SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Too Like the Lightning
Group Reads Discussions 2017
>
"Too Like the Lightning" Finished Reading *Spoilers*
Mod
Oh, excellent question! I hadn't really thought about that. You're right, expressly limiting religion to personal belief is a big concept we've completely ignored so far. I was at extremes about it. On the one hand, I understand the impulse and think it would be better if everyone realized religion is what it means to you, only. And on the other hand, it's so big and so critical to so many people that without it I don't know how we'd talk to each other! Something would have to takes its place, we couldn't just not discuss existence and death and what makes us hope for better. Maybe that's part of the obsession with hobbies and philosophy? An attempt to fill the space recently torn from God?
Ann wrote: "I think my greatest issue turned out that I don't 'trust' the author.
Mm! Yes, I can see that. I'm conflicted but I need to know. I need to know who all these people are and how they react. And from the little I've read about Ada, she seems like someone who means well, so that makes me tentatively offer her an olive branch. I'll bite. Where is this going? But the serial killer thing is a huge wrench, agreed. She made us love a psychopath. What will we watch him do next? Will I find myself sick but agreeing?
Sarah wrote: "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..."
Yes! The power of the feminine, and then also MASON and what's their name...the other investigator who goes rogue...they're both unnervingly masculine for most people.
I think it was the timing of showing Mycroft's crime that got me. It's more than halfway through the book, if I remember correctly. By that point the reader has processed a lot of the differences in the society, has gotten comfortable with Mycroft and his view of the world, is really settling in. Then *wham!* ... I was going to apply the term 'unreliable narrator', but I'm not sure that applies. Mycroft never really *hid* his crime. The book opened with him implicitly stating that he assumed the reader knew what he'd done. There were hints that it was truly horrific, but I'm not sure any reader expected 'serial killer'.
At that point, I think realized that everything I could assume about the book should be discarded. Dang it, I'm going to have to go back and re-read it now, knowing all these little bits that I didn't before.
The mention of the rogue investigator... What a very interesting character! As you say, almost unnervingly masculine, but so very well depicted in character, style, method almost DESPITE Mycroft's presentation of the character.
Reading all your comments makes me realize how badly this needed to be one book. I know a lot of people DNF'd and it probably would have been more if they saw it was 700 pages long, but it seems like such an injustice for people to get through it and not understand Mycroft. Why he did what he did- how he really feels about everything. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning murder, but I think there is so much more behind it than just "Mycroft is a psycho." I don't know if this society is considered Utopian, but it's probably about as close to what Utopian would look like in the real world. And I think this is what the author is trying to get at. What does Utopia look like? How do we get there? What happens after we get there?
And I think that's why she tackles so much in this book. Gender/religion/philosophy/family units/nations/organization by like minded people/politics etc. it's all part of society as a whole.
Sarah wrote: "Reading all your comments makes me realize how badly this needed to be one book. I know a lot of people DNF'd and it probably would have been more if they saw it was 700 pages long, but it seems li..."I agree! It frustrates me so much when publishers break books up like this. I think a longer book might have helped us be more patient with the early confusion.
Mod
I'm not sure Mycroft really is a serial killer - but I'm not sure whether that gets into spoiler territory for SS - but I think it's mentioned that he wears special shoes so as to not kill even a small bug so you know he's not that killer anymore.....
Rachel wrote: "I'm not sure Mycroft really is a serial killer - but I'm not sure whether that gets into spoiler territory for SS - but I think it's mentioned that he wears special shoes so as to not kill even a s..."He certainly isn't portrayed as being able to kill as of time of the book. However, he did kill so many. As I'd mentioned, I wonder if there's a lot more to the situation than has been shown so far, but as I haven't read SS I don't know for sure.
As for a combined edition -- I think it's hard to sell a 800 page book by a new author. They're hard to read in one lending period at a library (particularly these books!) and are intimidating in size. Perhaps the idea was that she would alienate more readers if released in one volume? Also, purely from a profit perspective, if you have two books for similar prices you are going to make more money than if you have one book at a slightly higher price point, even if higher-than-normal percentage of readers doesn't pick up book two, I should think. The second book was released fairly quickly, which was nice for those who needed to continue the story immediately.
@Ann - yeah I think that was why they did it. I think I saw on Ada's twitter or Goodreads that she wanted to release them in one book but the publishing company wouldn't go for it. I'd like to say profit wasn't a factor. There are enough writers out there that mostly write 700-800 page complete books that profitability would probably be more negatively effected in the long run if they released them all in half books just to double up on profit for one or two books. Ken Follett and Stephen King both come to mind. If you had to buy every 800 page plus book from one of them in twos at some point you'd probably stop reading them, but for a new author tackling a project of this scope it makes sense. Hopefully once she has an established fan base this won't be an issue.I think plans to release the third book are for December- and then the last one in the spring. But I might just have to wait till they are both out to read them. If it's another crazy cliff hanger ending I will not be happy about waiting 3 months for the last, even if that's relatively short term for time between new releases.
Sarah wrote: "@Ann - yeah I think that was why they did it. I think I saw on Ada's twitter or Goodreads that she wanted to release them in one book but the publishing company wouldn't go for it. I'd like to say ..."Good point about the profitability of Stephen King, etc. It's probably a new author thing.
I'm definitely going to wait until both books 3&4 are out to get them. Good to know it's not supposed to be that long between them!
The nature of Mycroft is definitely a topic for a SS side read - I can't really remember which facts came from which book so I'll wee on the aside of caution
Rachel wrote: "I can't really remember which facts came from which book so I'll wee on the aside of caution "Please don't do that where people can see.
Rachel wrote: "The nature of Mycroft is definitely a topic for a SS side read"
We have opened a discuss all, mark spoilers, thread for Seven Surrenders here.
Sarah wrote: "And I think that's why she tackles so much in this book. Gender/religion/philosophy/family units/nations/organization by like minded people/politics etc. it's all part of society as a whole. ..."This was one the parts of the book that frustrated me the most. I was so torn between "impressed this author is tackling all the aspects of a society for a more complete and realistic story" and "Ada has severe ADD. Something take her caffeine away and tell her to focus."
I ended up grabbing Seven Surrenders from the library. I'm hopeful it helps wrap everything up.
@Kristen I think it will. I've only read 1/3 of the book so far and already it makes so much more sense for some reason. I'm enjoying this one much more.
Sarah wrote: "I don't know if this society is considered Utopian, but it's probably about as close to what Utopian would look like in the real world.."I think the reason I felt otherwise, at least about how gender and religion were treated, is that I kept thinking of attempts to legislate secularization in our world, like bans on wearing the hijab. The control over religious speech and gatherings felt to me like more than just censorship; it felt like banning certain people from even existing.
Travis wrote: "Sarah wrote: "I don't know if this society is considered Utopian, but it's probably about as close to what Utopian would look like in the real world.."I think the reason I felt otherwise, at leas..."
I agree. There's a very thin line between utopia and dystopia in some respects, and some elements strayed closer to the later in my mind than the former.
Travis wrote: I think the reason I felt otherwise, at least about how gender and religion were treated, is that I kept thinking of attempts to legislate secularization in our world, like bans on wearing the hijab. .."Actually- this is my point, I've just worded it badly.
We have this society that hasn't seen war in 300 years. A society where gender "doesn't exist". Where organized religion does not separate anyone because religion is now a private thing. Everyone has equal rights, LGBTQIA, women (as much as woman exists in this world), different races and ethnicities, etc. People live to 150 years. They can travel across the planet in two hours. Borders don't separate countries so no worries about passports or "illegal aliens" in the US or Denmark having better benefits available to it's citizens then France (this is a theoretical example and not meant in anyway as fact) and so on and so forth. If you need help, 911 is just a call from your tracker. Everyone's equal (except maybe servicers, but even that is a point, there aren't prisons and no capital punishment).
On the surface it sounds pretty Utopian to me.
But as you say- when we have suppressed/censored so much of our identities as individuals... what is left?
Is this really Utopian? Can we have Utopia while maintaining individuality?
Can we be happy if we must suppress what makes us, us?
We all value and identify with different things in life. For some maybe it's gender identity like Madame at her black hole in Paris. Maybe it's religion. Maybe it's philosophy. And as part of the things we value we want to connect with other people who are like minded and value these things too. We segregate ourselves, in a sense. If the only way to create Utopian society is to suppress the individual can it really be Utopia? Is it even possible to have one without the other? What is more important, society as a whole or the celebration of the individual? Personal freedoms or world peace?
I'll stop now, because I think I just broke my brain. There is so much to think about in this book.
^^^LOVE this! I think you're describing exactly why that book was so exciting for me, ideas wise (I'm completely hooked on the plot too).
Travis wrote: "^^^LOVE this! I think you're describing exactly why that book was so exciting for me, ideas wise (I'm completely hooked on the plot too)."I know right?! I think this was an excellent pick for a group read. I went into it mostly blind and half the time I was reading I was like- what the heck did I get myself into? And then talking about it with everyone afterwards helped to keep uncovering different layers and perspectives.
But yeah. That plot. The plot is awesome.
Mod
Really well said, Sarah. I agree, these are the questions that make me unable to stop thinking about this book, despite it not being something I'd have expected to like.
I'm still ambivalent on this one due to such divergent reactions from readers and a relatively low overall rating (below 4.0). But if it wins the Hugo (or even comes second) I'll probably give it a shot.
Mod
I'd read the sample on Amazon first. This is a very stylized, bizarre book, that will likely either catch you by surprise or repulse you. You'll notice that other people who've rated it three stars or have put it on hold for now are still planning to read the second book because even if the format drives people crazy, it has concepts you can't stop chewing on! Still, though. You should know pretty quickly if it's meant for you or not :-)
Agreeing with Allison. I love it personally- even thinking about retroactively bumping my rating up to 5 stars, but I can also see why it isn't for everyone. Try a sample or grab it from the library.
Sarah wrote: "Agreeing with Allison. I love it personally- even thinking about retroactively bumping my rating up to 5 stars, but I can also see why it isn't for everyone. Try a sample or grab it from the library."I agree as well. I think it's a polarizing book. Checking out the tone and style by borrowing the book from the library (I'm not sure how long the sample would be -- they are sometimes very short!) would go a long way toward letting you know if it's going to work for you or not. You still might not *love* it, but the big hump is that the way it's written really makes it a difficult or obnoxious read for some. If you can cope -- or enjoy -- that, the book is really very fascinating!
I just finished it and I really enjoyed it. How the plot and characters unfold before us really was mastered. I loved how Palmer plays with narrative style and language. I like her ambition and her brilliance. At first I found it difficult, but the sensation only lasted a few chapter. It was rather fluid after that, even if it did require more attention and concentration than the average sci-fi novel. I didn't like how every hive leader was interconnected and the connection was sex. It wasn't credible. That was the weak link in this novel. It felt lazy, which is weird for a havard graduate who has so many side activities when she isn't teaching history.
I highly recommend for those who like literary sci-fi who isn't shy of playing with "big ideas".
Mod
Marc-André wrote: "I didn't like how every hive leader was interconnected and the connection was sex. It wasn't credible. That was the weak link in this novel. It felt lazy, which is weird for a havard graduate who has so many side activities when she isn't teaching history...."I hadn't really thought too much about this aspect of the book, but now that I think about it more, it was rather odd. It was stated that gendered roles were taboo, but not strictly speaking, illegal. These people all had enough power that if they wanted that type of sex, they could certainly get it outside of Madame's house. It's a pretty weak link. It's not as if they didn't all have their own homes that they could use for these activities.
Although, I wonder if that's why she decided to have Jehovah. Perhaps she realized that just the sex wouldn't hold them all their forever. But a child that they each saw as their own in some way, is a much stronger connection.
Marc-André wrote: "I just finished it and I really enjoyed it. How the plot and characters unfold before us really was mastered. I loved how Palmer plays with narrative style and language. I like her ambition and her..."Glad you enjoyed it! Like Allison, if you decide to continue I would love to hear your thoughts on Seven Surrenders.
It isn't just the sex or the gender roles at Madame's that tie them together. Jehovah has a lot to do with it, as Kristen said, but I don't know if that much is obvious until the second book.
Additionally, all these characters were not born into their roles as leaders. Not all of them were rich and powerful in the beginning. Rather than thinking of it as a weak link, I think of Paris as a beginning link.
Seven Surrenders is much more revealing about that aspect if you're interested in continuing.
I'll proabaly continue with book two, but the paperback edition doesn't come out until November. I'm not sure I'll read book three and four. We'll see. It is a pretty rich world, but I have a feeling Palmer said all she had to say about censorship.By continuing, I'm breaking a rule that I made to myself to not read series beyond the first book. Too many series could just be one book and are just stretched to thin over so many books. It feels like a cash grab. Too like the Lightning was just world building and setting up the stage for future events. I'm confident there will be a satisfying denoument in the second book and she will not spreading the butter even thinner.
I agree with many in that this was a pretty dense read to get through. I'm WAY off the July finish mark, partly due to workload and little free read time and partly due to density of this text. I'll try to unload a few of my thoughts here related to what people have said so far.First, the prose itself and narration. I agree, the writing was very dense. This is not for a casual read. A lot of heavy concepts with heavy prose makes for deep thought and constant focus. This alone made it a challenge to finish. However, I generally enjoyed the Mycroft wall breaking interruptions to the narration. It made the story feel like someone was sitting across for me, telling me their account of events, as was the goal of Mycroft from the outset. They were often foolish, giving a bit of humor to the otherwise serious tale. There was only one or two occasions when he was going on about Thisbe that I was somewhat frustrated with the interrupting approach. Like, "we get, she's crazy, manipulative creature in your eyes, OK."
I enjoyed the story, though it developed much more into a political tale then I would typically read. This also made it a slog for me at times, but I really wanted to see the Bridger and Mycroft stories play out.
I notice in this thread a few people were curious about Mycroft's motive for the mass killings. I wonder if that had any relation to that super bash he was placed into at a young age? There is a section in the text that describes him in his youth, dealing with children that were mixed from other bashes and were very gifted, he being the lowest of the lot, so to speak. Perhaps he was frustrated with his life due to that adoption he was forced into. Or, perhaps he saw these advanced children from the government powers as some kind of threat to the society? I had this weird feeling that maybe he killed them for what he felt would be a greater good, as well their treatment of him when young, though maybe I'm leaping too far from the narration and hoping he didn't slay them for pleasure. I seem to remember him saying something like the killings they deserved, or that it was like a warning or demonstration (I'm assuming to enrage the current government powers). Does anyone else recall that passage and/or have that response?
Overall, I thought it was a good read that made me actually think about motives and plot more than other books I've read recently. I'm glad I got through it. However, its heavy prose and concepts kept this from being as enjoyable as I had hoped. I had many breaks with the book for days where I couldn't bear to pick it up. At times I felt like I was reading for the academic reasons for reading, instead of just for pleasure. It walks a line there, very finely, in a way that will turn many folks away from an otherwise engaging tale.
*Edited a few autocorrect issues
@Colin Those are all very interesting points. IIRC The reason for Mycroft's killings was mostly to prove a point. That society was not Utopian, that man was still more animal than beast and that man was not as progressed as they believed themselves to be. He wanted to show that man was still capable of killing for the sake of violence. And to help prove that point he killed his own bash, people he did, ultimately, love.If you enjoyed it, I do recommend continuing with Seven Surrenders. It gives much more insight into that aspect of the story. I also found it a much easier read than TLtL just because everything is all set up for you and you're already used to the style and whatnot.
I just finished Seven Surrenders. For those who are ambivalent about Too Like the Lightning and are on the brink about whether to continue, I would advise against it. All the aspects that I found maddening in the first volume are also in the second. The plot developments do not redeem it. The author still floods you with details, many insignificant and a few important, and usually treats them equally. The characters are still sock puppets. Nothing feels alive or real to me. Shame on the publisher for ending TLtL on a cliffhanger.
I was all over the place on this book.I enjoyed the story, the concepts and the like, but kept going back and forth on the style, some of the details and the haphazard nature of introduction of plot elements.
Usually it'd be a four star book for me - I enjoyed it in general and I didn't feel like I was forcing myself to finish. But I ended up giving it the extra star for ambition and scope. I don't find myself rushing to pick up Part 2 (though I will at some point), but I'm definitely glad I've read this.
Mod
I enjoyed the story, the concepts and the like, but kept going back and forth on the style, some of the details and the haphazard nature of introduction of p..."
So glad you liked it! I would...encourage people who enjoyed the first one to read the second. But I know what you mean, I added these two to my favorite series list, and yet I'm in no rush to read the third when it comes out. The things I loved about TLTL were the things that also make it difficult to read. Once this story came to a rest, I felt like I'd gone skydiving--exhilarated and glad to be back on the ground!
Valerie wrote: "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,..."
You nailed it Valerie. I wanted to put this book down so many times but I was intrigued enough to stick out to the end to find out: no end read the net book.
Some interesting concepts but we were beat over the head over and over.
It was a very good book for helping me fall asleep (boring). I really want to know what happens with Bridger, Mycroft and Jehovah but not enough to endure more of this writing style. Not now at least so I may never know.
Mod
Ada wrote a song about being Utopian, recorded by Heather Dale:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l4SJ...
Sorry to revive a dead thread. I happened across this article today and found it really interesting. I know that we had talked about the privatizing of gender and religion as censorship - but the author here talks about not only that, but Mycroft's ideas of gender being entirely skewed and arbitrary. I'd have to re-read it to pick up those references, but maybe something to look out for next time!https://medium.com/@ZivW/too-like-the...
Edit: I remember when I read it the first time I was thinking he was referring strictly to sex when he misgendered people but I could definitely have read it wrong.
Mod
The gender expression in this book was fascinating for me. It was not sex some of the time, and he changed people's gender sometimes to convey more masculine or feminine traits.
I didn't agree with everything Palmer tried (for example, I agree Sniper was poorly portrayed in terms of their gender and orientation, not to mention the things that happen in SS) but the idea that gender is separable from gender, can be fluid, and that none of us are likely to say 100% of the time we are all feminine or all masculine were very interesting to think about grappling with. I also liked the commentary (Sniper aside) on how we, now, fetishize gender.
I do think though that it does kind of exclude the idea of performative gender which is pretty important to some queer identities. It's a complicated book about complicated things, including the question "is it better to hide from gender or to restrict ourselves to words that don't really say anything about us, and have been used for eons to find ways to hurt each other?"
I don't agree with the article that misgendering isn't violent. Outting people can lead to their murder. Misgendering people can lead to their suicide. Misgendering can be a hugely violent act. But I don't think, in the context of a society without gender, assigning words based on perceived gender or sex organs is the same. Here we know the words and how to use them and make a decision about how to wield them. I'm not sure I feel the same about people trying to figure out a binary from a mandatory single gender.
For example, the IT department at my work is not in the US and English is not their native language. My name reads feminine in English speaking places, but it doesn't follow the feminine rules (i.e. names that end in consonants are often more likely masculine) so they often will call me "he" in emails. I don't think they're commenting on how masculine I seem in my requests for new software or whatever, and I certainly don't think they're looking at my gender expression and rejecting my gender. We have a language barrier. That's how I chose to read the misgendering, with the full understanding that I am cis and do have a feminine gender expression so I naturally have a little distance from that particular violence and can understand people who feel differently.
Allison wrote: "Thanks Sarah!! ...I don't agree with the article that misgendering isn't violent."
Excellent point Allison- I'm glad you mentioned it. I tend to bubble myself away from that kind of stuff because it's usually mentioned on the news (which I don't watch) in tandem with teens and bullying... which is one of those things I'm not great at coping with.
Is this BR happening? (acc BR thread scheduled for tomorrow )
Yup! I’m planning on finishing The Mere Wife tonight or early tomorrow and then diving into this. Looking forward to it!
Gabi wrote: "Is this BR happening? (acc BR thread scheduled for tomorrow )"Hopefully; reading this for it <:D
Mod
Hardest? In what sense?
I’m in, too! And yes, hardest how?
Mod
Just started it and it is veeeeeery strange :D.
I am indeed curious!
it was interesting, but not enough to pique my interest in continuing the series
Whew, one of the cases where I wish I'd read it in my own language. I'm reading every page twice at the moment till I reach the point where I can go with the flow of the narration.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Lolita (other topics)Snow Crash (other topics)
Perhaps the Stars (other topics)
The Indian in the Cupboard (other topics)
Seven Surrenders (other topics)
More...
"
I do think that people will have varied responses to many elements of this book based on their own personal beliefs, thoughts, etc. This is a tough book mentally and, in some places, emotionally. I found the changes to the handling of religion intriguing, but not exactly liberating. To think that that connection of belief is forbidden between the people of that world -- even between the individual and a counselor!... I find that sad, even as I saw how it evolved and its function in that society.