Let's start with the good, because there's still a lot of good in there. Namely, the world-building. The idea of transforming cities into animals, preying on each other in a broken ecosystem that slowly moves on towards its doom is great, and quite elaborate. Predators, prey, scavengers and parasites compete together in a world that is marching towards its end, as Municipal Darwinism encourages a large-scale destruction of all available resources and brings back slavery and inhuman treatments of prisoners. It's a particularly elegant way to answer the question "are humans just like animals after all?", showing what would become of the world if humans decided that it's okay to behave as if they still lived in a jungle (answer: a massive mess). There are hundreds of possibilities withing the world alone.
Now, the reason why I still gave the book two stars.
Let's start with something simple. Can we please pretty please get a ten-year moratory on stories where female charactrs are solely motivated by their ovaries emotional state? Like, could we try to have plots that are influenced by the action of female characters, but NOT by the stupid things women do when they're in love/attached to someone/bereaved and all? And yeees, I know emotion can be a powerful motive and women can and do feel emotion and some women would really behave like that, and I'd like to get that argument out the the discussion already because there are ALSO women who act out of rational motives, who have political views, who can put their ideals and their personal feelings in the balance, and strangely enough, they sovery rarely make their way into a book. I don't care if "some women would really act like that". Not *all* women would, and I'm stating to feel that nothing less than a ten-year moratory can reestablish the balance.
That's not the only problem. I'm sorry to say the characters are, on the whole, either cliché or completely underdeveloped. There's constant talk that the hero, Tom, is such a nice altruistic person, but we never see him do something nice and altruistic in the whole novel, so he just comes out as flat. Hester is mostly a conventional girl-hero with low self-esteem who will do all sorts of stupid things because she's in love with her man (wising up in the end, but still). All right, so she's disfigured and therefore she has to be interesting somehow, because it's so audacious of the author to have an ugly female hero. I'll grant it's an unconventional choice, but I'd like to point out that 1) since we never hear the end of how ugly she is, in the end, that's pretty much her only salient trait, and 2) so now it's enough to create an ugly female character to make her interesting? Nice way to reduce women to their looks, folks. Saying that only beauty makes value or that being ugly is a sufficient condition to make a female protagonist interesting is about the same in my book.
In the end, I finished the book because the world still fascinated me, but even that fascination is not enough to counter the profound boredom the characters and the flimsy, fee-fee driven plot have instillated in me. I won't be reading on.