A couple of weeks ago I watched/listened to the Tim Feriss Show. Tim had Mark Manson as a guest and they were talking about books esepcially science fiction books. Being a great scifi enthusiast myself I listened up, when Tim recommended the book «This Is How You Lose the Time War». Given the praise Tim gave this book I recommended it to my sci fi club as our next read. Oh God, what a mistake… Or was it?
When I do start reading a book I try to avoid reading anything about it. Usually, I do not even read the cover text, since (unfortunately) I made the experience that even book covers give sometimes too much away of the plot. (Once, I read a German print of the book ‘Solaris’ by Stanislaw Lem and the blurb gave away major plotlines!) I like to dive into a book fully unknowing and let me surprise.
This was a big mistake for «This Is How You Lose the Time War» by Amal El-Mohtar and Max Gladstone. The book gives no introduction to the plot whatsoever, which I would find okay if through out the book more infos are given about the about its very basics. However – this was not the case or at least not in a way that retrospectively the first few chapters would make any sense. You will be completely lost in the first few chapters, what you would not be if you had read the cover text.
What you should know
There’s a Time War going on between two sides. Agents of a post-singularity technotopia and agents Garden, a single vast consciousness embedded in all organic matter, fight on different fronts, at different places in time against each other. Red on the side of post-singularity meets Blue on the side of Garden on multiple occasions in this war. They are one of the best of their sides and although they shouldn’t communicate with one another – they do start leaving hidden letters to one another – taunting their rival. What’s also good to know, that the authors alternated chapthers/letters as they went along.
Spoiler warning
I think you already know where this story is going, right? Of course they fall in love with each other. That alone wasn’t the problem for me, how cheesy it was, was the problem. It was really just Romeo and Juliet as agents and more annoyingly with they’re self-awareness about it. At one point in the story one of the two (I forgot which one) tells the other how they watch Romeo and Juliet in the theater, but never know which ending it will have, since its an alternate timeline. This arrogant, self-aware, quirky style of the two characters and of the book in general was unbelievably annyoing for me.
More annoyingly, was this notion of the both how unimportant they made themselves by making fun of themselves and joking around with their (not) funny insider jokes. But at end they actually do think they’re quite important and take themselves very seriously. The cheesy, cringy, lyrical aspiration of their letters underlined that very much. It was pure agony for me to read.
Last but not least, I was very bothered how they made tons of references to important historic events or pop culture, but barely showed any of it or let it play out. The authors purposefully did not give it the space. The whole book was very… not plot-driven and much more an exchange between two characters with quirky, funny romantic gestures and insider jokes.
Now, why wasn’t it bad after all?
Yes, I hated basically everything about the book – BUT it also gave me a very clear understanding of what I do not like in a book and what I like.
I do not like:
- it, when quirky self-awareness is pushed to its limits
- cheesy, cringy, lyrical aspirations in books
- long-distance relationships
- making an interesting reference to something and give it its depth it deserves
- Rome and Juliet
I like:
- a plot-driven story
It might sound odd, but I am truely grateful for that read. I never would have learned so much about myself and what I do not want write, if I had not read it.
