Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

This thread is for the full discussion of Too Like the Lightning. Spoilers are allowed.

"Yelly people don't get cookies."



Seriously though, I was willing to suspend judgment on a serial killer as main character. What I couldn't overlook was the boredom inflicted by the Seven-Ten List plot. Yeah, I get that the idiot masses care, but why should I?

Hmm after lots of discussion in the initial thread not much here in the spoilers. Something I've been thinking about more was the idea of having "nations" be based on ideas and values rather than on geography. Although it seems that in this world that has also not worked so well.

Is a serial killer really the main character?

Ok, I'm out. Thanks for the heads up.

Yes? Definitely wouldn't be the first book to have that.

I don't do serial killers. Hard pass.

Kim wrote: "Hmm after lots of discussion in the initial thread not much here in the spoilers.

Maybe "Abandoned" and "Did Not Finish" are responsible? I guess it would be a good idea for me to check the reader tags as well as ratings, awards, etc.



Kim wrote: "Something I've been thinking about more was the idea of having "nations" be based on ideas and values rather than on geography.

Anarchists wrote about it, but I guess that would be more 19th and early 20th Centuries.

Trike wrote: "Is a serial killer really the main character?"

So it appears, though we are led to believe that the details of who did what are inaccurate or incomplete. The killings happened over a decade earlier, and the MC has been somehow "fixed" to be incapable of violence.

Yes there is a lot more to Mycroft. We still don't know how he came to be one of the most important people in the world.

Trike wrote: "Is a serial killer really the main character?

I'm not sure I would go with "serial killer". I think it would be more accurate to say that the main character is someone who -- for reasons not articulated in this first book -- took a terrible, terrible revenge on a group of people that he knew personally. It's more of a "Kill Bill" scenario.

If it makes a difference, the jarring thing is in large part that he killed *anybody*, because murder just isn't a common thing anymore.

Chris wrote: "The killings happened over a decade earlier, and the MC has been somehow "fixed" to be incapable of violence."

My money's on Bridger having touched him while imagining him to be a good person, thereby actually making him a good person -- within certain parameters (and hence Mycroft's warning to Saladin to make sure the boy didn't touch him).

On the other hand, Bridger's still a secret, so that can't be what convinced the various world leaders to trust Mycroft ...

Kim wrote: "Hmm after lots of discussion in the initial thread not much here in the spoilers. Something I've been thinking about more was the idea of having "nations" be based on ideas and values rather than o..."

I also thought this was interesting -- the recurring idea of decoupling geography from society. It apparently didn't take as well as it might have, given that, for example, the Mitsubishi directorate still based itself around sub-regional geographic groupings.

I definitely find it a relatable concept, though. I already interact way more with people that I know through work/hobbies than I do with the people who live near me. If free, near instantaneous transportation were available ...

Matthew wrote: "I also thought this was interesting -- the recurring idea of decoupling geography from society. It apparently didn't take as well as it might have, given that, for example, the Mitsubishi directorate still based itself around sub-regional geographic groupings. "

That's also kind of the basic idea behind Max Barry's Jennifer Government.

Matthew wrote: "My money's on Bridger having touched him while imagining him to be a good person, thereby actually making him a good person -- within certain parameters (and hence Mycroft's warning to Saladin to make sure the boy didn't touch him)."

What Mycroft has said and thought point toward J.E.D.D. Mason. Bridger came later. The warning to Saladin suggests that Bridger's power requires him to touch whatever he wants to affect, so a ranged attack would be less risky than a close quarters attack.

Kim wrote: "Yes there is a lot more to Mycroft. We still don't know how he came to be one of the most important people in the world."

This is what I find myself most curious about, and I really hope the next book clarifies it. The book is so much about the elites of its world, and Mycroft seems to be a key player in all of their separate factions. I want some sort of explanation justifying what seems like a pretty rapid transition from murderer to power center (or was he already in the center of power before the killing occurred?).

I want to bring up the way that Palmer inserts philosophy into the novel. Before the Internet, I had a couple of reference books that summarized the ideas of the prominent philosophers of the West. When Too Like the Lightning brings in philosophy, I feel as if Palmer cut and pasted paragraphs from one of these books. It's so damned clumsy and ugly. Integrating big ideas into a story without disrupting the flow is difficult, but Palmer didn't make much effort. A philosophy dump is a kind of info dump, and it isn't even original. Grr.

I did find some of the philosophical additions a bit masturbatory, if I can use the word that also conjures some of the scenes more directly. Not new, or absurd for writing mimicking the style of the 1800s, but unnecessary for any of our ability to understand most of the story so far. Like the bit with Heloise. Unimportant to us at that particular moment.

That said, there are so many ideas in this book! I liked the concept of Hives. I am 100% invested in Mycroft and JEDD's mystery. I'm wholly hooked on the concept that even as we forsake "traditional" othering patterns, we find new ones. One of the big ones here seems to be "causing the least harm to the most people" or "perpetrating no harm in the pursuit of absolute safety."

Which would you do? Knowingly hurt someone now to save 10,000 tomorrow? Or knowingly allow someone to be hurt today in order to save a billion in 200 years?

(Trike, keep the hard pass. He's totally a serial killer. That is definitely going into my content warnings).

I cannot stop thinking about this book. I think I am going to pick up the second one. Anyone else contemplating doing the same?

Allison wrote: "I cannot stop thinking about this book. I think I am going to pick up the second one. Anyone else contemplating doing the same?"

I am. I just finished. This was awesome. The middle was a little tiresome. In the beginning I was fascinated by Bridger and Mycroft seemed like he had some master plan for Bridger. At first it seems harmless and then the twist for Mycroft comes and everything suddenly seems more sinister. I don't know that a book I've read has ever left a bigger cliff hanger.

But I also agree with the first post that the Seven-Ten list plot thread was just badly done. It wasn't explained enough. I didn't really feel/understand why it was so significant.

So someone stole the list... who cares? It was recovered and published anyway. Why does it matter after that? The Canner Device being missing and still in use seems far more important than who stole the list. Other than to point to the Saneer-Weeksbooth 'bash being serial killers, no one else should care. If that's why Mitsubishi and the Duke/Prince/Golden Boy/President/de la Tremoille care then they should be more worried about covering that up then the list.

But the real reason I'm jumping in this discussion before writing my review...

Is who is The Anonymous?!?! I'm dying to know. Does anyone have any guesses? I tried googling it but don't want to spoil the second book for myself.

One of Palmer's main premises for the existence of the Hives is that travel time between spots on the globe has become very short.

It looks like the real world is heading towards her prediction.

Allison wrote: "I cannot stop thinking about this book. I think I am going to pick up the second one. Anyone else contemplating doing the same?"

I've picked it up but haven't managed to get to it yet.

Sarah wrote: "But I also agree with the first post that the Seven-Ten list plot thread was just badly done. It wasn't explained enough. I didn't really feel/understand why it was so significant."

One of the reasons for it was to try and shed light on the 'bash and make people investigate it closely. The other is it's a form of stock market. An upset or unpredicted change on it can have widespread repercussions.

Yeah, I think by the end it became clearer to me that the Seven Ten was like the Fed's pronouncement on savings rates to the stock and housing markets. It was a confidence shaker, a power broker, and everyone stood to have the world shuffle them aside. And in this particular instance, being shuffled might mean war.

...I'm kinda sad that Mycroft made it clear The Anonymous wasn't her husband. I like the idea of someone so restrained being made free by his mask, but I guess it's not to be.

I guess what bothers me is that everyone made a big deal of it being stolen even though it was recovered the next day. Additionally they ended up releasing both Black Sakura lists (Mitsubishi's and the Black Sakura reporter's). So why does it matter that someone saw it first or planted it in the Saneer-Weeksbooth 'bash if seeing it first doesn't have any real effect on things except maybe betting?

The bigger problem is that the Saneer-weeksboth 'bash has been implicated and possibly revealed as political assassins. If this is what the elite are concerned about... why not call off the hunt/investigation once it was found? Wouldn't you want that squashed and people to stop investigating your assassins? If they don't know about the Saneer-Weeksbooth assassinations, it again comes back to "so what?" The list is the list. The mitsubishis are ranked lower than the humanists. That piece of information was coming out whether the list had been stolen or not.

I'm probably not making any sense.

The list being stolen was also what brought to light that it wasn't written by who they thought it was and that there were two lists. If it hadn't have been stolen that wouldn't have come to light until they were all published. So someone wanted it known that a) it was a new author and b) that there were 2 lists, before they were all published.

Yeah, and the Gyges Device use means that it would rile up public fear once that got out. So they needed to find the culprit to sacrifice before the news got wind of the break in/use of the device. So, I think you're right that the List wasn't as big a deal until all the crumbs left got the powers that be to pay attention, which is when they realized that they were all being targeted, someone inside was likely doing the targeting, and they were sitting on a sudden powder keg of fear, suspicion, and public resentment.

Allison wrote: "Yeah, and the Gyges Device use means that it would rile up public fear once that got out. So they needed to find the culprit to sacrifice before the news got wind of the break in/use of the device...."

This makes more sense to me. Thanks for your patience everyone :/ I guess I just didn't see enough public fear, rioting, etc. to put it into context. I think the Gyges device is the bigger deal here in regards to that, but it was mostly always talked about in terms of the Seven Ten list theft. I understand this being the catalyst for other events in the book, I just think how the characters talked about/responded to it afterwards was confusing.

Sarah wrote: " I understand this being the catalyst for other events in the book, I just think how the characters talked about/responded to it afterwards was confusing. "

Yeah, I think it became more shorthand for everyone's individual problem than any actual fear among the leaders for the physical list. Whoever stole it exposed Ando's family, infiltrated the most secure place on the planet with a device last purported to be used during the largest murder spree in 200 years, threatened Europe's power, kicked the Humanists in the teeth and left enough chaos to throw the whole system into a freefall. The list itself is fairly unimportant as a document, but since it was impossible to hide that it had been stolen, and since it was the catalyst for all this, it seemed like the one sure link to trace.

That's my takeaway, anyways.

God, I am so curious to know what all of it ends up meaning, and how Mycroft became as integral as he is.

If I start a discussion thread for Seven Surrenders, will anyone feel like parsing that in say a week or so?

I will be in for it at some point. Just need to finish the book I'm on, one more, and then I think I can fit it in.

Yeah...I said a week but I think I'm being overly optimistic. I have three books out right now. BUT I HAVE TO KNOW!!!

I'd be in for it too- but I have some e-galleys to catch up on first. Let me know when your thinking of starting and I'll see if I can jump in too.

Allison wrote: "If I start a discussion thread for Seven Surrenders, will anyone feel like parsing that in say a week or so?.."

I'm just waiting for this to come in at the library. Shouldn't be too long. And then, yes (!), I am all in.

Travis you may be first! feel free to start us up if so :)

Just finished.

I loved some things about this book. I loved the socio-political concepts in this speculative future;
- The idea that we could come so close to peace
- The fluidity of associations, with nation not being being linked to geography
- The removal of specific religion, yet with a mandatory element of spirituality

I could go on. This will be fodder for mind experiments for days to come.

I also some of the kernels within the story itself. I wanted to know more about what made/makes Mycroft then/now. I wanted to hear the story of Bridger - would he be safe? I was engaged by the mystery of the lists, and how it was really just the tip of a much larger and sinister iceberg.

However, it was really tough to stay with this one. At first I thought the gender thing was clever, until it almost bludgeoned my interest in the book to death. I also didn't appreciate all of the asides, the arguments between narrator and reader, the info dumps about society, the endless bits of philosophy being hurled at the reader like rocks. All of this went from clever, to pretentious, to OMG I'm going to get a hardcover edition and brain myself with it!!!!

As I approached the last few chapters, I was really hoping to be rewarded for sticking with it, despite how many times I had to re-read or re-listen to the same passages because the narrative side ramblings nearly put me into a coma.

This is the point where I cry foul!!! There is NO ENDING!!! We get some more mysterious fuel for the fire and boom. . . end of part one. WHAT THE ACTUAL F***????

This, more than any other things is a pet peeve of mine. I don't even like an epilogue style teaser into the next book of the series. If you want me to read your next book, please give the courtesy of writing a book to earn my interest. Don't just leave me hanging.

And, stepping away from the soapbox.

Valerie, I agree with everything you wrote above. Thanks for putting it all down!

Well, you had already commented my favorite quote from the book, so I had to post something. ;)

I plan to use the line when I wear my new Cthookie Monster tee.

I definitely agree with that bit about the ending. I think all books deserve some kind of conclusion not just an outright cliffhanger. If you're going to write a story that massive put it all in one book. I know 1,000 page times are scary but some of my favorite books are that long.

It's a tactic I expect from self published indie authors who give away the first book hoping you'll buy the second, but not from an author who has a book on shelves and charges money for it.

I guess it worked though because I ordered the hardcover edition of Seven Surrenders on Amazon today. I can't help it. I can't stop thinking about Mycroft.

Yeah, this book broke all the rules. Cliffhanger endings, inconsistent conceits, talking to an audience, repeating itself, info dumps... all of them! I found it endearing though, likely because the kicked puppy narrator thing shoots right past all my ability to hold things in contempt. And by the time he was no longer a kicked puppy, he was something way more interesting and I forgave him again (and Ada, by proxy).

See you in the Seven Surrenders thread, Sarah!

Looking forward to it Allison! I still have a couple books to get through first but this is number 3 on the roster... I think...

I am so annoyed with this book. I really dislike most of it, but I'M SO INTRIGUED! I really don't think I could read another entire book of this. But I really want to know what happens. Which I think it the first time I have ever been so invested in a story where I truly disliked the writing.

Some bullet point thoughts to keep me from going on a huge rant:
-All of these things were interesting: The Madame's Bash, the Bash system in general, the gender identity discussion, the Hive system, Bridger and Jehovah, the religious/philosophy discussion, the set-set controversy, the Seven-Ten list intrigue, the car-aided assassinations, the Utopians. But I feel like, pick two or three tops. Trying to cover all of them was way too much.
-The multiple names of people. There were enough characters in this story that giving them multiple names each was just mean to the reader.
-It was definitely pretentious
-Info dumps
-The "reader" speaking in a different style than the narrator was distracting.
-The intimate scenes were incongruous to the rest of the story. They just didn't feel like they fit. Also, I don't know that I should call them intimate, as they were very rarely private.
-Inconsistency with the gender rules. He, she, aunt, uncle, daughter, son. All of these gendered words and more were thrown around fairly frequently in a society where it is supposedly taboo to acknowledge gender. Also, old fashioned art depicting gendered couples seemed to be really popular. Which is also incongruous.
-NO ENDING. There are so many unanswered questions, which is just rude. Which brings me to my next list.

Things I really want to know, but I don't think I have the patience to read another book and find out:
-Who is Saladin exactly and how did he survive the Bash explosion?
-Who is calling the shots on the assassinations
-What is going to happen with Bridger
-What did Jehovah do to Mycroft exactly, and why not just do it to the rest of the world leaders
-Who did steal the Seven-Ten list
-Why was there a survivor from the Bash that Mycroft and Saladin murdered
-Does Mycroft ever actually sleep

I am angry that I am this intrigued by a book that frustrated me.

Also, I just saw that there are two more books expected. I am officially definitely not reading more. No way I can torture myself with three more books. The whole time I was reading I was trying to decide if the author was brilliant for bringing in all these complexities, since the world is infinitely complex, OR if she just had too many ideas and no editor to slap her and tell her to focus.

I'm leaning towards the latter at this point.

I literally just downloaded this book last night, read a few pages and thought the narration was pretentious and now see all your comments. Not sure I should read this!

Sarah wrote: "Also, I just saw that there are two more books expected. I am officially definitely not reading more. "

In interviews, she describes TLtL and SS as a single story that wraps up. (She originally wanted them published as a one novel.) The next two will be set in the same world but involve a different story.

In the interview I heard, she was apologetic about TLtL standing alone, saying that the narrative is a who-done-it pattern where TLtL is answering the question, "What the heck is IT?", and SS answering the questions, "Who? and Why?". I took that to mean that all the work we do as readers n TLtL will be paid off in SS...

Travis wrote: "Sarah wrote: "Also, I just saw that there are two more books expected. I am officially definitely not reading more. "

In interviews, she describes TLtL and SS as a single story that wraps up. (She..."

I saw this too. Four books set in the same world, but TLtL and SS are meant as a pair and one complete story. My copy just came in today and I can't wait to read it!

I do think it's funny how divided people's opinions are on it. I get both sides but as Kristin said, it's so intriguing I have to at least finish Seven Surrenders.

Travis wrote: "Allison wrote: "If I start a discussion thread for Seven Surrenders, will anyone feel like parsing that in say a week or so?.."

I'm just waiting for this to come in at the library. Shouldn't be to..."

Travis - did you get your copy yet? Mine came in today and I might have accidentally read the first few chapters... (I think it will be better than this one since most stuff is laid out for us).

But I'd love to read it with you and Allison too, and anyone else who wants to join in.

Mine should be in early this week. I'll set up a first impressions thread!

It’s neat to talk about this one!

I agree that it’s awfully pretentious at times. The way the philosophy is put into the book, the speech to the reader, it is very self-aggrandizing. Their society supposedly ended the whole ‘religion� issue and the closed borders nonsense, and look, they’re all so much better society-wise, was what I read sometimes. It came across not like a thought experiment or an exploration, but like a discourse on how to fix our problems and ‘make it good�. That said, the fact that the society is still somewhat at the mercy of our innate humanity was refreshing.

The whole ‘no gender�/’gender� thing is odd. It’s not something we have a nomenclature for, so the attempt to bridge that concept to a modern reader is interesting, but I wasn’t a huge fan of how it was accomplished. Was it necessary to describe a person, introduce a person, then twenty pages later � or even later than that � throw in gender complications? I’m still not sure about some people in the book, as Mycroft seems to proclaim gender based on traditional gender roles at some point, and on body parts or clothing habits at others. I was very confused at points. The book did a wonderful job of showing how when I read and someone was described as one gender how I pictured them, then showed me how that was just a preconceived notion I have. Which was interesting, but again, confusing and, after a point, just plain annoying. At some point I felt that it wasn’t really a social structure and trying to communicate it to the reader, but the author actively trying to play with my head as I read the book, and I can’t say that’s something I’m a fan of.

For such a book about people, there really weren’t a lot of people that the reader really gets to know more than just facts about. That leaves sympathy with Mycroft alone, and the author rips that away ruthlessly. The serial killer stuff I had some warning about, or I think I would have put the book down right when I got to it. (Not about killing specifically, but about a ‘big reveal�.) And those who are on the fence about that one, he’s not just a killer, he’s a BRUTAL killer, and what he does is somewhat described in the book, just FYI. That definitely needs a warning, I think. He does seem to have the ear of everyone, and there is a lot of ‘what the heck� going on. The details about the ‘bash� argh, I forgot the name!, but the one that J.E.D.D. is in, that has different rules, etc�. I think that had something to do with it. He was apparently fairly high up in the ‘bash before his spree, and it is clear that he’s still very close to J.E.D.D. in many ways. Given the assassinations reveal, and about Mycroft’s interactions with his victims before he killed them all, I pondered that while the world was rightly horrified, etc., if perhaps Mycroft had been SET with the task of killing them all. I think overall I’m having a hard time accepting that anyone would write a book straight from a serial killer’s POV with nothing more to it. I’m probably wrong and am going to be disappointed in that�

I mentioned in the non-spoiler thread that the whole Bridger thing bored me. I liked the list and the canner device and the world-building a LOT better. I was slightly distracted by the whole future world with all these philosophical changes and realities that everyone debated, then there’s magic, too? Or omnipotence among humanity? To me, the book read as two very different books in that respect, and though I really liked the army guys and how they protected Bridger and guarded him � and the reveal about J.E.D.D, which wasn’t too hard to believe � I really didn’t connect with Bridger himself in any way. Given his place in the story, I really wanted him to be more than this stereotypical ‘kid� who could do ‘stuff�. The world mysteries, however� The politics, the ‘seedy underbellies� of the ‘perfect� society, the complex family dynamics among ‘bashmates, the set-sets, I found all that much more interesting, personally.

I finished the book thinking I was going to go buy it, and get the second immediately, as I knew I was going to have to re-read the first at some point. Time has passed since then, and I find myself more on the fence. I really don’t want to read endless pages about Bridger. I really don’t know where the author is taking his arc, but I just don’t know if I care enough to commit time to following it. That said, talking here about the other aspects of the books, the parts I did like, reminds me how much I wanted to know more about the non-Bridger stuff. I’m also very happy to know that though four books are planned for the world, at this point, the next closes this particular story. I think I’m intrigued enough to buy the next, though it’s not going to pop to the top of my TBR pile.

Ann wrote: "It’s neat to talk about this one!

I agree that it’s awfully pretentious at times. The way the philosophy is put into the book, the speech to the reader, it is very self-aggrandizing. Their society..."

Interesting thoughts, Anna! For me, the book was actual a kind of sardonic warning that we can't fix ourselves, really. That even without borders, blood ties, or oppression based on race or gender, there's still "the other" and war is always bubbling up. Like the last kid of Mycroft's bash said--there are still haves and have nots. There's still a majority, and they're still not benefiting like the people at the top.

Ada explains the gender thing as intentionally bad, and that made it more palatable for me, though I agree that it was a bold choice that definitely won't mesh for everyone--or even most people. But she was saying that when the concept of gender is completely gone, we actually are telling people that it's wrong to enjoy our differences, and a reminder that gender is super confusing because it's not tied to sex all the time. So, if no one says they're a man or a woman, and he/she are no longer used, when you're trying to use the old pronouns, do you go with anatomy, even if all that tells you is the cut of their pants? Or do you go with feminine/masculine characteristics and assume that all things being equal the person would align with a gender closer to the stereotypical behaviors we associate with that gender? Mycroft doesn't know the answer and is trying--badly--to figure out what people from the era of genders would do. Which then makes this more an exploration of genderqueer/non-binary gender people, and how confusing it must be to have to use these tired words that don't really seem to fit anyone particularly well.

Ann wrote: "It’s neat to talk about this one!

I agree that it’s awfully pretentious at times. The way the philosophy is put into the book, the speech to the reader, it is very self-aggrandizing. Their society..."

You bring up many valid points! I did immediately rush to pick the second one up because I'm sort of obsessed with Mycroft. And I can tell you two things:

1.) Many of your questions are answered in the first 100 pages of the next book.

2.) This one is far less confusing then the second book because of reason 1.

The opening sort of just lays it all out for you- no more secrets no more tiptoeing around the subject.

You mentioned at one point that "the author was maybe just playing with your head". If by this you mean Mycroft, then yes. Mycroft is an unreliable narrator. I think that's why I love him. He is definitely playing with your head. Because he can. Because he's Mycroft.

I did want to add- from what I read of your thoughts it seems like you might like the second one. The Bridger plot is not so much the focus here as the Saneer-Weeksbooth bash being assassins is. But to be fair- I didn't really think there was much of Bridger in the first book either so maybe I'm not the best source of information on that.

Allison wrote: "Ann wrote: "It’s neat to talk about this one!

I agree that it’s awfully pretentious at times. The way the philosophy is put into the book, the speech to the reader, it is very self-aggrandizing. T..."

I hadn't read this about Ada's portrayal of gender being intentionally bad so thanks for bringing that up! It definitely puts the book in a new light for me. But I think Madame and Danae are excellent examples of the point she was trying to make. Possibly the whole Paris brothel black hole in general.

Allison, I agree entirely. The way she explores the gender terminology is fascinating. There's no way to separate he/she from physical gender, I don't think, in a modern reader's mind, at least initially. I think the fact that Mycroft uses he/she makes it more complicated, though, as it brings that notion we have of gender right there. I found the 'she' that was used for all genders in Ann Leckie's books a bit more easy to follow -- it seemed to come from the character more than from the author. The switching was just confusing in places, and, as I said, annoyed me that Mycroft would basically 'settle' a description then when I was digesting another part of the story -- society, thought, etc. -- and he takes time to go into another description of an 'established' character. In reflection, it also bothered me -- as I try to figure out, again, if the counselor was eventually presented as male or female -- that Mycroft is deciding for the reader what gender the characters were. The fact that Mycroft himself was the source of the problems in depiction is an interesting idea and a new perspective. I liked the way the treatment of gender worked in a lot of ways, and I liked the ideas -- which you present beautifully, but I did find it frustrating at times. As you say, a bold and difficult choice.

As for the statement of 'other' and that we can't fix ourselves... I like that view of the book. I think my greatest issue turned out that I don't 'trust' the author. I like her ideas, what she's presented, the story she's telling -- for the most part -- but, especially after the Mycroft 'reveal', I don't trust her. I'm suspicious of what her goals are, of where she's going with the book, of what she's saying. What's being 'hidden' from the reader? What's going to be turned on its head next?

The same things that drive me nuts about the book make me want to read the next in the series. *sigh*

Sarah wrote: "Many of your questions are answered in the first 100 pages of the next book. "

Oh, good! Mine should get into the library today.

Ann wrote: "Their society supposedly ended the whole ‘religion� issue and the closed borders nonsense, and look, they’re all so much better society-wise, was what I read sometimes.."

I wonder if readers' responses to the religious censorship in this book are far more varied than their responses would be to censorship in other books: some thinking it facilitates peace; others thinking it horribly repressive. I found it terrifying, but I know from poking around that others found it liberating.