The Expanse: Babylon's Ashes (3/5)
I really didn't like this book. It's now my second least favourite in the series. A series where the odd numbered books tend to be better than the even numbered ones, so...Indiana Jones in Space?
Okay, snark aside, I'm going to touch on something that Gethsemani mentioned at some point that I think is pertinent, that the Expanse series functions in duologies. Having read the first six books of said series, I can see how. Books 1/2 deal with the protomolecule, books 3/4 deal with the ring gate and worlds beyond, books 5/6 deal with the fallout of that discovery. Having read to the end of book 6, I could see it capping off a trilogy of duologies, as aside from the Laconia foreshadowing, it feels pretty definitive. I've seen some say that book 4 could have ended the series, and was written in a way that it could have if necessary, but I feel that this book is a better natural ending, if the writers had chosen to end it here. That said, while I like the ending, that doesn't mean I like everything leading up to said ending.
What sucks is that the book has a neat premise, promising a system-wide war between the Free Navy, and the combined forces of Earth and Mars. Unfortunately, it doesn't deliver on that premise, even though it clearly tries to. Because for one thing, there's a lot of POV characters in this book - I think far more than any of the previous ones. But similar to A Feast for Crows, more doesn't necessarily mean better. Yes, it's nice to see Chrisjen's POV, but on the other hand, while I get why Michio Pa exists in this story (a Belter realizing that Inaros will lead them to disaster), but I just didn't care about her. Heck, I had to make sure while writing this that she actually was a "her," because I couldn't remember her gender - that's the level of impact she left on me. I know The Expanse is a setting that puts more value on worldbuilding than other story elements, but even then, it kept the character focus reasonably tight. Here, there's too much going on across too wide an area. The book conveys just how big the Sol system is, but I've seen it done better (Second Formic War series). Also, there's another problem with this war thing, and that's Marco Inaros.
Now, I get what the writers were doing with Marco. Really. Marco is a narcicist who thinks he's a lot more brilliant a commander than he actually is. Every setback the Free Navy has is something he spins out as "it was my plan all along," and at the end, I got the sense that he'd actually come to believe his own BS. Inaros isn't some messiah for the belt, he's a man who's going to lead it to ruin, because whatever grievances the Belt has against Earth and Mars, it's a fight they can't win. Bombarding Earth is like the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbour - sudden strike, momentarily cripples the enemy, but they're up against an enemy that can outproduce them, and has better technology. So, yes, the books convey Inaros as a fool who thinks he's brilliant, and whose egotism costs over 15 billion lives. If you want to cite Inaros as an example of a man who thinks he's brilliant, and causes people to suffer because of that supposed brilliance, then I'm onboard.
But all that said, I'm left with a story that has the 'good guys' outgunning the 'bad guys,' and where the antagonist is defeated in part because he's an idiot. Ideally, in fiction, you want your protagonists to have a disadvantage against the antagonists, and have the antagonist be defeated by the brilliance of the protagonists, rather than their own idiocy. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but it's a setup that's generally effective. Again, I understand what they were going for, but it didn't work out for me in the end.
So, yeah. Book's done and dusted, and it's a pretty big book at that. And, to be honest, not really worth my time. I dunno, maybe I'll go onto book 7 eventually, under the premise that the odds are better than the evens in this series, but I won't be doing that anytime soon.