patto con i presler x la repubblica dei due sistemi ( )

This book and its predecessors ([b:Ancillary Justice|17333324|Ancillary Justice (Imperial Radch, #1)|Ann Leckie|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1397215917s/17333324.jpg|24064628] and [b:Ancillary Sword|20706284|Ancillary Sword (Imperial Radch, #2)|Ann Leckie|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1413464739s/20706284.jpg|40026175]) are densely plotted novels. Frankly, it is a little difficult to remember all that transpires in one of the previous books when one goes months between them. So I strongly encourage you to read all three at one go. Yes, that's a lot of material. But I doubt you will regret it. Leckie has crafted a rich culture and populated it with wonderful characters. (And in this one, there are even some characters to provide a little comic relief. They are wonderfully fun.) ( )

This is more of a space opera than 'Ancilliary Sword', although Leckie maintains her sensitivity and intelligence throughout. It's a very satisfying end and a deeply promising universe for more stories, two of which Leckie has since produced.

The SF trilogy form and why so many authors have adopted it is probably a less interesting area of study than say the Elizabethan two part play. For one thing it’s much more prevalent amongst today’s authors than in playwrights of the 1590s and in the latter case there seems to be a necessary condition for the form: dramatic of course, but also the practicalities of duration and commercial considerations. I wonder how much say Ann Leckie or Adrian Tchaikovsky for example set out to write a trilogy and how the reasoning for that works out. What is wrong with writing a single book? Would the narrative arc be different for 'Imperial Radch'?

As it is Leckie’s combined page count in the ‘Imperial Radch’ trilogy is considerably less than any of the novels by Trollope that I have been alternating the reading of her books with. And there is even less of a natural break between the second and third books of this trilogy... Just a thought. ( )

In this final volume, we return to spaceship adventures and the philosophical musings of characters who are not quite human. Also tea, so many cups of tea.

This was an enjoyable read with a standout supporting character (why yes, I do take my science fiction with a dash of absurdism) and an unexpected, satisfying ending. Leckie is very, very good at telling stories her own way and ignoring the precepts of three-act structure. This makes her plots a bit slippery and difficult to grab hold of, but there's certainly originality here.

At the end of the day, I don't think the trilogy lived up to the promise of that visionary first book. Ancillary Justice feels grand in scale, but the overall arc ends up feeling small. "Small" is an odd criticism coming from me because I like human-scale stories, but the "space opera of manners" conceit didn't quite work for me in the second and third books, with only glimpses of the emotional intensity that made Ancillary Justice so unputdownable.

Still, a merely good novel by Ann Leckie outshines many authors' best novels. I'm still glad I finished the series and look forward to checking out Provenance. ( )

This trilogy is making my head gears grind with internal discus. It's interesting if author messages was intentional or a byproduct of "tyranny vs freedom" story development.

First thing, the whole trilogy raises a question about "privacy vs secrecy" for humanity in general. Yes, we see this question not actually raised in story but it was depicted there in such way that reader should ask it. Yes, main character have a certain... perspective on the matter, and author uses that perspective almost at the edge of the fault. We get to know system that has been like this for several thousands years of not more. Author made an enormous effort to make it all seem natural, believable, reasonable and actually useful. The edge of fault lies in simple fact that all of it would be good (proper?) if not for who main character actually is. I will no go further here for it would be a spoilers territory for previous two books.

Second thing about whole trilogy... is how it's purposefully build, decorated and made to look alive. It's actually not. Which is maybe a point that makes many people turn away from this beautiful dry garden. Everything in here made for a purpose of... propriety... I guess? I can't conceptualize this trilogy enough without some long thinking. It will stay with me for a while (if not forever). This is why this books are good in my view.

And third thing is a quote: "No just act could be improper, no proper act unjust." ( )