Fran asked:

This book seems like a slow read with its antiquated writing style. Is it worth the whole read?

10 likes · like
9 years ago
12 answers

To answer questions about Too Like the Lightning, please sign up.

Mike A belated answer.

While the narrator says he's writing in an 18th century style, that's not how the book reads. If you imagine a knob where 0 is 21st century prose, and 10 is Jonathan Swift or Laurence Sterne, or whoever: for most of the book, the knob is set at around 2. Just enough to make the language a bit distant, but not enough to make it difficult. It's a good choice, and it works well.

However, during the asides to the reader, that knob gets turned to 11. These asides are mostly short. But you also need to think about what's happening. These "dear reader" moments are, first, not anything I remember in 18th century lit. We're talking 19th century: Tony Trollope, not Larry Sterne. (And Trollope's dear readers never argue back. Mycroft's do.) [Well, I re-read Sterne, and he does a "dear reader" that's a lot like these. Sterne pushes the envelope, before there even was an envelope. But again--that is absolutely part of a very complex game the author is playing.] And these moments are written by a fictional 24th century author who is self-consciously imitating that 18th century voice. And, if you really know how 18th century English language works, they're not always correct. The knob is turned to 11, not 10, and that's not an accident. Even given that Mycroft is a brilliant polyglot, he can't always be right about everything. But what games is he playing? What games is his language playing?

If the question is simply "will the antiquated language slow me down," I'd say probably not. But there is a much bigger question: what is that language doing, and why is it doing it? Nothing in this book is accidental; it's been a long time since I've read anything this carefully written. Thinking about the problem of language in this book: that might indeed slow you down.

flag

Standback Readers are likely to love or hate this book based on its unusual style.

Though the book starts with an "apology" for "writing in a style six hundred years removed from the events I describe," I wouldn't describe it as a slow read in any way. Instead, it's quite fast-paced - but has frequent interruptions. with dry observations that can be funny, absurd, or intriguing.

For example, right in the first chapter, there is a death - and the narrator breaks the fourth wall:

Have you never watched a death, reader? In slow cases like blood loss it is not so much a moment as a stretch of ambiguity—one breath leaves and you wait uncertain for the next: was that the last? One more? Two more? A final twitch? It takes so long for cheeks to slacken and the stink of relaxing bowels to escape the clothes that you can’t be certain Death has visited until the moment is well past.

Or, a longer section in Chapter 3 is a full-fledged digression into discussion of philosophy and history, which is pretty much a direct discussion of some of the book's themes. The narrator mentions "The Patriach" to another character, and then sinks into:

Do you know the reference, reader? Or does your age, forgetful of its past, no longer know Le Patriarch by that worthy epithet? Have you forgotten the first pen stronger than swords? The firebrand who spread Reason’s light across the Earth, battled intolerance, religious persecution, torture, forced kings to bow before the Rights of Man, and introduced wit into philosophy again? Is Aristotle not still known by the honorable title of the Philosopher? Shakespeare the Bard? Brill the Cognitivist? How then can you forget the Patriarch?

Perhaps you protest, Thou accusest me unjustly, Mycroft. History has not swallowed this great man, rather he has swallowed history. I do not know who created the first government, or built the first wheel—it is so ubiquitous that I do not need to. Just so, my better era does not teach me who first fought for these good heresies you list, for they are now Truths, and the blind age that doubted them is well forgotten.

Perhaps you are right, reader, it is honor, not dishonor, if you forget the Patriarch. We now doubt Aristotle, understand Shakespeare only with footnotes, poke holes in Brill, but the Patriarch, whom all Earth follows without thinking there could be another way, he has indeed swallowed us up.

A description of a death, or a consideration of who we revere and who we accept so totally we forget them completely, are hardly slow-paced in any inherent manner. But, it's definitely a style that will resonate, intrigue, and amuse some readers, while others will find it dull, meandering, or pretentious.

The best advice I can offer is to read the sample chapters. Those are an excellent representation of the book's style and strengths. If you love those, you'll probably love the book; if you hate 'em, definitely give it a miss.

flag

Dániel Darabos The writing style is unique. But the plot is definitely not slow. In 432 pages it has as much plot and as many characters as I think is possible. There are no drawn-out parts, or events that just fill up the pages without contributing to the story.

"Byzantine" I think is a rather better description of the book than "antiquated".

flag

Cam Sure! It does take some getting used to since it's told as a history from the future of the future where the action takes place. If you've read much sci-fi like the original "Dune" or "Fitzpatrick's War," you will do fine. It's meant to evoke the pleasure of reading works from a different time as our own; not unlike reading "Frankenstein" or even Dickens and taking a while to get the rhythm and perspectives of the time.

flag

Claudia Putnam It's a slow build. I don't normally have trouble with those, but in this case I wondered for a while... not because of the writing style, but for other reasons. The payoff is very big.

flag

Mark This book is entirely in-period, including the "front matter":

[Gordian Exposure Commission Content Ratings:
...
O3-Opinions likely to cause *offense* to selected groups and the sensibilities of many...] etc

So the term "antiquated" is to be understood from a context of beyond the 25th Century. In practice it's mostly (21st Century) modern English with a spattering of anachronisms, both from history (thee and thou) and from the future: where Anne Leckie always uses 'she' to indicate someone, Ada Palmer has Canner write he/she to indicate persons while only the dialogue is 'in-period' using they for everyone.

TL;DR: Don't get hung up on the term "antiquated" too much. If in doubt, download the sample from Amazon :)

flag

Mighty Sea Yes.

I believe the book rewards the effort. I burrowed into it and eventually fell into its cadence. BUT the writing style is consistent throughout. If you read the first chapter and it not a matter of diving in and figuring it out, but it just sets your teeth on edge, then they'll still be on edge in the last chapter...

flag

Scott Mattson I did find it a slow read. But I kept plowing through it. It is worth it.

flag

Rosco Betunada how about a one-word (rather than many) answer?

DEFINITELY !

flag

Barton Stanley I rate the narrator's claim that he would speak to the reader in 18th century writing style as "mostly false". Because it is mostly false, the author's credibility is strained for me although I will admit that I am still reading despite the fact that I feel that I was deceived on that point. I was rather looking forward to reading a science fiction novel in 18th century style. Someone should to do that for real sometime.

flag