It's the late 21st century, and the former United States of America has rebuilt after the Great Civil War. Under the thumb of a dictator named Martin who believes that ethnic groups simply cannot mix, the nation's remaining major cities are each walled off into four segments: Ivory, Obsidian, Havana, and Little Asia. Everything from greetings to holidays to food is segregated, and different groups may not mix even in academic or professional situations. At least, that's how things are aboveground.

In the decades since the Great Civil War, a resistance has been pushing forward. And now four young people in one segregated city find themselves in the midst of it. Marcos dreams of leaving Havana to be a truck driver, but finds himself moved to a prison camp. Harriet has been an Obsidian code-runner for much of her life, but her participation is about to ramp up. Rose, a Little Asian, pursues academic success while contending with the new knowledge that her mother has been resistance for a long time. And Jason, the son of a powerful Ivory man, finds himself tasked with overseeing these secret prison camps. As Rose and Harriet train, Jason attempts to use his clout to bring the camps down while Marcos works to strengthen their forces from the inside.

Divided is the first in a planned four-part series, with second book Caged coming next year. While the book is technically well written and the characters are believable and unique, this is a very by-the-numbers YA dystopian fiction. There's nothing especially bad or wrong with being a by-the-numbers example of a genre, but we've come to a point where I read a very similar book practically once a month. It's true that fiction, especially YA fiction, follows trends. Just because it's understandable that we got a bumper crop of zombie and plague fiction in the wake of the pandemic doesn't mean we can't wish for more variation amongst it. The same is true of dystopian near-future American fiction under a divisive dictator: I understand that everyone wants to tell this story, but this is an opportunity for multiple insights rather than the same one on repeat.

There's also a concern that, in many cases, I don't know what's an in-universe issue versus an author oversight. For example, while it's demonstrated in the text that the four racial subdivisions are messy (with some people being "misclassified" and disparate cultures being Occam's Razored), there's no mention of Indigenous people at all. If that's a plot point, it's tense and menacing; if the author simply forgot about Indigenous people, it's concerning. Similarly, are the on-the-nose names of the subdivisions uncomfortably bad because we're meant to cringe away from them as readers? There are so many things in this book that could go either way like this; and while I want to give the benefit of the doubt, I can't know in one book if I should.