Can´t stand the ideological undertone any longer

First of all the narrator is good, which is the best that can be said about this book.
It might have become a decent novel, were it not for numerous statements by the author that I find offensive.

It is nothing new for an author to build a world with religious or environmental extremists.
At the beginning I thought - OK, I don´t like it, but that´s the world the author build around his characters.

But that is where the issues with the book start for me:

- Militant green activists take "our" freedom away
- The climate crisis is a hoax
- The Islamic radicals are a danger to the world order

A good author can put all those three topics into a book that does not offend the educated reader – something the author succeeds to fail at.

Here are some “highlights” (spoiler ahead)

"The all-electric cars demanded by the environmentalists didn´t have the range for a trip like this. In fact, they didn´t have sufficient range for anyone who lived outside a major metropolitan area."
(This might have been true a few years ago, so why should this still be the case in the future? - But Ok)

"... fuel cell technology was also under attack by the environmentalists, who claimed the "exhaust" from FC vehicles-plain water vapor -was an environmentally damaging greenhouse gas."
(This statement belittles environmentalists in my opinion)

What brought me over the edge were statements like this:

"By 2010, most respected scientists had been forced to admit that long-term climate change was a slippery concept at best. ... (wrong)
More importantly, the scientific community was forced to admit that non of these changes could be directly linked to human activity... (absolutely wrong)
... Still, the Naturalists were not to be silenced. They rejected all arguments against their draconian environmental policy demands,.…"
(The author, acting here as a narrator, implies they should be silenced)
"Naturalists managed to distil their philosophy into simple terms - science and technology were evil…"

The author could have gotten away with the concept of radical naturalists, by choosing an approach like:
“by 2030 the effects of the climate crisis were not as severe as predicted, as an result of the radical enforcement of environmental policy by the environmentalists, which were accentually effective. But the climate crisis was far from being reversed, so the naturalists enforced a strict regime.”
→ That would have been a completely different tone, with the same effect for the world building, but without twisting scientific facts….

Now to the “islamic danger”:
"Not just the Middle East, but virtually all of Africa had fallen under the Islamic Federation control"
(Fine, you can do that as an author, it is not unrealistic, but...
"American political leaders found themselves hampered by liberal, politically correct interpretations of the very freedoms the nation was build upon"
(...there we have it again, the undertone...)

"The Jihad´s propaganda machine had succeeded in convincing most of the world that the United States was an imperialistic aggressor…"
(The world does not need convincing for that, beyond the US, this is obvious)

Setting aside, that the author chooses to ignore scientific facts, in favour of a "unique" world building,
I can´t relate to a main character and I don´t like the general undertone.

The news and internet is flooded enough by this nonsense, I don´t want to endure it in my spare time as well.

Sie haben diese Rezension bewertet.

Wir haben Ihre Meldung erhalten und werden die Rezension prüfen.

1 Person fand das hilfreich