Scan barcode
A review by ajb24
New York 2140 by Kim Stanley Robinson
3.0
It's funny because I think almost all of the reasons why I liked this book are also part of what I disliked about the book. I'm gonna make a pros/cons list to try and structure my thoughts.
Pros
- well-researched (very “smart”)
- inventive
- descriptive language really captures the environment they're in
- wide variety of charactersthere's diversity
- develops a grounded sci-fi future – the world order hasn’t collapsed, so the institutions we know still exist, they just get modified to fit this world -> I really liked how Robinson kind of like, logically extended/expanded how things like the technology we have now could be in the future (the “cloud” system, surveillance tech/the rise of private security firms, “lifestraws” for water purification, etc)
- there were many things that I’ve never thought about when considering what’ll happen when sea level rises: the idea of the “intertidal zone” (cuz tides are a thing), the effects of water on the buildings in this zone, how to deal with sewage, how gross the water would be, the smells, that the sea level rise will happen in stages, the idea that even after the sea levels rise, there’s still resistance to transforming our systems of energy production
Cons
- too specific?? It lost me when everything was described directionally (uptown vs downtown vs this street or that canal,etc.)
- also all the boat/maritime words like…idk wtf any of this is LOL
- and all the financial details with like, indexes and all that
- descriptions of how the underwater technology works
- really a lot of the details/descriptions went over my head lol
- when it got really intellectual I felt like I was getting lectured?? Like…yknow, I’m usually down with “political” things, and the political philosophy of the novel aligns with my own, but at times it was really overbearing
- particularly the parts where “the city” was narrating – this was an….interesting way to get exposition in and explain how the city came to be how it is in 2140. It also added to my sense of being lectured and/or condescended to
- I feel like if Amelia’s character wasn’t in the book nothing would change
- related to that, I’m surprised polar bears aren’t extinct yet in this world…how’d that happen?
- I wish Stefan and Roberto were like, slightly older and/or their past was explained more because like…..how are they alive wtf. They were a bit too precocious to me, and I suppose that’s because they essentially raised themselves, but then I wanna know more about that! Show me why they’re like this!
- Didn't understand the Mr. Hexter/Herman Melville-Ghost storyline...that was random and didn't add anything valuable to my reading experience
- I'm unsure how I feel about the historical quotes/excerpts that separate each POV. Sometimes they added a nuance and/or context for the subsequent section, but sometimes I couldn't see the connection and didn't understand why it was chosen.
Final Thoughts:
I like that this takes place many years after the “Pulses” because there’s hope there that like, civilization will continue. Since the book is so centered on realism, it’s both devastating and hopeful. I like that it takes many years post-sea level rise because then it’s not really an “end of the world" type environment and society has stabilized. BUT. I also want to know more about what the years immediately after the sea-level rises are like in this universe: how was the more stable society built? I think I feel this way because the fallout of climate change is *my* future – the first wave (ha) of change that is referenced in the book is what *I’ll* live through. I know this is fiction so the exact time frame of events is all speculative, but knowing that sea level rise is my future makes me want a more detailed exploration of those years. Maybe if Mr. Hexter had had a POV instead of the boys or Amelia, then there could've been space for a more "personal" perspective on the history of this world. I would've appreciated that much more and from a world-building perspective it could have eliminated some of the need to have "the city" narrate what happened.
Pros
- well-researched (very “smart”)
- inventive
- descriptive language really captures the environment they're in
- wide variety of characters
- develops a grounded sci-fi future – the world order hasn’t collapsed, so the institutions we know still exist, they just get modified to fit this world -> I really liked how Robinson kind of like, logically extended/expanded how things like the technology we have now could be in the future (the “cloud” system, surveillance tech/the rise of private security firms, “lifestraws” for water purification, etc)
- there were many things that I’ve never thought about when considering what’ll happen when sea level rises: the idea of the “intertidal zone” (cuz tides are a thing), the effects of water on the buildings in this zone, how to deal with sewage, how gross the water would be, the smells, that the sea level rise will happen in stages, the idea that even after the sea levels rise, there’s still resistance to transforming our systems of energy production
Cons
- too specific?? It lost me when everything was described directionally (uptown vs downtown vs this street or that canal,etc.)
- also all the boat/maritime words like…idk wtf any of this is LOL
- and all the financial details with like, indexes and all that
- descriptions of how the underwater technology works
- really a lot of the details/descriptions went over my head lol
- when it got really intellectual I felt like I was getting lectured?? Like…yknow, I’m usually down with “political” things, and the political philosophy of the novel aligns with my own, but at times it was really overbearing
- particularly the parts where “the city” was narrating – this was an….interesting way to get exposition in and explain how the city came to be how it is in 2140. It also added to my sense of being lectured and/or condescended to
- I feel like if Amelia’s character wasn’t in the book nothing would change
- related to that, I’m surprised polar bears aren’t extinct yet in this world…how’d that happen?
- I wish Stefan and Roberto were like, slightly older and/or their past was explained more because like…..how are they alive wtf. They were a bit too precocious to me, and I suppose that’s because they essentially raised themselves, but then I wanna know more about that! Show me why they’re like this!
- Didn't understand the Mr. Hexter/Herman Melville-Ghost storyline...that was random and didn't add anything valuable to my reading experience
- I'm unsure how I feel about the historical quotes/excerpts that separate each POV. Sometimes they added a nuance and/or context for the subsequent section, but sometimes I couldn't see the connection and didn't understand why it was chosen.
Final Thoughts:
I like that this takes place many years after the “Pulses” because there’s hope there that like, civilization will continue. Since the book is so centered on realism, it’s both devastating and hopeful. I like that it takes many years post-sea level rise because then it’s not really an “end of the world" type environment and society has stabilized. BUT. I also want to know more about what the years immediately after the sea-level rises are like in this universe: how was the more stable society built? I think I feel this way because the fallout of climate change is *my* future – the first wave (ha) of change that is referenced in the book is what *I’ll* live through. I know this is fiction so the exact time frame of events is all speculative, but knowing that sea level rise is my future makes me want a more detailed exploration of those years. Maybe if Mr. Hexter had had a POV instead of the boys or Amelia, then there could've been space for a more "personal" perspective on the history of this world. I would've appreciated that much more and from a world-building perspective it could have eliminated some of the need to have "the city" narrate what happened.