Comment

May 26, 2017ReedLeon rated this title 2 out of 5 stars
I looked forward to reading this book, but it reads like the dramatization of a grad student’s term paper. Data and analysis are brought to the forefront in an attempt to build the drama, but the beneficial use of them is repeatedly glossed over. (I’m guessing that’s because databases and spreadsheets are not that exciting.) I cannot concur with the critical acclaim the author has achieved. The protagonists are devoid of personal history or compassion. A few of them experience a major natural disaster, and they shrug it off like it was a thunderstorm, intently focused on the elections instead of the well-being of people suffering around them. Try as I might to get into the book, it kept bouncing me out. Newbie writers are told to “show, don’t tell” their story, but the author clings too tightly to that advice. The notions of supermajorities, centenals, and decennial elections are intriguing, but what makes a supermajority? Is it 55%, 60% or 75%? What powers does it have compared to a centenal? The author’s world implies an Earth that’s a static terrarium. This is analogous to bad science fiction where rocket ships’ engines make sound in the vacuum of outer space. To keep centenals at their maximum 100,000 population, the boundaries would have to be continuously adjusted. Who draws the lines? The greatest sin the author commits is against herself. Once a writer creates a world, then she has to live by that world’s rules. Centenal governments replace cities and countries, but the author fails to escape Earth’s customs and traditions and continuously references the old political geography. The author’s writing style is quite good. The only other saving grace I could find is that the story works as a satire. The author creates the concept of “microdemocracy” and there is very little democracy in her world.