I liked this, and it left me with many lingering thoughts. The book has both an interesting setting, an interesting plot and interesting themes. I feel like most of the time I have a clear sense that one of those pieces is dominant. For example, I think in a lot of scifi, the setting dominates, and the plot serves to help orient us on an interesting vector through that setting. In other cases there is a specific theme the author is interested in, and they create a setting and plot to test and probe that theme. Of course, I think really great works tend to balance these pieces, or bring together pieces that feel both natural and complementary.

Here, the setting at first seemed dominant to me, but the author's attention seems to veer away from this piece and into themes and story elements that I felt were independently interesting. *I didn't feel like these elements required each other* they were just all interesting to me. I would read a book that focused on any of the three ideas (anti/feminist alternate history, a story of discovering the narrative of a relationship after abuse, the meaning of genius (particularly for someone not a man)). Are there important ways these elements speak to each other? Maybe. I really can't decide. But, if you take 3 books I would like and combine them into 1 book, I like that book.

It does leave me with nagging questions like: is there a better story possible within this very cool setting? And, do some of the more extreme themes and setting details distract from the very real and grounded story elements? Also, did I miss any hidden clues and storylines in this winding opus? Overall though, I liked it.