Human morality is only absolute because the humans won the war to see who would be the dominant species of this planet. We live by the moral and ethical standards of a species whose dominion is built on bones.
InCryptid has never been my favorite out of all Seanan McGuire's series, but I've found it enjoyable. The Antimony books in particular pulled me in. At this point, however, I'm finding myself a bit... fatigued?
On one hand, this book had plenty of cool stuff. All the family dynamics between some of my favorite characters, getting to finally learn more about Cuckoos, the mathematical descriptions (I'm the opposite of a math person, but I love watching how mathematically inclined minds work)—plenty to love! At its core, however, it was the same story I've already read by McGuire, within the same series and beyond. Nature vs nurture, what is a monster, the morality of a dominant species isn't the only morality out there, family sticks together, hold on, you're coming home. Those are all concepts that touch me deeply. I love them in books. I constantly look for stories that show them at new angles, explore them through different lenses. Here, though, I felt like I got nothing new or different.
There were other things I found issue with, like the way all that new exciting information was constantly rehashed, injecting just a bit novelty into each new conversation about instar. Also, how weird is it that a bunch of biologists/people constantly surrounded by talkative biologists didn't know what instar was until they googled it or asked each other or stole it from someone's mind? I know the equivalent of the word in my native language, and I know it from school. It was somewhere in grade 8, I think, that we studied the stages of insect development. Biology wasn't my best subject, I was never interested in it and I got very average marks, so I assume that's not something advanced. Then again, maybe it's a school system difference or something.
Come to think of it, though, the book was overall full of those heavy-handed "As you know, Bob" conversations that were obviously only needed to cue the reader in. There was very little reason for people with a more or less similar degree of knowledge in a subject to start half of their conversations with, "So here's a crash course into this and that area. While I monologue, you can sit around and think about how you grew up learning these things." This kind of thing really breaks immersion for me, because while as a reader I appreciate getting crash courses into some of these things, I get this feeling that the characters are suddenly dropping everything in the middle of tense moment of their lives and stage a show to educate me instead of moving on with the tension and letting me worry for them. Seeing this, to such an extent, in a book by an author I genuinely love and admire and always name as my absolute favorite was a bit jarring. I'm not sure if I may have been more forgiving if it was a book by an author I didn't already hold to a very high standard, or if, instead, in that case I would simply quit in the middle. The sad thing is that I'm leaning toward the latter.
I still liked parts of the book, and I'm curious about how this arc continues—the ending was very open, to say the least. But I guess I should accept that the InCryptid series is super hit or miss for me, and while the "hit" books hit super hard and make me love them forever, the "miss" books are just really off the mark.