there are and may not influence their charges ... talking with someone about one's personal beliefs is deeply taboo beyond a session with a sensayer.

The difficulty in discussing a very original book is that that the vocabulary to describe it is missing. I spent a lot of the time I was reading this trying to figure out who to compare it to. In my updates, you'll see a couple of stabs at it, but I'm going with:

[a:Iain M. Banks|5807106|Iain M. Banks|https://d2arxad8u2l0g7.cloudfront.net/authors/1352410520p2/5807106.jpg] and [a:Gene Wolfe|23069|Gene Wolfe|https://d2arxad8u2l0g7.cloudfront.net/authors/1207670073p2/23069.jpg] and Maybe [a:Jo Walton|107170|Jo Walton|https://d2arxad8u2l0g7.cloudfront.net/authors/1353809579p2/107170.jpg] write the Foundation Trilogy. But with pinch of [b:The Vampire Lestat|43814|The Vampire Lestat (The Vampire Chronicles, #2)|Anne Rice|https://d2arxad8u2l0g7.cloudfront.net/books/1347515742s/43814.jpg|3241580].

This doesn't really give you a solid idea what it's like, but it's about as clear as I can get.

This book was not, quite, as they say on the internet, a wild ride from start to finish, but I never managed to know what to expect from it. It kept on becoming something else as I read it.

I also do not know if I enjoyed it, which is a very strange thing not to know about a book you have read. For one thing, this book's interest in Voltaire outstripped mine right out of the gate, as did its interest in the approximately thirty-eight other enlightenment thinkers who were regularly made reference to. The book also, I think, is quite uninterested in giving you characters to like; almost all the characters eventually reveal themselves to have ugly flaws.

There is a twist at the half-way point that I feel might be quite upsetting to some people, and I think the book is committed to it, rather than doing it for shock-value, so I am trying to preserve the surprise, but [triggers: rape/torture] a character you have been empathizing with turns out to have been responsible for some horrific atrocities, which are referred to fairly offhandedly.

The thing I came closest to enjoying was the world-building, but even that was a wild ride. I began thinking I was exploring a utopia, quickly became mired in petty and comprehensive politics, and then plunged into the realization that no one in this world is suited to raise children.

Then the story ends as the first half of a duology, leaving me confused and disoriented. Okay!

Recommended if Iain M. Banks or Gene Wolfe are your idea of a good time, or if you've ever said to yourself, "I would like this SF more if it were 20% enlightenment philosophers by weight."