Too Like the Lightning: Book One of Terra Ignota

I didn't like this book very much. I do want to see what happens, but not so much that I'm rushing to go out and get another book. I think I may have enjoyed it more with a good summary ahead of time to keep track of the important things. I would compare it to the Book of the New Sun, which thankfully has more fully developed resources for the first time reader to orient himself.

It had a lot of interesting things going for it, but felt very bogged down. It ends as soon as it starts getting interesting, which is just inexcusable for a book that plods a long as is.

The frame was annoying and the archaic language was not well used. All the 18th century references should have been shunted to footnotes.

Revealing Mycroft's identity felt like it came out of nowhere.

I know it's part of the plot, but it strained disbelief that these few people essentially run the whole world. Bridger and Jedd Mason were basically magic.

I immediately lost interest in Mycrofts gender assignations and skimmed over any of those descriptions. The atavistic gender play at the end had an inkling of interest, but doesn't get explored in this book.

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.

This was awesome!

I have read some books I loved lately, and I felt completely sated. I just finished the excellent [book:The Quantum Thief|7562764] trilogy. I totally did not want to read yet another excellent sci-fi. [book:Call the Midwife|21288872] was great and I felt no need for another story rich in history and characters.

But what can you do when you are facing an overseas trip with connecting flights and nights alone in a hotel?

Right as I started reading I realized this was not like any other book. I do not think it is possible to be so bored with books that you would find nothing new in Too Like The Lightning. The writing is crazy. The characters are crazy. The story has elements that do not fit in a reasonable story.

As this is the first book of a trilogy, nothing is explained at the end, but there is so much information, that my mind is racing to find solutions that explain everything. I love this feeling, and I mostly associate it with Lost, the TV series, which was very good food for a mind that wants to piece things together. Even if the pieces did not convincingly fit together in the end in Lost.

This is of course a risk here as well. But we have a first-person narrator (Mycroft Canner), who is not just relating a factual story, but has imaginary conversations with the reader. The narrator is an extremely mysterious person and a master of gaining the trust of people. How far should I believe what I read?

To make this worse, the book is not as it was originally written "by" Mycroft. In a chapter written by another character they mention going back to previous chapters to change something. This book is a logic puzzle adventure!

Besides the genius literary devices, what have we here? There is sci-fi, set in the 25th century. It is good sci-fi, with very reasonable tech (no laser space ships). The focus is on social structure, politics, and philosophy. These details are well thought out and quite thought provoking. But there is so much intrigue, so many characters, so much plot, that I did not have much brain power left to contemplate the philosophical themes.

Do avoid spoilers carefully! I read a review on another site just now that had a huge spoiler in its headline... So, like, try not to click here by accident:



The huge spoiler is the nature of Mycroft's crimes. You read his humble writing and his selfless personality throughout the book, and you think his big crime must have been like killing someone in self-defense, freeing some lab-rats, or stealing money through a clever hack.

You learn the truth half-way through the book. It's shocking. You feel disgusted to even continue reading. Like the words do not taste the same anymore. You are betrayed! Fantastic that a book can do that, shame on anyone spoiling this.

So what do you think is going on here? Did Martin really figure out the truth? It's probably part of the truth, and an interesting, if well-known philosophical question. Small-scale senseless murder to prevent large-scale chaos.

Did the Mardi's not train exactly for this? "What is something you would sacrifice anything for?" and all that? They had the breaking-point numbers. They discovered them! And already the world was super close to breaking point. If you are 1% away from total collapse of civilization, you cannot just hope nothing pushes you over: you must get further away.

Which way did Mycroft's rampage push things? He could even be redeemed later if we find that all that was in service of a greater good. But he seems to genuinely hate the Mardi's. Maybe the Mardi's were in the wrong? Mycroft also lost his bash' and a lot of his body. Were the Mardi's responsible? Was his bash' taken out to support the greater good?

Or maybe Mycroft was really a maniac killer. A freak of nature. But J.E.D.D. Mason put him right, and hence he's really reformed, and this is why everyone trusts him. What is J.E.D.D.'s magic? Seems to be able to say the right things to induce major changes in minds. Let's say just total mind reading and mind control. How does that correspond to him belonging to a different universe in some sense? What is that universe? His mind spends time there. But there is no time there, is there? Maybe I'm overthinking it...

Masons are fine with torture. I would not be surprised if the Masons were already in command of Mycroft at the time of the murders. Although again, he seems to have really hated the Mardi's and still does.



Aah, there is so much more to speculate on! Utopians, Anonymous (could be Ockham Saneer?), what's Carlyle's role... I have not even mentioned Saladin and BRIDGER!!!




A big theme in the book is decadence of a small ruling elite. The history of the Humanist hive shows that this was not always the case in the 25th century and before. But right now a lot of power is focused in just "7-10" individuals. They are a very closely knit bunch with intermarriages and other romances binding them together. They even go so far as to exclude and laugh at a democratically elected leader (Casimir Perry).

Seeing history as the result of a small group of actors is sort of natural in fictional novels. (If the hero convinces the king to have a change of heart, it is a gripping story. If the hero gets the parliament to vote for his proposal, it is boring. No human element. Nothing to understand.) But I think this cannot be accidental in Too Like The Lightning. This was in large part the cause of the French revolutions, so it is too strongly related thematically.


Please read it and let us speculate until the next book comes!

UPDATE: I have read the second book, [book:Seven Surrenders|28220647]. Five stars as well.

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."