Scan barcode
ahlakes's review
challenging
mysterious
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
1.5
mnworb's review against another edition
challenging
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
4.0
aswallace's review against another edition
challenging
mysterious
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
allie_rose's review against another edition
3.0
I alternated between being fascinated and repulsed, which I think was what the author was going for? In summary: 24th century earth is being secretly ruled by an incestuous cabal that meets at a French brothel/18th century, Voltaire worshipping cult. Oh and the narrator is a horny cannibal
aropuzzler's review against another edition
La traduction n'est pas très convaincante, notamment traduire "they" (neutre) en "on" et "ons" (au pluriel) n'est vraiment pas un bon choix
Je vais lire l'original
Je vais lire l'original
odin45mp's review
4.0
This is a beautiful novel that gets in its own way. The meta discussion went a bit over my head due to my own lack of education on some of the historical figures referenced by the author. The world building is deep, well thought out, and I want more of this world and its people. I don't know if the novel tried to do too much, or if my attention wandered due to trying to read this during the lead up and aftermath of the 2016 elections, but I had difficulty following some threads and keeping historical events straight.
Worth a read if you want literary, complex political science fiction, or a view of a future a bit closer to a utopia than a dystopia. Stay away from if politics and layers aren't your thing.
Worth a read if you want literary, complex political science fiction, or a view of a future a bit closer to a utopia than a dystopia. Stay away from if politics and layers aren't your thing.
jwolflink3's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
informative
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.75
tomasthanes's review against another edition
5.0
Wow. Just wow! I can't remember a book in the last couple of years that had such creative world building and good characters with their own voice.
This book (the first of four) is set in the distant future, in the year 2454 and the book describes a 7 day period in that year.
Nations are gone (sort of - they've been demoted and you identify with them as a nation "strat"). Religions are gone (sort of: "Let us create a new creature! Not a preacher, but a teacher, who hears a parishioner's questions and presents the answers of all the faiths and sects of history, Christians and pagans, Muslims and atheists, all equal." - this would be more plausible if all religions (or religions in denial) were equal). In their place are Hives: Humanists, Cousins, Masons, Gordians, Europe, Mitsubishi, and Utopians along with [ Whitelaw | Graylaw | Blacklaw ] Hiveless. Membership in a hive is entirely voluntary.
Rather than nuclear households we're familiar with (which we've done a really good job of destroying), there are "bashes" (from the Japanese word i-basho). Like hives, membership in a bash (at least for adults) is voluntary.
In fact, another reviewer of this book quoted John Lennon's song "Imagine" and posited that the author was, in some sense, inspired by that song.
Transportation is fast and ubiquitous via flying cars. There are two transportation systems: Six-Hive and Utopians. A Humanist bash, Saneer-Weeksbooth, runs the Six-Hive transportation system. The Utopian system is slower but has 100% fewer accidents.
One of the things that makes the book harder to grok is the un-gendered language. Pronouns are almost exclusively "they/them" though the narrative will, upon occasion, provide gendered pronouns for the aid of the reader. Like the present day, de-genderizing or multiplying genders doesn't really solve the root problem and only makes things more complex.
Because of or despite these things, the book was excellent and I'm moving onto the second book in the series.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Ignota (which is excellent (and contains spoilers))
This book (the first of four) is set in the distant future, in the year 2454 and the book describes a 7 day period in that year.
Nations are gone (sort of - they've been demoted and you identify with them as a nation "strat"). Religions are gone (sort of: "Let us create a new creature! Not a preacher, but a teacher, who hears a parishioner's questions and presents the answers of all the faiths and sects of history, Christians and pagans, Muslims and atheists, all equal." - this would be more plausible if all religions (or religions in denial) were equal). In their place are Hives: Humanists, Cousins, Masons, Gordians, Europe, Mitsubishi, and Utopians along with [ Whitelaw | Graylaw | Blacklaw ] Hiveless. Membership in a hive is entirely voluntary.
Rather than nuclear households we're familiar with (which we've done a really good job of destroying), there are "bashes" (from the Japanese word i-basho). Like hives, membership in a bash (at least for adults) is voluntary.
In fact, another reviewer of this book quoted John Lennon's song "Imagine" and posited that the author was, in some sense, inspired by that song.
Transportation is fast and ubiquitous via flying cars. There are two transportation systems: Six-Hive and Utopians. A Humanist bash, Saneer-Weeksbooth, runs the Six-Hive transportation system. The Utopian system is slower but has 100% fewer accidents.
One of the things that makes the book harder to grok is the un-gendered language. Pronouns are almost exclusively "they/them" though the narrative will, upon occasion, provide gendered pronouns for the aid of the reader. Like the present day, de-genderizing or multiplying genders doesn't really solve the root problem and only makes things more complex.
Because of or despite these things, the book was excellent and I'm moving onto the second book in the series.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Ignota (which is excellent (and contains spoilers))
xkrow's review
3.0
You might criticize me, reader, for not greatly enjoying this tale. It has great worldbuilding! It has vast politicking! It is a future sci-fi story that is complex! Thou must recognize the genius of these ideas! I hear you, dear reader, but in these few words, I hope to explain myself. If you have already heard my complaints, you may click away. If not, give it a read, and see if it makes you hate me. And if so, do not worry: I hate myself too.
I will concede that all your assertions of this tale are true in many parts. I too concede that the pen with which this narrative is spun is a careful one. Words and sentences are put together in a manner that sings. Different languages are put together on the same page to present a global picture. The form of prose we are used to is itself challenged as Mycroft switches the way he tells his story. And I will also concede that Ada Palmer is qualified to discuss many of the elements present here. She flows from politics to philosophy to history, making comments on the way humans might arrange society differently in the future to the different ways technical advancements might change them. She also does work in putting together a dangerous history, one full of war and religious conflict, an outbreak of the bubbling tensions that we see today and have witnessed many times in the past. Get on with it then! Enough concessions! If thou concedes this much, then what is thine issue?
The issue is one that has plagued many others tales that I have experienced, and one likely to always get in my path. For, you see, I hold true within me the truth of the one great object, the element within any medium that makes art worth the effort of experiencing. And that truth is one of the good story. Bah! You may interject. You, you so-called fans of narratives are of a kind lesser than others. What is a narrative if not characters doing things within a world? It is simply a connecting thread between the latter two, and thou yourself admitted to the prowess of them! I will clarify first that my compliments to the characters are given mostly in the abstract. I evaluate them rather than understand them; appreciate them rather than like them. And this is where I said you may hate me, because I do not think good characters can truly be great in the absence of a good narrative. Plato in his dialogues wrote characters with these vast views of the world, but that does not immortalize them in the halls of legends for there was little narrative for others to latch onto. Before you interject again, let me amend that statement myself: there was little for me to latch onto. And the same problem has cropped up here. The narrative has strong elements but it fails to provide the structure I need to fall in love with a book. Call me a lunatic, a weak reader, an idiot. But I could not produce a thimbleful of interest in the philosophical discussions and character interactions that cover the majority of this book because I had no idea what it was all leading to. That is what separates fiction from the papers upon papers I have read in my philosophy and politics courses, for the emotional value that they provide alongside their ideas.
To make myself a window to you, dear reader, I will also narrate something. In my fraught attempts at discovering the larger vista of this story, I was informed by others reading that the second half of this first part was quite a lot better than the earlier. Especially, I was assured, the last few chapters, which make the tale worth reading through. So, was it? Yes, I will answer, but in the most marginal sense. It improved my mood from something I was begging to be finished with to something I was mildly interested in. But as readers past and future have experienced, expectation is the killer of enjoyment, and my hopes for a satisfying ending were murdered in their cradle.
In the end, I make one final concession: the book has within it a lightning that thunders with all its might. But you, who love this, must make one concession in return: the window through which we observe that awesome power is one choked full of mist, grime, and a frustrating narrative style that leaves that lightning unseeable for most of it. This might improve on a subsequent read, but there must be something present there on a first to build that desire, and sadly, dear reader, I found that missing.
I will concede that all your assertions of this tale are true in many parts. I too concede that the pen with which this narrative is spun is a careful one. Words and sentences are put together in a manner that sings. Different languages are put together on the same page to present a global picture. The form of prose we are used to is itself challenged as Mycroft switches the way he tells his story. And I will also concede that Ada Palmer is qualified to discuss many of the elements present here. She flows from politics to philosophy to history, making comments on the way humans might arrange society differently in the future to the different ways technical advancements might change them. She also does work in putting together a dangerous history, one full of war and religious conflict, an outbreak of the bubbling tensions that we see today and have witnessed many times in the past. Get on with it then! Enough concessions! If thou concedes this much, then what is thine issue?
The issue is one that has plagued many others tales that I have experienced, and one likely to always get in my path. For, you see, I hold true within me the truth of the one great object, the element within any medium that makes art worth the effort of experiencing. And that truth is one of the good story. Bah! You may interject. You, you so-called fans of narratives are of a kind lesser than others. What is a narrative if not characters doing things within a world? It is simply a connecting thread between the latter two, and thou yourself admitted to the prowess of them! I will clarify first that my compliments to the characters are given mostly in the abstract. I evaluate them rather than understand them; appreciate them rather than like them. And this is where I said you may hate me, because I do not think good characters can truly be great in the absence of a good narrative. Plato in his dialogues wrote characters with these vast views of the world, but that does not immortalize them in the halls of legends for there was little narrative for others to latch onto. Before you interject again, let me amend that statement myself: there was little for me to latch onto. And the same problem has cropped up here. The narrative has strong elements but it fails to provide the structure I need to fall in love with a book. Call me a lunatic, a weak reader, an idiot. But I could not produce a thimbleful of interest in the philosophical discussions and character interactions that cover the majority of this book because I had no idea what it was all leading to. That is what separates fiction from the papers upon papers I have read in my philosophy and politics courses, for the emotional value that they provide alongside their ideas.
To make myself a window to you, dear reader, I will also narrate something. In my fraught attempts at discovering the larger vista of this story, I was informed by others reading that the second half of this first part was quite a lot better than the earlier. Especially, I was assured, the last few chapters, which make the tale worth reading through. So, was it? Yes, I will answer, but in the most marginal sense. It improved my mood from something I was begging to be finished with to something I was mildly interested in. But as readers past and future have experienced, expectation is the killer of enjoyment, and my hopes for a satisfying ending were murdered in their cradle.
In the end, I make one final concession: the book has within it a lightning that thunders with all its might. But you, who love this, must make one concession in return: the window through which we observe that awesome power is one choked full of mist, grime, and a frustrating narrative style that leaves that lightning unseeable for most of it. This might improve on a subsequent read, but there must be something present there on a first to build that desire, and sadly, dear reader, I found that missing.