Reviews and Comments

I'm losing my mind with so much of this.

There still are far too many blatant Hitchhiker's Guide references, which makes me feel like I should just read that series instead. There's a Gneiss elder (who is a ship) who... recites poetry to everyone who boards, which is reminiscent of the Vogons who recite poetry to stowaways.

The most interesting names for aliens are those that the author points out as "sounding Indian" (Devanshi), which... that's definitely a look. Others are named Tina, Algernon, Ren, and Osric. None of them have names that sound like a version of 'space'. Again, if your influence is Hitchhiker's (as the acknowledgement stated), then... you had an example of fun names! And you could've played with names to have fun. (Other alien names are mostly nouns, like a space station named 'Eternity'.)

As a mystery, it's... not. If this was a "sci-fi thriller" or something in that area, I'd probably be less annoyed (even with the excessive references). But so far, I haven't found anything resembling a mystery. It's like Lafferty read one Agatha Christie book (And Then There Were None), thought that because it had shifting perspectives... that's how it always was. But even so, she didn't learn the mystery element at all. There are no real clues and all the questions are asked and answered almost immediately. Things are hidden for giggles (it seems), but it's not obscuring it for a mystery's sake... The people in the praise-for-the-book section talking about how it's the "sci-fi version of Agatha Christie" clearly haven't read Christie (and if they did, didn't understand why her novels were actually engaging and were really good at building a mystery for the READER TO SOLVE... which is the key part of a mystery).

I have been given years, but I do not feel like I understand what time period I'm in at a given time. It flips too quickly between flashbacks and present time... and not in a way that is really clear because... I didn't know what year the book started in in the first place. Or events happen earlier in the book, but the timeline is only clarified about 10 pages later. I don't like this. The editor did a bad job. (Sometimes a flashback happens in the middle of the present, but it's not clear... which is which? So you end up re-reading. The editor still did a bad job.)

Quote, page 58: "But like everyone, she'd seen pictures all over the Internet, several stories of hilarious problems with breaches of etiquette or misunderstandings, or the discovery that some aliens really liked Vegemite, which the Australians thought gave them universal vindication regarding their local treat." -- I did chortle at the Australian part. So far, that is a good spot.

"wrecking their car while DUI" -- Who talks like this? "Wrecking their car while under the influence" is more clear, especially to more people. "I got a DUI" would at least make sense, but... while DUI?

Nitpick: Between one page that said that vulgarities were difficult (translating the Gneiss for 'asshole' into 'backend waste hole') and now page 68... the language database updated.

Oh, I found the Douglas Adams inspirations. This includes the relationship between Xan and Mallory (coincidental meetings, especially one at a party), mirroring Arthur and Trillian. Now there's a universal translation device that is "painful at first" and fitted around the ear, mirroring babelfish (though this one has a database that needs updates).

Also, I feel really uncomfortable with the whole white lady writes two characters who do a whole call-out in a university lecture to question the syllabus and the focus is on Octavia Butler? Like... feels a bit too performative, and there definitely would've been a way to call-out or call attention to the racism (systemic or intentional) of the school syllabus that wouldn't have felt like ... that. (The scene also doesn't really have... much to say about any of the characters. Ah, they're vocal and speak out against teachers with a racist syllabus! ... But the scene itself is just there, with no point other than... I guess making sure that we know they think racism is bad and they know one Black woman who was an author?)

And the second named alien is Ferdinand. Do the aliens have no cultural aspects of their own? Again, I point to Douglas Adams and his naming for aliens: Ford Prefect, Zaphod Beeblebrox... even Trillian's name is a space-related update for Tricia Marie McMillan. Meanwhile, Lafferty (who opened this book with an acknowledgement to Adams!) may as well be naming them John and Stuart and Samantha. (The naming convention is given as an "approximation" done by the universal translator. It's fucking lazy, is what it is. And reminiscent of how East Asian people are often coerced into more 'pronounceable' names common in Europe, rather than us trying to adapt to them. This feels like peak liberal white lady shit.)

Writing is annoying me. Too often, verbs are used in really unnatural ways. Like the repetitive nature of one scene where the word "enlist" is used over and over, even when most conversations would be like "Did you enlist?" "No. But judging from your shirt, I take it you did." "Yeah, I did." Instead, this book has every sentence make sure you know that the character is talking about enlisting, and it's... jarring to read.

Quote from page 44: "She never liked saying she was a writer. She wasn't a writer, with the scarves and the chunky jewelry and the online flame wars about appropriation and use of the singular "they." She just wrote books because she couldn't work a job that placed among people."

This feels like it's trying to mirror the jokey way that Adams talked about hairdressers (that doesn't quite land today)... except I don't know what the author's trying to say either about her character or the world. Especially because she herself is a writer. Does she get into flame wars online? I'm confused.

It really feels like it's trying too hard to be someone else's work, like a bad rebrand of both the Dirk Gently and Hitchhiker's Guide series. I don't have issues with people making references to things, but this is just... It's all so blatant. None of it is subtle. It's like a hammer to the skull, and I shouldn't be saying that 56 pages in.

I'm not that far in, and a few thoughts have flashed as I've read (and tried to keep myself awake):

1. The book has an acknowledgement thanking Douglas Adams for inspiring all the writers he will never know, and... if this book was somehow inspired by Douglas Adams? Holy shit, it feels like they misread and failed to grasp the story beyond "it's in space."

2. I don't know why I should care about any of the characters at all. Mallory has no personality beyond "always runs from things" and paranoia, which... isn't a personality. Adrian is basically "asshole politician" as a flat character. Xan has been given nothing beyond "some stereotypical traits of a military man who absconded." None of these people have thus far had any interesting introductory character traits given to them.

3. The alien's name is STEPHANIE. Even Xan's name is more interesting. What the fuck is Stephanie for an alien? And why not even try alien-stylising it or something like Steif'any. Which is still cheesy as fuck but is at least VISUALLY INTERESTING. (It's like being inspired by Douglas Adams didn't help with silly names, which all of the aliens in Hitchhiker's had!)

4. Chapter titles referencing media miss the point of the mentioned stories? Chapter 1 asks "Was Sherlock Lonely?" as it describes the ways in which Mallory is lonely because people keep getting murdered around her, meaning she tries to stay away from people to avoid them getting murdered. (Sidebar: I don't know how other species aren't impacted by this... or how the other two humans around her haven't been murdered, either... I'm guessing it's so the premise of "humanity is coming, oh no!" works in the story, which is... kind of absurd.) But if Sherlock was lonely, it was not because people were dying around him; he was lonely because he felt out of place due to his abilities and many people didn't understand him, which is why (I think) the friends he latched onto were those so willing to tolerate his strangeness. Which... wasn't nearly as strange as most adaptations made it out to be?

Addendum: I think the failure in making interesting characters is a failure in understanding both of the genres. Mysteries often have characters that receive less exposition, which is either built up throughout the novel as you explore the mystery or simply not present in the name of focusing on the story (which is fine). This is generally not true of the detective (especially if that detective exists within a series). Science fiction often requires exposition to set a lot of scenes and characters, though that's not always necessary (some things just are, but other things have to explained). The juxtaposition here is that... you need to actually do both to an extent, and Lafferty doesn't seem to have engaged with either genre to understand what works (not as necessity but as inspiration).

While I did enjoy reading this to some extent, it left me feeling really dissatisfied because of how obvious the answer turned out to be. I kept hoping that the solution would be something else, and it just... wasn't.

It's stated that this book was inspired by Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None, so I expected that the events would unfold in a way that was much more in line with that and that one of the victims would turn out to be the killer (much in the way that the judge was among the victims but later revealed to be the killer in Christie's work). It's also frustrating that some of the gimmicks that would've made the mystery more enticing just... weren't used that much? And when they were, it was just... boring.

The more interesting parts, too, were in places where the victims weren't. While I don't need them to be sympathetic, they should at least... be characters. And most of them were so one-dimensional that it was just dull or so bothersome that I couldn't wait for them to just die so they'd stop existing. I don't feel like that's how I want to feel about any character in books, even when I know someone has to die or probably will die.

And lastly, I think the issue is the English-language marketing of the book. The blurb on the back says that they "need to solve the crime" to stop it, but... that's not what happens. If your marketing is also playing on the fact that the book was inspired by And Then There Were None and it doesn't really deviate from the "none were left alive" (or only deviates for the killer)... Then I don't see the purpose in making it sound as if there's something that will subvert that expectation, which I don't think is the fault of the book but is the fault of the marketing setting up bad expectations.