carol. 's Reviews > The Last Murder at the End of the World

This was a chore, which is not a word one would expect with either genre, the apocalypse or murder mystery. But there you have it. I read in fits until 30%, when I had a hard conversation with myself about whether or not to quit. Luckily, my AI advisor wiped my memory of the first 25%, so I was able to persevere. Also, my genetic makeup makes me unable to cope with not knowing the ending--it's honestly the hardest thing about dying before the world ends, if you want to know the truth. If I could just peek at the ending, I'm sure I'd die happily, or at least, with satisfaction. But not if it ends like this. If it ends like this book, I'll just die irritably.

But I digress. Unlike the Murder atEotW, which obfuscates the story every step of the way. We begin on an island, the only remaining outpost of humanity (as far as anyone knows) after a deathly fog has spread throughout the Earth. This last patch of scientists on this island were able to erect a barrier, so this tiny remaining population is safe. Except--this is important--the fog leaked into their underground science-lab-lair, so they are locked out of that as well. The current population has an omnipresent AI embedded in their skulls, except for the original scientists, and an outlier. And this, in a nutshell, is what happens in this story. For every thing the reader learns, we are presented with why this could not be helpful in this scenario. It begins to feel like someone constructing an elaborate puzzle box, with the idea that at the end, there will be a dramatic reveal that will expose the inner-workings of the situation. In other words, it feels more like Mousetrap® than Clue®.

"'I'm incapable of want,' I say. 'I was created to follow Niema's instructions without deviation, and her instructions demand that I protect humanity against any threat.' 'Even if that threat's Niema? 'Even if that threat's Niema,' I confirm."

Then there's the writing which has so much foreshadowing, I started rooting for the reluctant killer.

"'None that I can see,' I reply in her thoughts. 'Somebody has to die for this plan to work.' 

Shortly followed by: "'If any of these things disrupts your plan, the human race will be rendered extinct in ninety-one hours."

I started checking my per cent read, and believe the murder finally happened at 30% or so. Unfortunately, this did not end the book. No, a detective is appointed, then the reader is immediately treated to more obstructive behavior, including the threat to kill almost everyone on the island in at least two different ways (because one is not enough!). The all-knowing AI? Can't reveal anything because orders. But it will kill the humans if they don't figure it out. The humans involved? Had their memory wiped. But we've discovered something that can return memories! But it will kill them! It's like ever more elaborate Dungeons and Dragons scenarios... that are just dumb. I only became more suspicious that this was an elaborate book con as I read, particularly as it became apparent that Turton is playing games with his words as well, particularly 'humans.' 

"I should try to comfort him, but there's no optimal way of handling extreme emotion in humans, which I've come to regard as the greatest of evolution's failures."

To be honest, I was most sorry for the animals at the end of the world (that vulture! the turtles!), and not the people. As I periodically checked my percent read, I started wishing for the people to die and put me out of my misery. This is a book without any reliable narrators, puzzling world-building, and unlikeable, inconsistent characters. I think I understand what Turton was attempting to do: general commentary on human foibles, illustrate complications of connection, discuss questions of nature and nurture. I certainly hope it wasn't a commentary on slavery, because, wow, hard fail.

I eventually finished and yes, I was right; is an elaborate set-up for a complex mystery and a magician's trick. But so badly done, from the perspective of the world-building sci-fi or the plot-focused detective readers. This would probably work best if you are a literary fiction reader who loved the approach to the apocalypse in Station Eleven or a sci-fi reader who tolerated the approach to science (ha!) in Dark Matter.

Spoilers, in case I get involved in specific discussions:

(view spoiler)[
In retrospect, I'm feeling a little of the that dewy-eyed liberal revisionist mentality. Islander culture is devoted to feeling good, learning art, sharing skills, light farming, celebrations, etc. while the scientists are self-tortured and spending all their time in the lab cooking up solutions. It eventually comes across as a bit weird, particularly when the explanation for the AI and the work-sleep is the educational barrier (but in reality, done just to preserve the what-have-I-done mystery??) So is island culture better or not? Does being joyful and caring mean not working?
Also, although their 'creator' (I think) Neima wanted them to survive. So how does killing the AI make sense for survival, if they were needed for higher level tasks while they were mentally unaware? I'm not sure what useful tasks did they do what would have required 'learning'? It doesn't square.

Also such a strange approach to the concept of humanity by these 'scientists' who believe in a fungal-based AI for a grown person. I get that we are dealing with a limited sample here, but I'm having trouble following the world-view that allows for pod-people having a fungal AI that is all-knowing and all-present (I'm sure Turton was thinking of ants and modified view of the 'zombie fungus') and yet doesn't ascribe 'personhood' to the pod people, viewing them as 'tools' to be killed as needed or exploited. I suspect they needed to be plant-based pod-people because grown in a vat wouldn't work for both electricity, materials, and level of science, but still, there is so much disdain for the pod-people on the part of the scientists. Wouldn't ascribing them pet-like status make more sense? I think Neima was accused of having 'pets,' but original compositions of art isn't the only criteria for cognitive elevation/humanity. Tool use, language, cognitive adaptability and reasoning all come to mind--if nothing else, they should have been viewed as a new species. What will it mean to kill off the AI? Literally nothing has been said about it. This is just so fucking weird.
(hide spoiler)]

One and a half stars, only because I've read worse.

Clearly, all opinions are my own. My thanks to Netgalley and Sourcebooks for the advance reader copy.