Let us, dear reader, began with an examination of the New: many are they who profess a wonderment and a bittersweet nostalgia at the child mindset, for whom all is novel and therefore exciting. If you can indulge my own example, I remember demonstrating basic physics (gravitation) to my three year old nephew. I was highly curious, would he possess the ability to note basic patterns and take delight in them, as I do?
So I gathered many objects, different in shape and material: a small book, a fluffy bunny, a toy drum, a bouncy ball and dropped them from the same height, one in each hand, and caught them simultaneously. “They fall,” I said, “at the same speed.” How mundane an observation! And yet my young nephew’s eyes widened in marvel and he fell into a fit of giggles. How new, how fresh an idea! The world is a system with consistent rules and these rules can be ascertained by observation.
But for us adults, who have perceived so many billions of moments and who are so powerful in our capacity to hypothesize, it often seems as if Newness is not merely endangered but entirely extinct. What can be New, what can be unexpected, when our minds daily churn through thousands of counterfactuals and when even new knowledge must be contoured to fit into the jigsaw puzzle of our thoughts?
Often I wonder what might feel, to my wrinkled brain, well and freshly New? Travel to exotic locales, with people unlike me? But is it, and are they, or are exotic cultures immediately recognizable by their common humanity and genetic heritage, more alike than they are different? How about a nuclear war in which we wipe ourselves out? Alas, I’d be surprised if it didn’t happen. The arrival of a machine alien species? Seen it, imagined it, wrote about it. Finishing my book, having it published to great popularity and acclaim? A common fantasy. The sun randomly collapsing into a black hole? A common nightmare. A flying alligator that fires laser beams from its eyes crashing through my window? Pssshhhhhhh, that’s standard fare from my D&D campaign. If not something so outlandish, what can qualify as New?
I know you too have had such thoughts, dear reader. What can truly surprise us, what can make us giggle in fresh revelation?
And what, you protest, doth this have to do with the book? Canst thou get to the review already? Give thou to me the plot, the characters, thy opinion! What need have I of thy philosophy, thy life experience, thy personal reflection? What am I, thy diary? You are right, reader, you are right that your time is precious. I have no defense but to claim it is precious to me too and confess that if you wish for a plot summary only, then you should close this review right now, for simplicity & ease are not the currencies with which I endeavor to purchase your attention. I trade in the old currencies, the drachma of contemplation, the denarius of depth, the ducat of truth, far removed and less valuable in this, our age of expediency.
Here, then, is the truth as far as I have been able to discover it: As we age, newness increasingly can only be found commensurate with a discomfort that comes from having our reality shaken up. From encountering a perspective that feels wrong, alien, incorrect. From struggling to understand. It seems fair to claim that we can know newness only insofar as we are willing to accept that what we considered Truth & Reality was false in some form or fashion.
I hear you saying, get thou to thy point. Yes, dear reader, yes we arrive.
Too Like the Lightning is not one of the strangest books I have ever read – not even close. But it is one of the most strangely successful books I have ever read, for even though its countless flaws are to me utterly clear, I felt compelled to think positively of it, to give it a good review, to encourage others to read it.
Newness lies at the heart of this strangeness, for while Lightning utilizes plenty of old tricks and follows a standard narrative structure, it has much newness as well:
*The narrator, Mycroft Canner, a humble psychopath? Yes, a character of such freshness that I might compare him to Gene Wolfe’s Severian, who was an apprentice torturer, a job title that I have never before and likely never will again witness on another protagonist’s Curriculum Vitae.
*An evolution of that quantum unit of society, the Nuclear Family, into this idea of a Bash’, a family unit bound by ideology and vocation rather than by blood. The foremost bash’ in Lightning is the Saneer-Weeksbooth bash’, who control the world’s massive network of auto-driving flying cars. The inciting plot point here is that a stolen Seven-Ten List (a list of the top 10 most powerful people in the world, the publication of which tends to have heavy political ramifications) appears in the Saneer-Weeksbooth home. It brings chaos and the revelation of ugly truths.
*The death of religion, a cornerstone of Lightning’s world-building. Those with similar beliefs are not allowed to congregate. Instead each Bash’ is appointed a Sensayer, a spiritual counselor, who is not allowed to discuss or proselytize their own beliefs but can only offer knowledge of all religions. Important here because the very first scene shows us the Saneer-Weeksboth’s new Sensayer stumbling upon a God in human form, a child named Bridger, whose touch and will can bring to life & reality any inanimate object: toy soldiers into live ones, a plastic hammer into Thor’s mighty Mjollnir with all its powers, the drawing of a resurrection potion or a black hole into the real thing, or maybe even mere vague wishes - like war or world peace - into actuality.
*Countries in Lightning have been all but dissolved, replaced instead by seven major Hives, membership of which is purely voluntary. There are the Humanists (to which the Saneer-Weeksbooth belong) who celebrate the individual above all; the MASONs, a Roman-like empire; the Mitsubishi, a land-owning Asian corporation; the European Union, welcome to anyone who appreciates European ideals; the Gordians, a sort of psycho-social-scientific group; the Cousins, to whom the Sensayers belong, representing the charities of the world; and last, the Utopians, who are the scientists and engineers, the artists and the dreamers, who are primarily focused on terraforming Mars.
Truly, I suspect you may be asking, these be thy ideas of newness? A reformed villain for a protagonist? A mere evolution of the family unit? A God in Human Form? Did such elicit a giggle as thy “physics” demonstration did for thy nephew? Ah, dear reader, your cynicism is sharp and true. You are right, the newness is not of that nature. But such Newness that a child experiences, let us be frank, is truly beyond us. For us, the very FEELING of Newness has ceased to be New. Indeed, each time we experience something New, that very feeling becomes less New. Newness thus causes its own demise. A sad paradox, but that is the price we pay for memory, learning, wisdom. So, no, Too Like the Lightning does not contain true Newness. But the shadow of newness, the feeling of it around the corner? Yes, you will find it here.
But as I warned earlier, newness tends to bring with it discomfort, even disbelief, as it challenges our understanding of the world. So it was with Lightning. I felt a discomfort with this book. I remained unconvinced of its world-building. In fact, ‘unconvinced’ rather understates it. I found the world-building to be wholly unbelievable. I was not in the least bit sold on Ada Palmer’s vision of a future utopia, perhaps unsurprising given her vocation as a historian, whose expertise dwells in the past.
I did not believe in Mycroft Canner’s transformation (the details of which are primarily found in book two – The Seven Surrender – which is more like the second half of one larger tome). Psychopaths by their very nature must be institutions unto themselves. I did not believe that religion, which has been part of society since the very dawn of civilization, would be weakened (rather than strengthened) by war. I did not believe that, barring some post-human revolution, society would banish the gender binary that has been so fundamental to human sexuality. For here in Lightning, male and female are ancient concepts, and though Mycroft often uses ‘he’ or ‘she,’ he does so with apology, while the other characters opt for the genderless ‘they’ even when referring to singular persons. This felt like an unearned gimmick, as it did with Ancillary Justice (but, to be fair to this book, actually served some purpose in the plot, unlike in the Ancillary books). I didn’t believe that successful world leaders could or would act as they do here, childish, naïve, overly cooperative. I felt that such would be absolutely devoured by a real politician, by the likes of a Cersei Lannister, a Genghis Khan, or a Vladimir Putin. I was not the least bit convinced by this book’s suggestion – for the true puppeteer behind these leaders is the Madame of a brothel – that sex is more seductive than power. And so on and so forth.
Again, I don’t want to undersell these issues. I found large swaths of this book to ring false. The temptation to call bullshit arose again and again and again, and the notion that this book could be set in the 25th century is ludicrous (in that it's not nearly advanced enough).
But ultimately I decided that this book was never meant to be analyzed in this fashion. Which, wow, is NOT a pass that I have EVER given before. I mean, forgiving a SCI-FI book for the inauthenticity of its world building? Not likely! After all, most sci-fi books function as a sort of bridge from NOW to THEN or from HERE to THERE or from US to THEM. Sci-fi delights, inspires, and educates us by offering a vision of humanity’s evolution or how humanity (and our modern behaviors, ideals, etc) might behave if transplanted to an exotic situation.
Too Like the Lightning, however, isn’t really interested in that bridge. It attempts some minimal justification of its world building, with mentions of a Church War and a history of the Bash’ and what not, but little enough text is devoted to these. Rather, the book requires that you accept its world-building – to consciously suspend your disbelief – without worrying about how we got there: religion is banished, OK. Gender is banished, OK. Nation states are banished, OK. If you can accept these things, the world mostly works. Within its little bubble, its pocket universe, it mostly makes sense. And then we get about the business of exploring the question Ada Palmer really wants us to explore: What is the best way to govern?
Too Like the Lightning offers us a fresh vision of world governance and asks, would this world be safe? Stable? Would it offer a life worth living? How would we make it work? In service of these bigger questions, it asks many interesting smaller ones too: what's the best (religious) belief system? How would religion respond to actual, verifiable miracles? Is gender necessary to sustain sexuality? And so on.
In asking and answering these questions, Too Like the Lightning offers a rich, deep, and dramatic story, quite enjoyable to read, surprising and impressive given its complexity and intelligence. More importantly, Too Like the Lightning offered, even if in the form of an amused disbelief, a scent of newness, of freshness. And that, my dear reader, is more valuable than all the world’s gold.