![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dolorosa_12I don't usually do Reading Wednesday, but while flailing at naye on Twitter about The Will to Battle, the third in Ada Palmer's Terra Ignota series, I realised I had thoughts about the book, and wanted to discuss them with others in a more permanent, longform location.
So, anyway, scattered, spoilery thoughts ahead! Don't expect a coherent review or plot summary - these are just a few bullet points of things that really stood out to me.
I came to the conclusion when discussing things with naye yesterday that what the story most resembled to me was an account of the years/months/days leading up to World War I, with the same kind of horrifying inevitability of chances to avoid war pushed aside by people who had no way of comprehending the scale of the destruction that was about to unfold, because they had no frame of reference for the kind of war that was going to happen.
Of course, naye summed this up perfectly: If WW1 started as a pub brawl with blokes pitching in to punch whoever shoved their mate TWtB is like a duel: everyone lining up oh so politely at the agreed time and place to do murder or be murdered. This was such a perfect summation, and so true.
One of the things I find endlessly fascinating about the Terra Ignota books is the tension between whether the future it imagines is a utopia or a dystopia, or neither. In some ways a world with no geographical nations (but rather a set of governing philosophies which people choose to align with once they reach a self-determined point of maturity; it's also possible to never make this choice, or choose to affiliate with no philosophy at all), no public, group expressions of religion, and no gender, sounds like a paradise (certainly the abolition of nation states would be welcome to this migrant!). On the other hand, the more you read the books, the more you realise that far from abolishing gender, religion or nationality, the people of this world simply put them in a 'too hard' basket, blamed them for all wars and inequality, and, instead of addressing the reasons why this had occurred (e.g. misogyny causing inequality, and doing something to address the way stereotypically 'feminine' things had been traditionally devalued), people simply made these things taboo and refused to discuss them. The end result is, of course, that far from being abolished, gender, religion and nation-states become these very naughty things that can be played with in secret by the privileged, and also become ways to manipulate and control people.
The Will to Battle in particular forces you to confront disconcerting things about yourself: what injustices you'd tolerate in order to be able to live in an otherwise utopian society, what kind of world, what kind of humanity is worth saving, and so on. In some ways, your answers will depend on which of Ada Palmer's 'Hives' (the political/philosophical affiliations that the characters choose to adhere to, and which have replaced nation states) you feel aligns most closely with your own ethical code; likewise, your choice of 'Hive' may have some correlation with how utopian you find her world to be.
It's really strange to me, because the series is by necessity focused on the privileged, powerful people of the world, and they're all kind of terrible people (I have my own preferences for some of the Hives, but even these Hives' leading politicians are pretty awful), but the painful inevitability, the inflexibility of different Hives' governing philosophy, and the corners into which this has painted them made me feel sympathetic to almost everyone, even characters I'd previously despised. I find stories about the collapse of societies, about people fighting hopelessly against the tide to salvage something beautiful in the midst of chaos and destruction, about worlds brought down by people who were never able to see their value really poignant and affecting (see also: The Lions of Al-Rassan), and I guess that's why this book speaks to me.
Anyway, feel free to jump into the comments and discuss anything you want about this book.naye and merit, I know you've both read it, and I'd love to hear your thoughts!
naye on Twitter about The Will to Battle, the third in Ada Palmer's Terra Ignota series, I realised I had thoughts about the book, and wanted to discuss them with others in a more permanent, longform location.So, anyway, scattered, spoilery thoughts ahead! Don't expect a coherent review or plot summary - these are just a few bullet points of things that really stood out to me.
naye yesterday that what the story most resembled to me was an account of the years/months/days leading up to World War I, with the same kind of horrifying inevitability of chances to avoid war pushed aside by people who had no way of comprehending the scale of the destruction that was about to unfold, because they had no frame of reference for the kind of war that was going to happen.naye summed this up perfectly: If WW1 started as a pub brawl with blokes pitching in to punch whoever shoved their mate TWtB is like a duel: everyone lining up oh so politely at the agreed time and place to do murder or be murdered. This was such a perfect summation, and so true.Anyway, feel free to jump into the comments and discuss anything you want about this book.
naye and merit, I know you've both read it, and I'd love to hear your thoughts!
no subject
Date: 2018-01-10 07:47 pm (UTC)When I read the first two books there was a lot of online discussion about the utopia/dystopia matter, and it led to me really questioning what a utopia even is. I think Terra Ignota is pretty close! It has flaws, but it's made by humans so of course it's fucking flawed. None of them are perfect. But I can see how it's tempting to view religion, gender and nationalism as the causes of war - they're easy to solve, and kind of easier to get angry about that the simple fact of people wanting more power. Those people will always exist, and there's nothing you can abolish that will stop that.
A lot of the stuff about gender has me rolling my eyes a bit. The "gender roles are soooo sexy and intoxicating that you can control people's minds!" bit reminds me of nothing so much as those fluff pieces from a few years ago about 'normaling' or people kinking on traditional gender roles and claiming it was transgressive somehow. But I also really appreciate what Palmer's trying to do in upsetting people's notions of gender and things. I do feel like sometimes it desexualises androgyny, but then Sniper is a sex symbol, so that's not entirely right either.
I really like the WWI comparison. The final chapters of Too Like The Lightning and Seven Surrenders both reminded me a lot of Les Miserables, in that section where the revolt is starting to stir but hasn't yet broken out into fighting, but the WWI thing is right on, too.
The whole series also reminds me of Les Mis in the sense that it has rambling asides and sometimes makes me go "Well why don't you just go MARRY VOLTAIRE, THEN" in much the same way I did about Victor Hugo and Napoleon.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2018-01-10 08:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2018-01-10 08:44 pm (UTC)My stance was:
I don't like (or trust) him, but I want to protect him - I don't want more awful things happening to him
And hers was:
I love him and want to see him suffer (because it's so interesting to watch him crack and also he deserves it)
Also, how do you feel about the 9A reveal - that Mycroft was actually a lot more cracked in the previous two volumes and someone just edited out the worst of his delusions? Because one of the things that did my head in was when I started noticing him just casually mentioning dead people. Just. Getting calls from Kohaku Mardi. Listing Apollo and Bridger among people at a meeting. And he knows the prison wraiths aren't real (I think he knows?) but there's no self awareness about the... uhh, no, Apollo really isn't chatting with you right now on account of how you murdered him?
That and the whole bit where he writes a couple of pages with himself (Mycroft) arguing with Sniper and Tully to make a call that could stop the war and then he's all "Wait, no, that wasn't me! I was just ranting. It was Tully who said all those things that made the call happen, my bad." But by then I'd already read that bit and taken Mycroft's word for events happening the way he wrote them and it's so weird in the best way.
But yes also all the huge questions. Does humanity need this particular war? I'm mostly on the side of horrifed UM NO HOW ABOUT NO but then the dream (the prophecy) of how it's this or a worse war or this and losing the stars forever... Damn but Utopia know how to get me in a really uncomfortable spot. (Also I want a U-beast please.)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2018-01-11 10:15 am (UTC)Unreliable narrators can be done so well and I really enjoyed Mycroft as one. When Apollo first appeared I wasn't sure if we were supposed to take it as another visitor like Hobbes - but no, Mycroft is hallucinating. The others know he has mental health problems and it isn't seen as a priority because Mycroft has never been a priority. He'll be useful but I can't imagine they saw him living long.
And then there's Mycroft mysterious disappearance. So not only were the writings edited by 9A, Mycroft subsequently edited them after he came back. The layers increase!
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2018-01-12 10:14 am (UTC)My personal favorite tidbit so far (I'm still reading!) is that she hears JEDD Mason as Japanese voice actor Toshihiko Seki - a long time favorite of mine. PERFECT.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: