“Tomorrow’s Children” by Daniel Polansky is a creative, frenetic, insane fever dream of violence and youth. A masterful use of formatting and language creates a vivid and colorful new world…but really doesn’t make a lot of sense. I loved how creative Polansky’s work is, but it starts to border the problem of “all style, no substance”
This book is worse if you know the twists going in. As a result, I’m going to write a quick, spoiler-free review if you are interested. After that, it’s spoilers away! So fair warning.
Spoiler-free: The world is really interesting and creative, but not really well thought out. The characters are fun, but some of them just seem to lack motivation and come off as less compelling. Finally, the magical aspects of the book were grand, but tottered towards over explanation. A fun read and a solid 4.
Okay, next we are spoiling some things, so if you plan to read this book: don’t read ahead!
The main question of the book is two-fold: who is the Kid and what is he doing? I found both of the answers disappointing.
My favorite aspect of the work was the reflection of the two crews. Gillian’s hunter squad was a more mature, developed version of the Kid. I saw a natural growth of a new Island upcomer in the Kid, whereas Gillian represented the last generation. In fact, this idea of heirs and children is the primary thrust of Polansky’s work…just look at the title!
Anyways, it’s revealed that Gillian is the mother of the Kid and is bankrolling his operation. So disappointing to me. How did no one really find this out, especially with all the mind readers on retainer? It makes no sense to me and hurts the story.
Once it is revealed that the two groups are in cahoots, it’s then revealed their goal: to destroy tourists, people from the outside world that want to claim the Island for their own.
Wat
Let’s look at Polansky’s world. So long ago did the funk arrive, that the words for “day” and “night” change. Bullets are “booms” and guns are “cannons”. Hell, people don’t even know what noon is - the entire lexicon of society has changed. To me, that would say it’s been hundreds of years. How else could all conception of time be gone? Books still exist in Manhattan, right? Books filled with old world description? For this to be forgotten, it would require all knowledge of the outside world to disappear.
When the tourists arrive, they are around our level in technology. Their submachine guns and assault rifles, alongside their large warship, is the most advanced they get. How is this possible? What has the outside world doing? Mr. Simpson makes it sound like the world watches Manhattan with sadness…but no one has gone inside? No one had family members when the funk came down?
It doesn’t make any sense. Funk also…makes no sense. Mr. Simpson’s motives barely make any sense.
I don’t mind things making little sense! The funk and the Last King of TriBeCa are very cool parts of the story, adding a little mythology to the tale. I really enjoyed this and thought it was clever and fun.
The problem is, the entire story rests on the question of why. In that regard, it HAS to make sense. Otherwise, your reader (me) is going to question the entire book. The premise of the work is the question, but the answer had no thought behind it. I found myself really disappointed.
That rant all out of the way, I want to talk about the things I enjoyed. Polansky’s world and writing for it are some of the most unique expressions of society in a dystopian novel I’ve ever seen. It reminds me of how Star Wars is still “sci-fi” with wizards and magic. “Tomorrow’s Children” is like a dystopic opera of myth and magic, I really enjoyed that part of it!
Secondly, the small vignettes of other characters is really enjoyable. Even if they don’t amount to much, it gives small windows into this world. The vignette of the two male lovers in the Sacred Band was one of my favorite portions of the book. Some of these vignettes were truly pointless to the plot, but the plot kinda sucked anyways.
The message of the story is good, if not somewhat bungled by the confused ending. I like the conception of tomorrow’s children being wholly different than us, but Swan’s interaction with Ael at the end kind of punctures that view. I think Polansky was more caught up in having fun than having a strong thesis.
Finally, let’s talk about the formatting. I thought it helped the story feel more chaotic and was overall good for the book, but probably wouldn’t mind if it wasn’t there at all. The end-notes were especially annoying and pointless to me, but the subtitle headings were really cool. So somewhat good, somewhat bad.
Long story short, I have such strange feelings about Polansky’s work. While I loved the world and the characters’ personalities, I can’t help but feel the world is somewhat superficial. If the plot and thesis of the book were stronger, I could see “Tomorrow’s Children” being my favorite sci-fi book of the year. Unfortunately, that was not the case, but it is still a very fun and creative read. 4/5, read if you are a dystopia fan or if you like really action-packed books!