i feel like every review of this i've seen does disservice to the actual book. i don't want to re-read it, but i profess i don't understand it very well, although i love the second half. the actual plot point the entire novel rests on is not as important as what surrounds it, to me, and even the central conceit isn't as clear as most reviews will have you believe. idk what i'm trying to say, but to me this tale felt more about our personal relationship with remembrance/the Stockholm syndrome we have with our memories and with ourselves/etc etc. the "franz kafka meets george orwell" thing is... kinda stupid. it's a strange novel that escapes being typecast in one concrete genre which is why that kind of fanciful description i guess, but speculative fits? anyway i treat my goodreads review section too much like a diary