Yeah so it turns out I was just way too nice on book one and the fun climax was a fluke while the bad first 70% of Infinity Son were more indicative of the trend.
I understand that the whole point of the book is Brighton's corruption arc, the issue is that…he's just kind of too vapid for it to feel engaging. He felt like he was already a villain from the word go in this book, which is a problem because a corruption arc requires a villain whose motivations are at least engaging, and not "he's an influencer with a massive ego who stumbled into godlike powers". No, I don't think having lost his dad and being therefore terrified of death is a sympathetic reason for him to do any of this. It's literally Voldemort's motivation. Not to mention, while it is his stated reason, it has nothing to do with his ego.
This is a problem because he—I think, I didn't run the numbers—hogs most of the POVs. This means the other plot lines move at a glacial pace, and in honestly frustrating ways sometimes. Like, oh no, maribelle decided to help luna instead of killing her because she might bring her boyfriend back from the dead, an act so grossly out of character that it feels like a desperate move from an author who can't let go of a character. And oh no, emil thinks his love interest is dead, gets a new love interest, and i don't know if it's shaping up to be a love triangle or if the hasty "yeah it's fine it was your business" conclusion will be final, but I don't care, because it doesn't matter.
None of this is helped by the fact that the book reads like a zombie fic. You know the ones, where the chapters are very short and tend to mostly meander on the POV's angst, which is repeated over and over without much progress and honestly isn't even earned half the time. I don't understand why Emil feels any responsibility for his past lives since he's essentially a different person altogether, and I don't know why anyone else would, which makes his angst, and the stinger that Brighton exposes it to the world, completely blank.
And when the characters aren't angsting, they're talking, which is also bad. I used to dismiss when people said they don't like when characters talk like they're in therapy and not like people who are having a conversation, but now I think maybe I just hadn't found the right (wrong?) books, because this is definitely that trope. Like, my god. It's fine for the characters to have flaws other than "essentially evil" and for those flaws to show in conversation.
Speaking of, that gets me to the primary antagonist and his plot line. Which, um. This book is peak liberalism, and I do mean that in a negative way, and I want to make it clear that when I do and say that, I am coming at it from the left (if that baffles you, hi, welcome to the world outside America where we have a marginally healthier political spectrum!). I was literally tempted to bring the Snark Theater out of hiatus so I could dissect this in more detail, but by the time I had the idea, I was 25% of the way through the book, and the thought of re-reading that first section honestly felt painful. Though, you know, maybe I will if/when I get to a better place personally. I don't have the time to do it right now, but I'll just say that to focus your main(?) plotline around a US presidential election and frame it in this way. Well. It's a choice. Emil, in particular, who is framed as our moral compass, abhors the idea of breaking the law, despite establishing the world as systemically oppressive towards magic users, i.e. something that should show legal does not equal good. I'm not touching on the framing of the police. But I am touching on the way prison is viewed as, like, good? And criminals deserve to be in a prison designed to torture and abuse them (like, on top of the usual ways prisons do) and it's only bad when the love interest is sent there? I mean, sorry, but Ness did in fact do all the crimes he's accused of. If you were consistent—but, well, that's the issue, isn't it? Liberalism loves to present itself as the ultimate nonviolent ideology, but that's only because it hides all the ways violence is made acceptable by framing the victims of violence as deserving. Criminals at the top of that. I mean, literally, after spending so long talking about how killing is bad, we get Maribelle shooting prisoners in the chest, and it's like, well, they're doing an organized manhunt for one of them, what are you gonna do, right.
Before anyone accuses me of going on a tangent, well, I am, but only because it's relevant because this unwillingness by the book and its author to critically examine their underlying ideology results in the book itself, and especially its world, to be similarly hollow. Gleamcrafters are oppressed, we're told! We never see any of it, but we sure are told! But also no, it's just specters, but actually it's fine with specters, because they ~stole~ the powers and weren't born with it, and maybe they're just inherently dangerous, you know?
Basically, if you've seen that meme of someone explaining why Harry Potter's world is so hollow through the lens of JKR's blairite liberal politics, it's the same thing here.
But to come back to the powers thing, that's another problem for the book's themes. I think the book wants to state that power corrupts? Maybe? Or maybe it's just if you try to acquire power. So ambition corrupts. Except Emil wants to get rid of his powers, but he inherited them via resurrection and never wanted them. So wouldn't it be okay in his case? And are we going to examine the implications of saying "some people are born with powers, and that's good, and others aren't, and they shouldn't try to do anything about it"? Probably not, because the book doesn't actually believe anything, ultimately its attempts at theming feel more like regurgitated platitudes than any actual statement being made.
And um. Yeah. I think that's a good place to leave it. When Adam Silvera did the NFT thing with a few other authors, I decided I wouldn't read this book, but since that got canceled and I had already bought it before all of it, I figured I'd give it a shot anyway, and I honestly regret it now. I mean, look at how long it took me to read it. Consider the fact that I powered through it in the past few days, mostly by skimming over a decent chunk of the book just so I could get through. I honestly regret the time spent on finishing this, and I feel like a fool for hoping it would turn around in the third act like the first book did. I should have just DNFed at 25% when I felt the urge to bring it to the snark theater's chopping block and moved on to read something actually good and fun.
Oh, and one last thing. Delving into memories is not time travel. No matter how you spin it. That's just not what that means.
Edit: WAIT I DIDN'T EVEN POINT OUT THAT IT'S ABSURD TO HAVE NEW YORK EXIST AS JUST NEW YORK IN A WORLD WHERE MAGIC AND FANTASY CREATURES ARE REAL AND HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED AS IF THAT WOULDN'T DRAMATICALLY CHANGE WORLD HISTORY JUST GO WATCH THE LINDSAY ELLIS BRIGHT VIDEO I GUESS