Justin Cox
Nov 5 · 4 min read

I am almost, though not fully, finished with the book, and was curious what the critical take had been. The novella is certainly not perfect, but I feel that this review so far missed the mark that I’m a little amazed.

Yes, El-Mohtar and Gladstone abstain from spelling out the “how’s” and “why’s” of the ongoing war and the sides. But all the crucial details are littered throughout the story, and we learn them as we learn more about the characters, revealing themselves to the readers as they reveal themselves to each other. I’m a little surprised by Houle’s interpretations of the sides, I feel it’s made perfectly clear within the text: At the very beginning Red thinks about how most “people” from her future exist merely as part of the greater transcended singularity, and she has a major character development moment discussing her childhood choice to split herself off as an individual in real-space. When the characters are first introduced, we are given the explanation of what the war is and why and how it is fought, with agents such as our protagonists to divert the greater “braid” of time through changes at crucial junctures, hoping to sway the end result towards their side’s utopia. Of course there’s an inherent contradiction in this, since both sides already exist, so in some ways this is a war that can never be won. Most of all I find Houle’s description of the sides as “robots” vs. “humans” to be so simplistic as to be… well, wrong. There is a heavy aesthetic of technology vs nature, with Red’s tools being advanced cybernetics and nanobots while Blue uses bio-engines and genetic modification. But it’s made abundantly clear that this surface-level distinction is paper-thin: the agents are equally matched in capability, and underneath the theme of their side they are more alike than they are different. And neither of them is implied to be anything other than human (time-traveling, immortal, augmented and super-powered beyond all recognition perhaps, but never inhuman).

As for the quibbles regarding “Why would robots kills Caesar…?” (ugh) Because time is complicated. Because the entire framing device of the story is A Sound of Thunder writ large. Over and over again we see the protagonists going to great lengths to make a minuscule shift in the time stream, spending entire lifetimes within a role so that they can be in the right position to influence a single individual down a different path which will bear fruit centuries further down the timeline. We see one of them undertake a quest to reshape a rock outcrop in dark chasms deep beneath a temple, purely so that a particular pilgrim will hear a holy-sounding tone which will inspire them to become a monk who will build a monastery, which centuries from now will shelter a pregnant woman who will give birth to a child who will become an important figure. This is a game of Go played across realities, and to delve into the rational and consequences of every move would utterly ruin the story. Even the Atlantis example, it is made clear in the story (explicitly, I was actually a little bothered how much time was spent on this one point) that Atlantis has taken myriad forms across a multitude of realities, so the literary criticism here of “is this the mythical Atlantis…” For one, the story answered that question; For two, that question entirely misses the point.

I do think Houle makes a good point: if you’re looking for detail about “how do these systems work, what’s the nitty-gritty of why they’re making the moves they’re making,” then this is not the story for you. Perhaps the confusion comes down to genre. Yes, this story is based around time travelers from the future, so it is a sci-fi story. But all the elements of time travel, of incredible transhuman abilities and war between rival realities; all that is flavor (and it’s good flavor, there’s so much delicious narrative atmosphere here). The focus here is the relationship, the letters, watching a teasing taunt turn into deniable camaraderie turn into a love which shakes the timeline. As Houle says, the writing truly is beautiful, especially in the exchange of letters, and watching these two superhuman beings find tenderness in their rival is a breathtaking experience. I agree that some of the scenarios are left excessively vague, though I suspect that is a deliberate choice to build the feeling of endless assignments running together. And I do think that the build to the climax is hurt by rushed pacing. Once one of the central mysteries of the story is revealed, I feel we are given no time to really appreciate the implications before the consequence plays out and we move on. But such is the nature of the novella, distilled down for better or for worse. In this case, I would overall say for the better. This is a story about love letters, which just happens to be wrapped in a shell of time travel, and to focus too hard on the latter is to fail to appreciate the former.

I do apologize to Mr. Houle if I come off as harsh (or, god-forbid, a defensive fanboy). I quite enjoyed the book, and took issue with what I saw as mistaken facts in the review, and I may have gotten carried away.