Curran,

You could have a good story here. Parts of it are actually quite good. It's just that you've been living with this story for fifteen years and I just sat down to it. You have a relationship with your characters that I don't have-yet.

First off, you might want to go back and read this story aloud. Some of your sentences are overlong, and make for difficult reading. For instance, this passage:

With its lavish decorations, flags from each world hanging still in the breezeless morning, the crowd waited impatiently in the early morning's oppressive humidity to see their Messias, their savior, Senator Holden Michaels of Barol.

...contains two independent thoughts. Read it out loud, read it to someone and I think you'll notice you pause longer after the word morning than after the word decoration or even the word Messias. That's because you probably want a period there.

I know you're writing a "history" entwined with your novel, and the history is quite good, but it's history and some of it has the feelings of a recitation of facts. Your present day stuff, in contrast, is so much more "lively" that it makes your history appear, well, dull. I'm not sure, do you have to tell me every little detail right now, right away? You describe his selection by The Holy One came because of his fears. I like this because it gave a peek into the inner workings of Winston's mind. Then you told me why:

he’d watched in stunned silence as his father was arrested and charged by the Gendake-Polizei: the Thought Police.

Sounds kind of matter of fact. Maybe a better description of this scene? Describe Winston's thoughts? 

I didn't find this work particularly confusing because there are no main characters. Ignore people who say things like that.

SD,

I took a look at this, and I have to agree with much of TJ's critique. I can certainly sense you really know and understand the world in which this story exists. In many ways, that's more than half the battle. I'm sure you've read your share of extremely well written stuff-- but found that the stories aren't all that original or interesting. In History Books, you've got a whole world created here-- much in the way Tolkien and Herbert had to create entire worlds, histories, and even languages for their masterpieces.

The overarching comment I'd like to make is about execution. Your writing is good. The prose doesn't get jumbled. The dialogue isn't hackneyed. But it was only until I arrived at the end of page 8 that I finally got a sense of story. From pages 1-7, for the most part, I felt I was being introduced to character after character, all of whom had a lot of interesting back stories and interactions with one another, but to me this all played out like "filler" scenes in a movie. I had trouble following a story that made me want to turn from page to page.

The important parts of the chapter (paraphrased) felt to me something like this: It's the future. This is some type of a sci-fi war saga. Holden Michaels is a politician, and some dirty stuff lingers in his past. Someone shoots him. Blood sprays into the crowd and there's something very bad about what's in the blood. Now, this is an interesting story!

But we just spent 4000 words introducing Winston, Klayton, Janis Kanwak, Raye, Stephanie, Mariam, Lancelot, and others while in the meantime making cryptic references to "The Holy One" and describing the organizations like the Erobotic Warriors and "The Forum" along with histories of alien planets with strange names. (I don't read sci-fi or fantasy, so I may not be the best person to comment on this, but it all started to lose me--fast).

To summarize, I'd say: in my opinion, the average reader (not genre specific) will not take the time to learn details about a world if he/she hasn't committed to the plot.

Going into some more details:

1. I know you forewarned me about the perspective shifts. Honestly, it didn't bother me all that much. It was more the style of your chapter crafting that distracted me. You weren't necessarily switching from omniscient to 3PL. It was jumping from narrow scope (narrator is in Winston's mind) to large scope ("Many theologians claim..." "A similar story can be told...") from paragraph to paragraph.

Whenever it went to large scope (more the "history book" language rather than a narrative") I tended to lose interest.

Also, when you jump from Winston's mind to Janis's mind to Lancelot's mind, I urge you to use either a chapter break, or some type of break mark (like a dotted line or something to tell the reader we're now focusing on another character).

2. Stylistically, I also get distracted when voice inside the head (ex. "Why, why did you pick me for this?") is not italicized, put in quotes, or separated into another paragraph. You've also placed diary entries and song verses throughout your narrative without changing the typography, which I found distracting.

3. I didn't always find that your dialogue progressed the story. (ex. section that begins with "You deserve more than a sore jaw, kulak." until "Ja. You're probably right...") Whatever is said may be important later on the story, but at this point I found myself losing patience. Also, I think I even noticed a 3-person conversation. That's extremely difficult to follow in fiction, unless we're already very familiar with all the characters (like in Chapter 3 at least).

4. Backstories and histories continually interrupted forward progress of the plot.

5. I wasn't able to grasp a good sense of setting whenever your scenes changed. A new character was introduced, and I was told the history of that person (which may have been your intention, since this is a history book), but I wasn't able to get invested in the character because I couldn't see what he/she looked like or where he/she was sitting/standing.

A few other even smaller things. You make mention to countries/ethnicities that exist now: Russia, Germany, America, France, Turkey. You even make reference to the Romans, Oxford University, Hillary Clinton, and the CDC. Now, this is 600 years into the future-- and its supposedly being written even many years after that? Well, if you applied it to us it'd be like writing about people like Johannes Gutenberg, Pope Boniface and the Ottomans, but Clinton?? She's not even elected (yet)! The CDC is a stretch because it's a US organization. W.H.O. (World Health Organization) might be more believable. But I found the "Russian accent" and "Oxford University" references least believable, because Russia may not exist in 600 years and Oxford would be lucky to still have its walls intact, not even considering land displacement and global warming.

Lancelot rode in the lead hover-convertible, next to the driver, a swarthy little Turk from Gibraltar who despised the Warriors and grumbled in Arabic about having to cart around His followers. In the second car rode the Voices, who prayed with urgent ardor, and Winston, who yawned without cease.

The roads were blocked at various locations, giving the Senator a smooth ride from the Embassy to Oxford University, where he would give a speech denouncing Imperialism.

The long motorcade did not just include the Ambassador, but many other important Centauran figures, as well. Professor Naom Chomsky, a humanities teacher who had gotten entangled in politics, rode next to the Mayor of Bath. Both seemed interested in grabbing the spotlight, and waved at those clustered at the curb. Seldom few waved back; fewer still knew recognized Naom Chomsky, or even the mayor.

Winston pondered the predicament both Klayton and King George V were in. Here was Holden Michaels, proud Senator, representing the interests of the Roman Remnant Order, now growing even more in popularity, a champion of the people and hater of the Holy One. King George knew Michael stood against everything he believed in, but understood that if he forbade the Senator from coming there would be riots, and many would voice opposition of the Monarch’s decision to ‘silence the freedom of the press.’ Richard Kanwak had attended Merton College north of London and explained to Winston over tea one fall afternoon the problem with colleges: ‘One’s head swells, but the brain liquefies.’ While neither man had an issue with obtaining an education, they both had a problem with the fashion in which the students were brainwashed regarding religion and other issues. ‘If there’s a ridiculous theory or some New Age crap floating around out there, you can bet your bellybutton there’s some professor around to spiel it, and a group of students dumb enough to swallow it.’ It was this last comment that Winston considered now. Holden Michaels was going to preach hatred of the very system that allowed freedom of speech in the first place. And the students of Oxford University would eat it up, thus producing the next the next generation of brainwashed and deluded professors. Winston sighed. And we’re protecting him?

This section here's an example of how I couldn't follow a main character. When I can't follow a character, I can't get invested in the action of a scene.

in an age of space battleships and lasers

This felt cliche to me. But again, you're writing as history-- and the tone would insinuate that the age of space battleships and lasers is long over.

He found anger and pride rushing to meet his emotions

This is an example of overwriting. I think you're just trying to describe him getting flustered. Show it.

Winston didn't give Klayton his opinion, but if the Commander had asked, Winston would have replied that he felt it was utterly against everything he believed in.

It's too specific to be an omniscient narration of history

The Holy One often chooses the least likely when it comes to making heroes: those abused, sexually violated, or emotionally or physically abandoned are his first choices.

Personally, I'm a religious man, but I just don't get the character "Holy One." If your "Holy One" is God, who is the narrator? I mean, I know he's someone writing many years after this all occurred. But this narrator's talking about the "Holy One" as if he knows more than Him!

The gong in the clock tower across the street clanged and Winston turned to it to study its gold-clad face with disappointment. His relief would be late, but Winston was not to use the texter and page the DOC, Dispatch-on-Call, usually Klayton or Karen, for another fifteen minutes. For once, he thought, can my comrades be punctual, like the Kanwaks or me?

There's just a little too much technical stuff here and the prose is clunky. Simpler images would evoke a better picture in the imagination of the reader-- which is what the author should try to achieve!

“Why didn’t you tell me? I would have given you the money.”

Don't know what this is referring to.

Also, a rule about names. In Chapter 1, a multitude of names will only confuse a reader. In addition, the author shouldn't use different name-tags when identifying the same character (ex. "Holden" vs. "Senator")-- even if it's that person's nickname and it's spoken in dialogue. That would be okay for film/TV-- not for fiction. (I also had trouble identifying male vs. female!)

Janis turned away,

This is an example of how 3PL and omniscient clash. If it were a history book, how would the author (narrator) know she turned away? He wasn't there! All he can do is say, "Janis inwardly believed she'd committed some unpardonable sin against Winston..."

The trouble with cults, of course, is that they do not speak truth, and even if they do, that truth is often so spun with lies that the original truth is obscured.

This sounds incredibly biased for a history writer-- that is, unless at the time this "history" is being written society is being run by propagandists under a dictatorship. I don't think that's what you're going for.

Okay, that's a lot to chew on. Again, when I boil this down to what I feel the plot is about-- the future, a corrupt senator who gets shot, and his blood unleashes some kind of plague-- I think that's a very intriguing hook. Once you have me, then I may be more willing to read the next page and be patient with learning about the characters.

In my experience, it's the responsibility of the author to "convince" or "win over" the reader, because the reader can always just choose not to read it. You've got a good premise, and you definitely know the world in which the premise exists. My advice is just to execute it in a way that communicates strongly to the reader, making him ache to know what happens next!

Best of luck!