4 ms·

Did anyone else not enjoy the actual writing in Three Body Problem? I enjoyed the book from a speculative science and "well this is different" perspective, but

Did anyone else not enjoy the actual writing in Three Body Problem? I enjoyed the book from a speculative science and "well this is different" perspective, but the writing style and plotting were very difficult to parse through. "Show-not-tell" isn't much followed. Character development is light, to say the least. Most of the story takes place from the perspective of one of two characters, but then there's one incredibly jarring chapter where the author goes, "Oh by the way, I'm sharing a bunch of classified documents with the reader that neither character has ever seen." And apart from scenes with a single non-viewpoint character (the cop), most of the dialogue sounds more like a post-modern philosophy lecture than actual conversation between real people. Some of this could just be cultural differences between Western and Chinese writing styles, or maybe things got lost in translation. I haven't read enough Chinese literature to say though. For those who have read more, would you say Three Body Problem is typical of modern Chinese writing, or Chinese science fiction?

trhway 10y ago
>"Show-not-tell" isn't much followed. man, while that approach has it merits, i sometimes bored to death and drowning in American ("Show-not-tell" is taught here a lot starting from beginning of K12 and it is taught like it it the _only_ way) novels'/stories' showing and showing and showing all these details with telling almost nothing. Even Stephenson's works - i can't get more than a few tens of the pages in one sitting even though i do like his work. Again, it isn't about _all_ American writing, mostly about modern :) I mean just look at Asimov's Foundation - 100% tell, no show. Well, may be it is a bit dry for that reason, 5% of show wouldn't hurt :) Yet it is an example that "Show-not-tell" is just a tool which has its limited domain and which should not be enforced like orthodoxy (as far as i see, be it arts, science, etc. - wherever/whenever orthodoxy appears the art or science disappears there) Btw, i'm a Russian (and do love a lot of American writing, especially SF and for the reasons mentioned above mostly buy American modern short SF where tell/show ratio is usually higher because of the short form limitation i guess :)
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  Was Asimov successful because he was telling and not showing, or despite it? Would his works have been even better had he shown more and told less?
metaphorical 10y ago
You can also argue that if the theme is about something as expansive as the "dark forest" (no plot spoiler!), flat characters and telling-not-showing are not bad choices for writing style. The humankind can be as insignificant or dull for this context. Book 3 is where it all comes together. Pretty insane!
hackuser 10y ago
I read the English translation and felt the writing ranged from adequate to tedious, and conveyed little beyond the literal meaning of the words. Certainly some was due to skill composing English, which I assume is due to the translator. But at times there were long, dull tangents, especially (IIRC) into personal histories of characters, that had no impact on the story. I started skipping paragraphs and pages, and it took an effort to reach the end. The Cultural Revolution scenes at the beginning, however, were powerful and left a deep impression. After that, I picked up a book by Nadine Gordimer, the Nobel Prize winning author from South Africa. What a relief and pleasure - both books used the same language but entirely differently, hers was crafted so beautifully and with so much more meaning in the same number of characters. Tom Stoppard (whose embrace of serious science should make him HN's favorite playwright - for example, one famous play turns on the Second Law of Thermodynamics), describes the difference between the highly skilled and everyday writer in his play, The Real Thing: HENRY [holding a cricket bat]: Shut up and listen. This thing here, which looks like a wooden club, is actually several pieces of particular wood cunningly put together in a certain way so that the whole thing is sprung, like a dance floor. It’s for hitting cricket balls with. If you get it right, the cricket ball will travel two hundred yards in four seconds, and all you’ve done is give it a knock like knocking the top off a bottle of stout, and it makes a noise like a trout taking a fly... (He clucks his tongue to make the noise.) What we’re trying to do is to write cricket bats, so that when we throw up an idea and give it a little knock, it might... travel... (He clucks his tongue again and picks up the script.) Now, what we’ve got here is a lump of wood of roughly the same shape trying to be a cricket bat, and if you hit a ball with it, the ball will travel about ten feet and you will drop the bat and dance about shouting ‘Ouch!’ with your hands stuck into your armpits. (indicating the cricket bat) This isn’t better because someone says it’s better, or because there’s a conspiracy by the MCC to keep cudgels out of Lords. It’s better because it’s better. You don’t believe me, so I suggest you go out to bat with this [hack script] and see how you get on. ‘You’re a strange boy, Billy, how old are you?’ ‘Twenty, but I’ve lived more than you’ll ever live.’ Ooh, ouch! He drops the script and hops about with his hands in his armpits ... ‘Ouch!’
- vorg 10y ago
  > The Cultural Revolution scenes at the beginning, however, were powerful and left a deep impression I guess they're put at the beginning in the English translation to achieve that "Here's a foreign culture" effect. The Chinese language edition orders the chapters differently, so that those first 3 chapters on the Cultural revolution come in the middle of chapter 9 when Wang Miao talks to the astrophysicist. The Chinese edition more clearly unfolds the events as they're found out by certain main characters. The Jackie Chan movie "Who am I?" film was similarly butchered for Western audiences. The Asian edition has his character waking up with amnesia in Africa, and we spend the movie identifying with him as he finds out how he got there, via memories returning and clues. The American edition, however, begins by showing all the forgotten memories, taking away the mystery for the viewer.
rebuilder 10y ago
I found it hard to get into, as well. I had this feeling of distance, like I was reading a parable that I'm unable to understand. Or like the writing style was too unfamiliar an jarring, yet perhaps entirely acceptable with acclimatization. I'm not sure I can say it wasn't a good book on these grounds, I've had similar issues with older literature from western cultures as well.
jombiezebus 10y ago
I'm told from a Chinese source that while the concepts of The Three Body Problem are good, the writing style is considered terrible even in Chinese.
- bsidb 10y ago
  I am a chinese reader and the writing style of Cixin Liu in Chinese is just so-so. Not that terrible and is enough for science fiction but is not good.
aaron695 10y ago
I saw a level of immaturity of thought. I stereotyped that to China being behind still scientifically. They don't yet culturally have a scientific mind. But it was an OK read I thought.

trhway 10y ago

>"Show-not-tell" isn't much followed. man, while that approach has it merits, i sometimes bored to death and drowning in American ("Show-not-tell" is taught here a lot starting from beginning of K12 and it is taught like it it the _only_ way) novels'/stories' showing and showing and showing all these details with telling almost nothing. Even Stephenson's works - i can't get more than a few tens of the pages in one sitting even though i do like his work. Again, it isn't about _all_ American writing, mostly about modern :) I mean just look at Asimov's Foundation - 100% tell, no show. Well, may be it is a bit dry for that reason, 5% of show wouldn't hurt :) Yet it is an example that "Show-not-tell" is just a tool which has its limited domain and which should not be enforced like orthodoxy (as far as i see, be it arts, science, etc. - wherever/whenever orthodoxy appears the art or science disappears there) Btw, i'm a Russian (and do love a lot of American writing, especially SF and for the reasons mentioned above mostly buy American modern short SF where tell/show ratio is usually higher because of the short form limitation i guess :)

pmoriarty 10y ago
Was Asimov successful because he was telling and not showing, or despite it? Would his works have been even better had he shown more and told less?

metaphorical 10y ago

You can also argue that if the theme is about something as expansive as the "dark forest" (no plot spoiler!), flat characters and telling-not-showing are not bad choices for writing style. The humankind can be as insignificant or dull for this context. Book 3 is where it all comes together. Pretty insane!

hackuser 10y ago

I read the English translation and felt the writing ranged from adequate to tedious, and conveyed little beyond the literal meaning of the words. Certainly some was due to skill composing English, which I assume is due to the translator. But at times there were long, dull tangents, especially (IIRC) into personal histories of characters, that had no impact on the story. I started skipping paragraphs and pages, and it took an effort to reach the end. The Cultural Revolution scenes at the beginning, however, were powerful and left a deep impression. After that, I picked up a book by Nadine Gordimer, the Nobel Prize winning author from South Africa. What a relief and pleasure - both books used the same language but entirely differently, hers was crafted so beautifully and with so much more meaning in the same number of characters. Tom Stoppard (whose embrace of serious science should make him HN's favorite playwright - for example, one famous play turns on the Second Law of Thermodynamics), describes the difference between the highly skilled and everyday writer in his play, The Real Thing: HENRY [holding a cricket bat]: Shut up and listen. This thing here, which looks like a wooden club, is actually several pieces of particular wood cunningly put together in a certain way so that the whole thing is sprung, like a dance floor. It’s for hitting cricket balls with. If you get it right, the cricket ball will travel two hundred yards in four seconds, and all you’ve done is give it a knock like knocking the top off a bottle of stout, and it makes a noise like a trout taking a fly... (He clucks his tongue to make the noise.) What we’re trying to do is to write cricket bats, so that when we throw up an idea and give it a little knock, it might... travel... (He clucks his tongue again and picks up the script.) Now, what we’ve got here is a lump of wood of roughly the same shape trying to be a cricket bat, and if you hit a ball with it, the ball will travel about ten feet and you will drop the bat and dance about shouting ‘Ouch!’ with your hands stuck into your armpits. (indicating the cricket bat) This isn’t better because someone says it’s better, or because there’s a conspiracy by the MCC to keep cudgels out of Lords. It’s better because it’s better. You don’t believe me, so I suggest you go out to bat with this [hack script] and see how you get on. ‘You’re a strange boy, Billy, how old are you?’ ‘Twenty, but I’ve lived more than you’ll ever live.’ Ooh, ouch! He drops the script and hops about with his hands in his armpits ... ‘Ouch!’

vorg 10y ago
> The Cultural Revolution scenes at the beginning, however, were powerful and left a deep impression I guess they're put at the beginning in the English translation to achieve that "Here's a foreign culture" effect. The Chinese language edition orders the chapters differently, so that those first 3 chapters on the Cultural revolution come in the middle of chapter 9 when Wang Miao talks to the astrophysicist. The Chinese edition more clearly unfolds the events as they're found out by certain main characters. The Jackie Chan movie "Who am I?" film was similarly butchered for Western audiences. The Asian edition has his character waking up with amnesia in Africa, and we spend the movie identifying with him as he finds out how he got there, via memories returning and clues. The American edition, however, begins by showing all the forgotten memories, taking away the mystery for the viewer.

rebuilder 10y ago

I found it hard to get into, as well. I had this feeling of distance, like I was reading a parable that I'm unable to understand. Or like the writing style was too unfamiliar an jarring, yet perhaps entirely acceptable with acclimatization. I'm not sure I can say it wasn't a good book on these grounds, I've had similar issues with older literature from western cultures as well.

jombiezebus 10y ago

I'm told from a Chinese source that while the concepts of The Three Body Problem are good, the writing style is considered terrible even in Chinese.

bsidb 10y ago
I am a chinese reader and the writing style of Cixin Liu in Chinese is just so-so. Not that terrible and is enough for science fiction but is not good.

aaron695 10y ago

I saw a level of immaturity of thought. I stereotyped that to China being behind still scientifically. They don't yet culturally have a scientific mind. But it was an OK read I thought.