Skillfully done, occasionally brilliant, at other times superficial, The Circle extends some of the trends of our society to their logical conclusion.

In the real world, the president and congress find themselves deadlocked. Who was it that came up with this separation of powers idea? It's very inefficient. If everyone worked together, instead of at cross purposes, so much more could be accomplished. Privatization is often suggested as a better way, with the voting of the marketplace to enact the will of the people.

Books like Sam Harris's Lying argue that all lies are bad, though it allows for the truth of "I refuse to tell you" as a possible way out of revealing everything. People on the Internet willingly forgo their privacy in the interests of community. Even I let my emails be scanned for keywords allowing targeted ads in return for free Google email. After all, isn't their slogan "Don't be evil?"

The Circle, resembling Google the most, but including Apple and Facebook and Twitter and many other private companies as their inspiration, shows how it could all go wrong. But most of us already knew this, and often in much more nuanced ways than are addressed in this book. And since we know in advance it will lead to disaster, we read this book as one would watch a youtube video of a circus performer who we just might want to see fall off the tightrope, or of a grizzly auto accident videoed as it happened. We are the choir being preached to and we enjoy our point of view being expressed with a nice story line that would make a great movie.

But I don't go to those movies. I prefer those with more subtlety. I like stories that address internal conflict and unconscious motivation. I would like my main character to recognize early on that her "transparency" is a lie. I'd like her to recognize that being watched doesn't make her "her best self" but only her most devious, not because of the times she cuts her video or audio feed, but because her every action is designed to hide her real thoughts and feelings in preference for how she "should" be. People lie to themselves to protect their self-image but most of them, at least, suspect they're lying. And why not show them in the bathroom? Is it something to be ashamed of? Lyndon Johnson would hold meetings as he sat on the toilet. These arguments aren't taken far enough and it mars the believability of the book.

Also, we don't hear enough about the poor, who, presumably deserve their poverty--because if we actually spent any attention on them, we'd turn on The Circle at a point when when Eggers wants us to give the company point of view more of a chance. And when it's time to show the company at it's worst, we watch defenseless animals, who we know are innocent, not humans who are always morally ambiguous.

Mercer could have merely gotten in an accident. Not even fatally. A suicide is too cartoonish. It was hard to believe that Mae believed he'd laugh about it with her, but most of the relationships seemed based on the exigencies of plot. Kaldon/Ty may have been socially inept, but why he'd choose Mae and expect her help (or expect the help she could provide to make any difference) has no other explanation. Similarly Mae, a celebrity, returning to Francis when she would have many other choices is unconvincing. Similarly, her not understanding that her parents might need privacy makes sense ideologically but not emotionally.

I gave it 3 stars because I never got too bored, but didn't raise it to 4 on followup.