Ada Palmer's Terra Ignota continues to be a series that is obviously brilliant whether I understand it or not (and I often don't). How could I not love this third book in the series, where the reader is enlisted into a dialogue with Thomas Hobbes in the 25th century?
I loved the world building and the historical consciousness introduced in the first book. I enjoyed delving further into the world and deeper thoughts about gender in the second book. And in neither book did I entirely follow the plot. Sure, I got the basic idea of the overall arc by the time each book wrapped up, but all those layers of intrigue with characters I often had trouble keeping straight (even with a "who's who" at the front of each book) have made this difficult series to follow plot-wise.
If you need a clear plot and likable, relatable characters... maybe this is not the series for you. But if you can handle some ambiguity, like science fiction mostly for the ideas, and above all are willing to do some work as a reader, then this series might be your thing. It sure is mine.
I do want to stress again that this series is not an easy read. I bought the book several months ago, and kept putting it off until I was in the right mind set. It does require some real work on the reader's part. I'd compare it to reading Gene Wolfe or Samuel Delany: not always immediately "enjoyable" and almost never easy, but deeply satisfying nonetheless, probably because all this work does pay off at least for a certain kind of reader.
The Will to Battle, the third book in the series, gets its title from the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. As you may know (and Palmer seems to assume you do), Hobbes is famous for his political philosophy that starts with a dreary view of human nature. Basically, according to Hobbes, we are all selfish bastards intent on fighting and killing each other, and we need a strong government to keep us in line and make civilization possible. There's more to it than that, obviously, but I'll leave it there while noting that Hobbes lived through the English Civil War, so that may have something to do with his views.
Back in Palmer's novel, we are reunited with our intrepid (or maybe not so intrepid) narrator Mycroft Canner (this time with occasional comments from a censor). I love Mycroft, even though he's a murderer and an unreliable narrator. He's basically the only character that's deeply developed. I enjoy his direct address to the reader (there's a bit of "dear reader..."). And just to raise the stakes on the brilliance of this technique, Palmer has Canner include imagined dialogues between Canner, the reader, and Thomas Hobbes himself. I loved that! It's the kind of cleverness that some might find a bit too much, but I can't get enough of it.
As for the plot... well, that's complicated. It had been over two years since I read the previous book, so I got a little bit of help from sites like this one.
Even with some help, though, it's hard. My basic understanding is that we are headed into a war for the first time in a few hundred years. Remember in the previous book that it turned out that someone was using the global network of flying cars to assassinate people to "keep the peace." And so the various Hives and factions were going to fight. We might get an Emperor. And the mysterious Utopians might be here to save the day. There's a lot more to it than that, but I'll stop there to avoid spoilers and because, to be perfectly honest, I never really followed a lot of the deeper level political intrigue and machinations of this series.
The Philosophy Report
Just as the first book focused on the issue of utopia and historical consciousness and the second brought in interesting gender issues, the third book's philosophical territory is, perhaps unsurprisingly, an exploration of a Hobbesian thought. To the extent that this world really ever was a utopia, is any utopia like that sustainable? Or are we miserable humans doomed to slide back into a Hobbesian "state of nature" of "war of all against all" in the absence of a Hobbesian Leviathan or absolute political authority? And even if we don't slide all the way, is the "will to battle" always lurking closer beneath the veneer of civilization than we care to admit?
These are disturbing questions. They were disturbing when Hobbes considered them in the 17th century, or when the Confucian philosopher Xunzi considered similar questions in the 3rd century BCE. They are equally disturbing in the 21st century or in the 25th.
Perhaps the most disturbing question to come out of the Terra Ignota series is this: If even a society this utopian can slide into war and chaos, how much closer must we be today in the 21st century, at least in the places that aren't already there? Global events in the last four or five years give this question a lot more emphasis for me.
While there has been a long tradition of dystopian science fiction, Palmer's series shows us the precarity of utopia (or something a lot closer to utopia, at least). Humanity may not be on the inevitable track toward progress, as much of 20th century science fiction from Clarke to Asimov to Roddenberry supposed. Perhaps that will to battle lives deep in the heart of humanity, whispering reminders that the state of nature is not as far away as we'd like to believe.
As with the previous books, I can't say I entirely like where the novel's questioning takes us, but I can say that it is intriguing and well worth the journey in world building and ideas.
There is apparently a fourth and final book coming in 2021. I'm hopeful maybe the philosophical issues will be a little cheerier in the finale, but I have my doubts. Whatever happens, I'm sure Palmer's brilliance will continue. You can trust me, dear reader, for I am as reliable a narrator as Mycroft!
See my Goodreads review!
No comments:
Post a Comment