In Haw, the future is grim and bleak. The government has become a corrupt facade of democracy, on the verge of collapse, willing to sacrifice the many to maintain the few. Society has evolved into extremes of “haves”—the wealthy who insulate themselves in high rise buildings and hire private guards to protect them—and the “have nots”—citoyens who make up the bulk of society, scrabbling for their daily necessities, drinking heavily because alcohol is safer than the water. Lucas, a bioengineer and father, is on the lower end of the “haves.” He has a job, a home (an abandoned villa), and salary enough to eat fairly well. After the death of his wife, he raises Orel alone. When decreasing purity of water and increasing violence force them to leave this pitiless environment, they journey to a rural village near a nuclear reactor and face a new challenges.
The prose is thoughtful, well-written and contains some unique imagery. Haw is told from an omniscient point of view so the reader sees bits of everyone’s thoughts, which is one of Haw’s strengths as well as its weakness. A review on the back cover says “Haw features an LGBT theme.” For most people, the literary theme is the main topic of a novel whether stated directly or indirectly. In Haw, LGBT issues were mentioned in passing here and there and certainly never reached the point of becoming a major thematic presence. This is where the omniscient point of view becomes a drawback. Had the reader identified more with Orel, the gay son, the fact that he was gay may have made a difference in the book. The LGBT issues may not have become an actual “theme” but might have become a thread or motif. For instance, the reader doesn’t know if Orel has come out to his father, Lucas; if Lucas knows or suspects his son’s homosexuality and, if so, how he feels about it. The reader doesn’t even know how Orel feels about his own sexuality. Jackson missed an opportunity here and could have done better justice to the character, Orel, his psyche, and his lover, Nico.