Storyline: 2/5
Characters: 3/5
Writing Style: 3/5
World: 2/5
Never judge a book by its cover. I know the adage, but still, I let the cover set the expectations. The danger in putting such an awesome cover illustration on a book is that it will prove better than the text. Illustrator Stephan Martiniere, whom I'm now a fan of outshone Ken MacLeod, whom I'm coming to expect less and less from.
Superficially the book presented so many of the features I look for in science fiction. It was enigmatic, promising revelations. It was inventive, dazzling with believable technology. It was flashy, taking us someplace where imagination can run wild. It was political, offering a future different not only from ours but from what is generally even considered. There was a shallowness to the book, however, that tainted every one of those aspects. I never felt excited or in suspense about the mysteries or revelations; I never came to hope that the main characters succeed. When it came time for the parallel storylines to intersect, I was left cold, thinking, "That's all this was leading up to?" For all its cyberpunk flair, society was left remarkably under-described and under-envisioned. The world to which we were invited left so many basic questions unanswered. Most grating were MacLeod's politics. This is my fifth MacLeod book, and its my fifth time exploring Trotskyism in science fiction. MacLeod's challenge, as both a writer and an activist, is to make his politics real and appealing. I have sympathized with and understood all kinds of religious, scientific, historical, social, and ecological positions that I disagree with or outright reject. A good author helps you relate even to the most unlikable character or objectionable decision. MacLeod, after five tries, has never made me feel that or understand why I should care about Trotskyism. In the detached viewpoint I'm left with, so much of the political discussion and division is nothing more than a squabble. Still, for all my complaints, the book was a breezy, enjoyable read for the bulk of it; it is only as one nears the end that you realize that none of what you were hoping for is going to be worked out, developed, answered, or fulfilled.
I've held out hope for MacLeod because he is working on so many issues and styles that interest me. He was a high school classmate and professional friend of Iain Banks, one of my favorite science fiction writers. They are working on similar themes and in similar directions, Banks, however, on the far future and MacLeod on the near. MacLeod's challenge is more difficult, I think. To take the future not too far away, make predictions in such a way that they seem both feasible but not obvious is more limiting. The bigger difference, however, is how they write politics. Both are leftist offering radical futures, but Banks's politics are shown through the actions of the characters and groups in big picture settings. MacLeod loves the minutiae of committee meetings and sparring quotations from communist forefathers. I prefer the more creative, big picture, far future, action adventures of Banks over the more grounded, detail-laden, near future, bureaucratic thrillers of MacLeod. I've not yet given up on the latter, but I won't greet the next MacLeod novel with much enthusiasm.