In recent memory I cannot recall a book that vacillated between exceptional and disappointing. Unfortunately, for me, it ended on the later; with a strange metatextual writer’s group critiquing the piece. I always dislike this because it feels it should be tongue-in-cheek statements about some of the stylistic and distinguishing choices, but actually ends up just pointing out some legitimate flaws. It always ends up being more of a detractor than a foil to make things blatant to the reader—but that is just me.

However, it does have some soaring sights. Certain sections are wildly, keenly well-observed. The macro dynamics of the character arcs work well, I think—though, as short as it is, seems dragged out, at points. Profound to almost inane, back and forth. Safe to say I only really understood a portion of the author was intending. Though it could be that sour taste in my mouth from the ending, especially.