I believe that just about any concept, even if recycled or superficially boring, can be grown into a great story. Cultivating narrative greatness might require a surprising -- or unusually restrained -- plot, idiosyncratic or studiously plain characters, poetic or prosaic language. Whatever grafting is necessary, whatever diet and pruning, something delicious can blossom. Eastern Standard Tribe, on the other hand, feels like a plant that has not yet borne fruit.
Full disclosure - I quit reading at the 75% mark. I lost patience with the cyberpunk-lite slang and cultural pontificating. I don't dislike cultural pontificating, but this book seemed to be a novel and ought to pay some tribute to that convention. Instead it felt impatient, like cursory service to the form of the story in order to liberate itself to ferret about in a nest of half-formed ideas.
The main delivery system of ideas here is dialogue, which proves unfortunate. Speech feels teleprompted, alien in the mouths of the actors. This is especially evident during scenes of lust, which echo erotica's imitative paradox*, but it also shows in the tech slang, which has a flux capacitor, reverse tachyon pulse rhythm, and in the conspiracy theory ranting. Again, almost any cliche can be rescued. Writing workshop axioms like just enough and selective details would have helped here.
Perhaps finding proper balance between one's own ideas and paying tribute to a sympathetic simulation of human life lies in how well an author apprehends their overarching goal. This can sharpen dialogue and all other parts of a story into an arrow pointing readers toward destination. But what was that goal in this book? If all the dialogue was driving me somewhere, I cruised right past it, distracted by the narrator's relentless, almost algorithmic chatter.
Setting -- which could have been doing quiet work of its own on the novel's behalf -- is crowded off the stage. The rooftop of an asylum, where one meets the narrator, is the most fleshed out piece of scenery in the first 3/4 of the book. As a result this rooftop interested me the most, but unfortunately this also had the effect of making everywhere and everyone else the narrator was talking about seem unreal. I wish the author had observed in other parts of the plot the power of a well-established place.
(*Sidebar about the imitative paradox - tangential to the book and quite possibly irritating in just the way I blame this book for being:
(I don't only mean the question of whether art imitates life or vice versa. On top of this, to the above cliches and more people apply illusion-breaking questions like, "who talks like that", "who does that", and "what does that even mean?" Such questions chastise or improve a piece of fiction by invoking reality. However, one may easily turn these questions upon the real-world analogues and find answers equally difficult to come by. What does a politician mean? A scientist? A six year old and an eighty year old in conversation? A woman or a man? What do these parties mean to one another or to outside observers participating in their experiences in whatever way?
(In a sense all of our ideas, all our responses to life are models -- crude imitations and echoes of what we experience. In other words they are art - and all of this art also alters experience. By the way, the very word experience gives me a headache because it doesn't only imply what happens but also what we think and feel about it. Did the author have any of this in mind? I doubt it. Now I am being self-indulgent, and ought to wrap up.
(When it comes to what we commonly agree are art products, we break their power by breaking their illusion -- well, sometimes they break their own power -- but in either case the illusions seem to shatter upon our image of reality. I find it fascinating that some ideas have such power over other ones. Why, for instance, was I so bothered by this novel, which is not significantly more silly, boring, or unbelievable than anything I have encountered in the real world? I'm not sure why my idea of reality is superior to self-identified fiction, because it is still art. Maybe it comes down to instinct. When we try to answer the question of whether art imitates life, or vice versa, maybe we are really asking ourselves whether we have the power -- or desire -- to experience what we witness in art.)
Ah! I may have accidentally found my point about this book. Above and beyond its awkwardly recycled parts and effort to be profound (or perhaps to mock such efforts), it is plain discomforting. The protagonist is unpleasant, his girlfriend is unpleasant, the best friend -- a mere sketch of a character -- is vaguely unpleasant, the spare setting of the flashback is unpleasant, the asylum -- as vivid and captivating as it is -- is unpleasant. Here is the cliche that broke this camel's back: an arrogant protagonist who lacks all self-awareness, surrounded by malicious actors and marching proudly to doom. The book's lack of restraint, it's inability to say, "ok, I have made my point" compounded this discomfiture. I get it, I kept thinking. Can we move on now, I get it. It sucks, it's tragic, I have over things to do...
Who does one cheer for in such a situation? What part of the story can one find entertaining? I just wanted the misery to end. The thesis of the book is, "would you rather be happy or smart?" I chose to put the book down and shove the proverbial pencil up my nose.