Disclaimer: I'm not a prolific sci fi reader.

I started my foray into serious sci-fi through the half way of last year. Before that I'd only read some Arthur C. Clarke, Le Guin, Herbert and Dick. Since then I've read a few titles mostly from recommendations, Hyperion, The Book of the New Sun, A fire Upon the Deep, some Iain M. Banks, Reynolds, Tchaikovsky, Stephenson, Octavia Butler, Liu, Strugatsky etc.

A friend suggested Terra Ignota to me. I finished the first one last night and now I'm downright confused. I don't know if it's a really good book or it's just pretending to be. Palmer's prose is fresh and hits just the right spots, the characters are well realised, the plot is alright(?) I guess. Certainly Palmer is an author who knows exactly what she is writing about. I like the narrative structure of the book, mainly because I feel there's some parallels between Mycroft Canner and Severian(Book of the New Sun).

My main disconnect with the books stems from the fact that I feel the author is tackling too many themes at once: gender, theology, war, Utopia, the " Art imitating Life" trope, surveillance state, criminal rehabilitation, childhood trauma, linguistics, history, democracy etc. At what point does it all become too much? Some times it felt like I was doing some research for my dissertation instead of reading a sci fi book. I like books that are dense and demand all your focus, nothing wrong with that as long as there is a pay off. Going through this book felt like a chore at times and I had to constantly look up historical references and personalities.

But despite it all I kind of liked the book, but I'm not sure if I should be delving into the rest of the series without some assurances, especially since I have a fat stack of TBR on my shelf right now.

So anyone in this community who has read the whole thing, give me some insights as to whether I should plod on or just drop the whole thing. People who didn't like the series I'd value your inputs as well.

Thanks.