I think there are different kinds of being tricked. I liked things like Andromas turning out to be Elisabeth, or the mimes thing - there were hints, it would've been possible to figure it out, but most people wouldn't have. What I don't like is being not merely tricked, but lied to - and then being expected to have seen through that. Perhaps I've read too many detective stories. Or not enough unreliable narrator ones. I loved, say, The Remains of the Day. Stevens is an unreliable narrator, too, not talking about some things and saying other things that aren't true, but in such a way that you understand that they aren't true, and also understand why he says them anyway.

I think for me the determining criterium that decides if I like being tricked by a book - and for that matter, it goes for riddles and the like too - is whether I would ever have thought of it myself. If I go "oh right, I should've seen that coming" or at least "oh right, I *could* have discovered that if I'd thought about it more", it's okay. Whereas if it's something I would never have thought of, I find it lame. If I had grasped it properly as soon as it was revealed, though - that events like e.g. the whole thing with Master Wu or the conversation with Assumption Soames were not completely made up, but were in fact Gonzo's memories - I dare say it wouldn't have annoyed me so much, as that would've been much easier to accept and I wouldn't have had to be in denial about it for the rest of the book.

It's an exercise in futility to determine what the public as a whole likes or doesn't like. Some people like being tricked, others don't.

That's a fair point, but the way he did it it feels like a cheap and baseless accusation against the World Bank or IMF that blames them for ruining countries without laying any responsibilities on those countries themselves.