Hmmmm...... I read this book because I know that Iain Banks asked Ken MacLeod to finish any of his unfinished writing before he died. However, the two really do not compare.
Where Banks makes megaworlds and huge events and spaces believable, I felt that MacLeod fell very short on that. His worlds and ideas ARE huge, but for me not believably enough so. That was one of the major let-downs. However, I read the book all the way through. The main reason for this is that the ideas behind the Fall Revolution are very compelling: the resurgence and emergence of socialist, capitalist and anarchist elite who are able to transform their ideas into a New World Order, where technology plays a central role in them being able to do so in the near future, is understandable and frighteningly believable.
The first 'book' within the book puts down the basis of this idea, but sometimes delved too murkily into the political theoretical depths - this detracted from the interspersed action scenes of the main plot, and contrasted too much with them to be a comfortable read. This was corrected in the second book, "The Stone Canal", which was written only a year later but was more enjoyable. At one point I even thought I was getting into it, especially as MacLeod had put much more 'intrigue' and a really good backstory to some of the characters. He also supplemented the societal and technological issues with questions on self, virtual reality and artificial intelligence. But, 10 pages from the end, it suddenly seemed like he had a deadline to meet and rushed the end into incomprehension.
This put me off MacLeod for a bit. I may or may not indulge in the 3rd and 4th book just because of the political aspects, but perhaps MacLeod should use his knowledge to write future history with less extreme science fiction elements.