I will risk the wrath of Coatsworth's fans, but begin by saying that I wanted very much to enjoy this work more than I did. There is a lot that is original and "right" about his speculative fiction.

His stories draw largely and plausibly upon disturbing trends in biological manipulation and the scientific reactions to (not solutions for) climate change. What is left are societies (not all appear to be in exactly the same universe) which exacerbate class difference, find distractions and occupations that isolate people, and challenge us to see ourselves in them. More, the very human stories within are driven almost completely by queer characters who are--almost without exception--normalized in the culture. In other words, no matter what else we destroy, at least we have this right.

Some may have concerns that his stories are not well plotted, and it is true that we should not expect the old genre-tropes of action-adventure, daring, or global import. Coatsworth offers tales, instead, of people making the best choices they can in the circumstances, and whether these actually turn themselves into a traditionally-plotted story is beside the point: instead it is as if readers are offered a viewing of moments from our future history.

All of this is risky, laudable, and largely successful. So why isn't my rating higher?

For the most part, Coatsworth seems himself uncomfortable in the future stylistically. His narrators want too much to explain everything to novitiate readers, offering details that are awkwardly needless and even heavy-handed. The new tech and settings either carry lengthy unwieldy names or are overly explained almost to force us to recognize them as "futuristic." He doesn't trust readers to immerse themselves into the worlds he creates, the result is pedantic reader that can also feel at times patronizing. This happens with such inevitable frequency that, in fact, the very opposite of immersion happens: we are instead thrown out of the story, reminded that there is someone (working extra hard! really we are!) leading us by the hand.

This would not seem so troubling (merely poorly styled) if it were not combined with a lack of ambition to style his prose toward anything but plotting. Characters act, they feel by statements, and--in case we cannot understand those feelings--they are offered through more explanations of their external displays of those feelings. This is in contrast to what might be offered: nuanced diction, ambiguity of image, internal dialogue, complexity of motive, and the like. In other words, while I loved the viewscreen into the future approach, far too often it is marked by sacrifice of writing style which would make the characters all-the-more rich.

And these characters deserve it. Placed in circumstances difficult or buoyant, often carrying challenging pasts with them, they are worth developing fully, all the more so because we are with them for too short a time. But if we have stories that don't demand a compelling narrative plotting, but we also don't have characters fully realized by solid writing, far too often I was left feeling let down.