I'm Starting to Worry About This Black Box of Doom

The novel’s plot is largely driven by incorrect assumptions made by the characters. What are some assumptions that characters in this story make about other characters that later turn out to be incorrect? What led them to make those assumptions?

Abbott seems to experience no excitement over the prospect of experiencing a crosscountry road trip during America’s Fourth of July weekend, and in fact openly dreads it. Why do you think that is? How would you feel if you were made to take such a trip without advance notice?

Why do you think the author included the incident with the lost rabbit? What specific parts of that sequence do you think parallel or tie into the larger plot?

When we meet Joan Key, she simultaneously seems dissatisfied with retirement (to the point she voluntarily pursues a case on her own time) but also expresses outright disgust at the idea of going back to her old job. Do you see this as a contradiction? Do you know anyone who seems to be in a similar situation? What do you see as the real cause of her dissatisfaction?

When Ether confronts Abbott about his extreme views beginning in Chapter 12, do you notice anything unexpected or unusual in how she chooses to communicate with him? For example, she does not openly express much outrage or revulsion, to the point that she seems to be carefully avoiding it. Other times, she seems to allow extreme claims to go unchallenged. What could be the reasons for this? What else do you notice about her strategy for confronting someone with extreme or even dangerous views?

Do you think the tone of the conversations between Abbott and Ether would have been different if held under other circumstances? For example, if Abbott was a passenger in Ether’s vehicle, with her behind the wheel? Or if they had encountered each other online, instead of face-to-face?

On multiple occasions, Ether asserts that our culture becomes overly fixated on bad news (negative headlines, frightening trends) to the point that we become upset if told that things are not as bad as they seem. Do you think she is correct about that? If so, why would a person (or a population as a whole) prefer bad news?

At one point, Ether suggests that a modern, middle-class American has a higher standard of living than any royalty from the past. Do you agree? Why or why not?

The stranger who gives a ride to Malort insists that anyone can change who they are, that it’s as simple as making the choice. But later, Malort compares himself to a train that must continue on its tracks, even if they lead to catastrophe. Why do you think he believed that about himself? Do you see parallels to other characters in the story?

Joan Key asserts that those who violently lash out at society often are not the oppressed who truly have valid grievances, but rather are somewhat privileged individuals who perceive they’re being denied what society owes them. Do you think she is correct about that? If so, why would this be true? If not, why do you think she believes it?

Do you believe that Miles (the man who built the Killdozer in response to the theft of his cryptocurrency fortune) had a legitimate grievance? What would you have done in his situation?

Joan Key states that the cultural divisions in the United States are too profound and entrenched to be overcome, and portrays these divisions as inherent to the makeup of the country. Do you agree with her? If not, why do you think she believes it?

At the end of the novel, Malort laments that the initial misunderstanding regarding the box could have been avoided with a little more patience or clearer communication on his part. Are there other moments in the story when a simple act or communication could have resolved the situation? What prevented it from occurring?

In most stories, characters are either “dynamic” (meaning they are permanently changed by the events of the story) or “static” (meaning they remain the same throughout). Which characters in this story would you say were changed by the experience?

Do you think most of the world’s conflicts (either between individuals, or groups/organizations) are based on genuine fundamental differences, or do you think most are simply due to a misunderstanding (such as, one party acting on incorrect information)? Can you think of real-world examples of each? Can you think of examples that are a combination (where genuine differences exist, but are exacerbated by poor communication or misunderstandings)?