Deeply conflicted.
This series has a depth of emotional and social intelligence and empathy that is inspiring, moving, genuinely brilliant, that really transformed SciFi. Little plot, but really excellent character development and relations.
It is also feel-good and cute and comforting, I genuinely like reading it, and many of us really need feel-good books nowadays. It reminds me to be a kind person.
But what keeps having me stumble is the fact that on a hard science basis, it fails really badly. One recurring theme in this series is that the ships are powered by algae fuel (what energy grows the algae? Starlight, even in the most far out reaches of the gallery? Why would that power source suffice to power interstellar travel? And if it did, why would you run it through algae first, not use starlight directly? Are you telling me they are burning wet algae?), or are perpetual energy machines (seriously, every book, and explained literally! How are editors not catching this? You cannot harvest energy from your own movement sourced from exclusively your own energy. That is just not how it works.), and that "turning off gravity" (?!?) somehow also cancels momentum (those children can yell "falling" all they like, gravity or no, after hitting terminal velocity, they will still hit the ground or ceiling with a splat). The superluminal travel makes no sense as presented. The economic system makes no sense.
I think there is a valuable place for SciFi that focusses on how society develops under different conditions, on relationships with alien minds. I understand that not everyone can be good at physics or technology. I value, very very much, the skills the author has got. The diversity. The balanced viewpoints. The coping strategies and acts of kindness.
But I would really prefer if she accordingly either skipped the science bits, or consulted a scientist on them.
E.g. Ancillary justice, one of my favourite series of all time, another female SciFi author, essentially skips all the physics and technology. But she finds a good in universe explanation for why the characters do not know how it works, and focusses on the stuff she is excellent at, and it works brilliantly - gender, oppression, rights, colonialism - she sticks to what she can do, and that is bloody awesome.
And then, there are other books, like Ancestral night, also a female SciFi author, that have the character driven emotionally insightful story that Chambers so excels at, but that also put serious research into getting the hard science right, in a way that is a delight to read, from emerging ships out of superluminal travel being particle cannons, to how confused researchers are still about gravity, to sensible spaceship design, to time lag when communicating with large minds.
But it really has to be one of the two, do it right, or don't do it. Adding explicit science and technology, but doing so in a way that is plainly illogical, is a painful distraction that confirms sexist stereotypes on female SciFi writers.
I do want to repeat that these books have other strengths that are outstanding. That I learned a lot, was moved to tears and laughter, have quoted these books, been inspired by them, reread them, that there is so much in here that is unique and wonderful, and does not need the hard science to work. There is no obligation for it just because it is common.
I think just deleting the hard science parts in future editions would massively improve the book. It is okay if the author can't write them - she can, on the other hand, write emotional depth that clearly and beautifully, in a way a lot of male authors could not write. (Looking at you, Alastair Reynolds). I value these equally. Either can stand on their own, I think.
But I would rather have no explanation than Kitty's faulty one, rather a handwavy magic fuel than algae, nothing explained on propulsion rather than perpetual energy machines. This stuff isn't necessary, and detracts from the wonder of the book.
(Imagine a male hard SciFi author who wrote absolutely brilliant scifi on the technological and physical parts, but also kept adding long sequences where people explain that they have treated their depression through the magic of pulling themselves together, treated their disability through the magic of yoga, dealt with jealousy by suppressing it and with anger by unleashing it on weaker people, so that they are now perfectly mentally stable, physically healthy and social, and had all the other characters go, unironically, wow, that makes sense, this strikes me as ideal and like it would totally work. - This is how I feel every time a Chambers character explains how their ship is a perpetual energy machine and everyone around them nods.)
It is still a wonderful series. It honestly speaks to how good the other parts are that I reread and recommend it despite the fact that the scientist in me is infuriated. I think if the science parts were just deleted, it would be one of my favourite series. It does not need more. It is an incredible achievement. It stands in its own right as a new way of doing SciFi. All it needs is to let go of a convention that does not apply.