I've debated for hours how to approach this review, including simply not writing one. I'm still not certain, so I'm going to let it flow and we'll see where we end up. The only thing I know at this point is that I'm going to tag sections by rough topic and try to make it so you can skip if you aren't interested in that aspect of the book.
So it looks like I'm addressing politics first. Skip down to the book analysis if you don't care.
This book isn't as political as people think, but it is political. The eponymous planet was founded by libertarians with a decided neoliberal bent. Their society is deeply egalitarian and has cultural assumptions of non-discrimination and an open-handed generosity towards the "other" regardless of race, creed, or sexual orientation that is very liberal in modern terms. Because that liberal bent is social rather than governmental, a lot of people are going to mislabel this as simply a libertarian manifesto, which is a shame. The libertarian part is more forefront because of the limited government and the basic freedoms of the libertarian ideal where restrictions are non-existent all the way down to public nudity and traffic control.
The bugaboo in the book, represented by Kendra's home, Earth, is an intrusive government oligarchy with a democratic veneer that professes progressive ideals even as they oppress the population and use regulations to control media and, well, everything else. It doesn't help that Williamson labels Earth and its associated colonies "the UN", which is unfortunate because it doesn't really have anything to do with our current UN as it does fascistic control by a centralized government bureaucracy. So yeah, the bad guys are explicitly everything feared by libertarians in a big, unaccountable government. But they're also deeply anti-progressive as they use fascist tactics to separate people into special interests and isolate minority opinions to oppress them. This very much is a criticism of big government, but also stands as a betrayal of progressive ideals of social justice rather than a criticism of them, I think.
So I can understand all the one-star reviews by those who believe deeply in social justice and/or progressive ideals. They likely perceive this as a straw-man of their beliefs. Personally, I saw it more as an illustration of a betrayal of those ideals in showing how they can be corrupted by fascistic autocrats in an oligarchy no longer afraid of its constituents. But then, while not precisely libertarian, I've always been skeptical of government solutions to social problems so it's not my ox being gored.
A note about politics and me: This is important for where I end up at the conclusion of this section. tl;dr; If you want to argue politics, please don't. Longer story: I have no home in the current political landscape and have a really hard time voting in U.S. elections because both major parties are dead to me and all of the also-rans have problematic elements I can't really support. I stopped being publicly political a number of years ago when I realized it was making me miserable and wasn't actually helping anybody. I have friends on pretty much every side of a given political schism, some of them very strident. So even though I'm a huge political junky and have strong political beliefs (even if they don't map to a platform shared by anyone else, apparently), I don't care about any of them enough to alienate people I care about or destroy friendships. I hate that we live in an era where people will chose political partisanship over friendship, but that's the world we live in and I choose friendship. And I'm pragmatic enough to make that a deliberate choice. So while I like political debate and argument I no longer engage in public. Which means I'll delete comments that try to engage in political debate. If you want to have the discussion, let me know (message me here, probably the easiest way) and I'll give you my email address and you can let fly. Feel free to take on the book in the comments, and/or how it does or doesn't work. But the merits of one political mode over another isn't interesting to me in this forum and will only serve to piss others off and shut down discussion. Do. Not. Want.
So how was the book: Well, by now you've seen my rating, so you know I liked it. A lot. Williamson has a strong voice and excellent characters and awesome action. Yes, Williamson is clearly exploring some aspects of government and war, but he's doing so with great characters that I came to care about and set it in a great story that delivers on all its promises. He spends the first half (of a not-short book) introducing and exploring the setting and characters. Because Kendra is a strong character and an outsider, I found this interesting and was plenty happy to be along for the ride. I never wondered when the real story would start even as Kendra works at finding her place in an alien society where she's pretty much on her own as far as government is concerned. Which is where the social construct of kindness and "other"-consciousness kicks in as she finds people willing, even eager, to help her find her legs and figure out how to get along (and even thrive). I loved the relationships she builds, not least the non-binary intimate/sexual connections she explores and how they become important to her. And I particularly liked how her integrity and courage made it perfectly reasonable that she'd attract such dynamic personalities and not feel subordinate or inferior.
My favorite part was when everything fell apart. I'd normally spoiler tag something that doesn't happen until after the midpoint of a novel, but since this is clearly a military sci-fi story you know war is going to break out. Which I was expecting. What I wasn't expecting was an exploration of war and ethics and atrocity and abuse and survival delivered on such a deeply personal level. It turns out that every bit of that first half served to enhance and make poignant the sacrifice and dilemma and horror and beauty of the second half. Williamson doesn't shy from the big-bads of warfare and he delivers a great story about trial and the clash of ideals on a personal level that gripped me and never let go.
Rating summary: So while the first half was a solid four stars and interesting, the power of the second drove this to five stars, easy. And the politics turn out not to matter except as background to the ethics of war and the kind of decisions even low-level folks may find themselves dealing with during events that push us outside our carefully civilized circumstances. Kendra and her friends go through the wringer and that was hard. But they are strong, conscientious and kind and that made accompanying them through that hell fascinating and even ennobling—in short, the eternal contradiction of warfare in a nutshell.
A note about Steamy: There are a handful of explicit sex scenes, but this isn't a romance so they're only long enough to establish the importance of the scene and then move on. So this ends up on the upper end of my middle tolerance. Since at least some of the first half of the book is Kendra confronting her sexual assumptions, these include some, er, non-traditional configurations. And in the second half of the book, we have war and a front seat for wartime atrocities, including rape. Not fun, but important and well handled (in multiple dimensions).