Plays with interesting ideas of capitalism, productivity. I like anything experimental with form. But ultimately the book made me feel nothing- hence the 2.75 stars. I've read plenty of speculative fiction that manages to discuss issues in a more nuanced way that also makes the reader feel more.
I read on kindle but this cover design looks very cool also.
This is a very ambitious book. It is trying to be a historical, espionage, family-drama, wartime thriller.
Unfortunately I think the tension-building could've been better as I just did not feel it was very propulsive. I think this was due to a combination of the writing style, character-building and pacing. I didn't feel attached to the characters, I think because Cecily was really just built of everything she hadn't done or wasn't, rather than qualities or traits she had. I thought the characterisation of the children was much better, and I certainly felt more attached to them and they felt more life-like.
However, I think the book was too short to actually explore everything it did, and had it been longer, it would've made more sense and felt less stilted. Abel's alcoholism, Yuki's abuse and disfigurement and Gordon's death felt like they were basically just trauma porn and plot-driven, rather than experiences that the characters go through which develop them. You could see through almost every interaction in the book as being purposeful for the plot rather than being seamlessly weaved together and capturing early 1940s Malaysia.
And then the ending just felt hastily tied together because books like this need to have a neat ending.
This was a nice book. But if you take out the fact that this is about one of the first Indians to come to America, there is nothing particularly special about the story or the writing. In fact, there were quite a lot of clichés in the plot and the characters, who were often very two-dimensional. Many of the characters were portrayed as wholly good or bad. The only character I felt was portrayed with some amount of depth was actually Dick. I believe Charry falls into the trap of superimposing very modern ideas and ways of thinking onto characters who lived in the 1600s and while I understand that this is her way of showing the reader that this character is virtuous, I think it detracts from the historical accuracy and plausibility of the story. I also felt like a lot of the atrocities and unkindness that Tony and other character would've faced were either glossed over, or written about in very vague terms. This surprised me, considering the author is a historian.