Reviews

Neal Stephenson seems cooked. I can't say I'm exactly the biggest Stephenson fan, having only read Snow Crash, Anathem, and Seveneves, but this book feels like a showcase of all his worst tendencies taken to their furthest extent, absent his positives as a writer. If I had to take a guess at why he's turned out such a flop of a climate fiction book, it's because the man's brain, which clearly runs on a rationalist, technocratic model that prizes competence and scientific truth above the realm of the personal, has been broken by the Trump election and by the clear failure of rationalism and effective cooperation to prevail, in the case of the environment, over decades.

So one of my problems with the book is that it reads kind of like wish fulfillment- what if we could just ignore the negative outcomes, ignore politics, and do geoengineering? The book offers far too generous an assessment of geoengineering given everything that I, not a climate scientist, know about it- and when it does bring up the actual downsides of it, these downsides are usually brushed off or depicted as easily overcome, problems to which people are overreacting. There is an abundance of carefully researched, very long descriptions of the technology behind geoengineering, but the political and human world around it is always simplified down and then set to the side and ignored.

On this front, all my biggest problems with the book are political. Stephenson's varied viewpoint characters are all ultra-pragmatists, who all look on the world of ideas and culture with an analytical disdain or disregard. The only worthwhile actors in this world are people who act at the level of physical reality. Anyone who holds beliefs higher than those of rational self-interest that they wish to act on is contemptible or pitiable. Early on I started taking note of how often people- and not just one character, but most of them- would mention "greens" or "animal rights activists" as examples of obstructionist delusion. And the attempts at cultural observation almost always read as exhaustingly out of touch- the "Cowboys vs Indians" motif is just as silly as it sounds, but it gets even more insane than that when I tell you that the "Indians" in that phrase refers to the people of the Southern Asian country of India and that the "Cowboys," real Texan cowboys in this case, are proposed to be the genuine inheritors of the cultural legacy of the Comanche. Almost all the cultural references read as already dated, two years after the book was published.

Some continued notes- I have the same essential complaint about the plot and the characters, which are that the characters all have very lengthy, detailed backstories and come from unique backgrounds, but their thoughts all feel the same, and their actions almost never feel like they are driven by who they are as a character, but are simply the result of them receiving a necessary piece of information at a specific time in order to be moved around like a chess piece and thus make the next piece of plot happen. The attempts at writing women's sexuality and the female gaze make me feel remorseful for the times I've ragged on KSR for being bad at it. And ultimately, the way I found these characters to be so unsatisfying was deepened because one of my favorite parts of the book was learning about the very specific and clearly well researched life that each of the characters had before joining this story- I feel like reading about Willem's past taught me much more about Dutch colonial history and Indonesian independence than I learned from the massive amount of ink dedicated to explaining atmospheric geoengineering, and same goes for everything going on with Laks, which made it even sadder how Laks was basically just an aimless vessel for events to happen to.

The other thing that I will say for the book is that it had a very promising start, with how vividly and believably it details the effects of climate change in a decade or two. It made for a good intro and raised my expectations too high lmao

I almost forgot to mention: this is the second climate fiction book I've read this year which makes abundant references to Moby Dick... which might honestly have been better integrated into one of the characters than it was in New York 2140

deotheophilus's review against another edition

Go to review page

3.0

Good beginning but a very disappointing end, not Neal Stephensons best work but still a fun adventure.

cupkeight's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging hopeful informative reflective tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

3.0

sh1323's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous informative medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

3.5

More...