I feel oddly compelled to write a review given how few folk have reviewed this book _below_ a 4-star rating.
There's a neat concept present. . .and this work, as the pages flip by, quickly asserts itself as a bridge towards the third in this series (if the author isn't writing a third, I'd be stunned). . .and the concept creates a philosophic question of 'individual pursuit of one's passions or concerted collective pursuit of a singular focus'. It seems, at least early on in the work, that Maikranz wants the reader to think about this philosophic question.
Unfortunately, the concept is insufficient to propel mindful, thoughtful readers through this narrative. There is no real, substantial character development to speak of. At best one could say that Maikranz 'shades' some area into a very, very limited number of his characters (and there are MANY characters in this work: Buono, Perez, Samsa, Etyma, Michaels, Poppy, Elsa, Auda, Ramsay, Ling, Galen, Diltz, Pianosa, Jens, Jafric, Clovis. . .to name a few off the top of my head). As a reader, we know a very, very small bit about Michaels, Galen, Elsa, and the female antagonist. That small bit actually prevents us, as readers, from having any investment into any character. Who cares what happens to Etyma or Samsa or Kerr or Kress, when we know nothing about them? Thus, who cares what happens within this narrative when there aren't character 'bodies' to connect the reader to the narrative? Because many of the characters are of the Cognomina alignment, the absence of their substance does not invest the reader into making their own judgment of whether the Cognomina or the Mutual are 'doing the right thing'. The author _seems_ to want the reader to--at least--consider that overarching question, but the absence of substantial character development for _all_ characters means that readers don't have any investment or interest in _either_ side succeeding.
The destructive nature of the antagonist really reduces the reader's likelihood to choose to think any more 'deeply' about the overarching philosophic question that frames this work. Maikranz seems to intentionally making the antagonist into a despot. . .when Maikranz _needed_ to develop the antagonist as a valid, morally-abrasive character that _really_ caused the reader to question 'Hmm, do the Cognomina have a valid purpose and are they the 'better option' in this situation or are the Mutual, who have a seemingly very clear purpose albeit with some questionable morals and ethics the 'better option' in this situation?' If Maikranz had made the antagonist into a 'yes, this is our purpose and here are the _above the line_ methods we've used to achieve that purpose, and look at how we've marshalled resources effectively, in a coordinated effort, instead of haphazardly or not at all, and the positive changes we've produced. . and yes, we've had some morally questionable instances as well' it would really establish the Mutual as a viable option, it would have the reader really contemplating the murkiness of morality and egotism, and would have been an _incredible_ read. Sadly, for whatever reason, Maikranz has not.
I frankly don't think Maikranz knows how to develop characters. Considering the multiple lives that these characters experience, none of them verbalize or behave as multilcultural individuals. They all verbalize and behave like middle-class white Americans (yes, even the Romani that pop up). Even weirder, when Yousef (Syrian/Yemenese) returns to the fold. . .the author reverts that character _back_ to Evan Michaels (American) for the entirety of the work. Despite that particular character having western American, Bulgarian, and Syrian life experiences. . .ends up behaving entirely like an American. It's utterly disconcerting and seems to drive home the point that the otherwise _very_ neat concept of reincarnation has absolutely _no impact_. Thus, the author derails their narrative from onset.
It gets even weirder: when Michaels returns to the fold, he ends up in a position of gathering information from The Mutual, and then returning to the Cognomina. Despite Michaels being _the youngest_ and _least experienced_ at seemingly _everything_ pertinent to being a reincarnationist, suddenly the _entire_ Cognomina assembly takes direct orders from him on _how to proceed in this emergency_. The character, based on the limited information the author sets forth, has _zero_ experienced in triage, _zero_ experience in risk management, and _zero_ experience directing others. . .yet _somehow_ suddenly is the leader of this group _that he only recently rejoined_ after 14 years apart. It requires such suspension of disbelief that one cannot reasonably place any stock in the feasibility (conceptually or otherwise) of this work.
Unfortunately, Maikranz does make some effort to develop characters. . .but it's through _the most limited_ of flashbacks. By _the most limited_ I mean: there are three characters, each of whom has _one_ flashback. In order to actually substantiate these characters, using this method, there would have to be _hordes_ of flashbacks. . . .or, at least, HORDES of past-life references (and corresponding multicultural behaviors). So, the reader learns about one character's involvement with plague in Italy, one character's life in a Japanese shogunate, and another character's involvement in war. That's it. Three random-ass flashbacks that don't _really_ impact the overall narrative (seriously: reader, you can entirely skip those flashbacks and _nothing_ is affected).
There are several other things that make no sense in this work, which further force suspension of disbelief to even greater levels and, subsequently, severely weaken the interest and engagement with this work. Maikranz, I'm sorry, but you and soooooo many other contemporary authors need REALLY harsh editors to force _significant_ revisions to works prior to publishing final products. There is a _very_ valid philosophic argument raised within this work, and a _very_ valid concept of repeated reincarnations present. Unfortunately neither are well-developed, and both the predecessor to this work and it's successor can't possibly be 'better' due to this being a serial.