8 ms·
I'm halfway through The Three Body Problem, a science fiction novel by Chinese author Cixin Liu. The apparent irrationality of three-body orbits is central to t
by ccleve 9y ago
I'm halfway through The Three Body Problem, a science fiction novel by Chinese author Cixin Liu. The apparent irrationality of three-body orbits is central to the story. So far, it's excellent, both as science fiction and as social commentary on contemporary China.
- zem 9y agoamazing series! book 2 is probably the most mindblowing sf novel i've read since brin's "startide rising"
- sova 9y agoHave you read Nexus yet?
- ChuckMcM 9y agoThat would be more literally mind blowing :-) but I can heartily recommend it.
- westoncb 9y agoI'd second this recommendation: Nexus is one of the most interesting and entertaining sci-fi novels I've read in recent years. I'd heard the sequel was not so good—anyone have an opinion?
- photojosh 9y agoI loved the whole trilogy, but that may very well be because I just love the concepts in the story.
- zem 9y agoyes, and i liked it, but it wasn't nearly as stunning as the three body trilogy was.
- shpx 9y ago(minor spoiler) in my opinion, any book that violates the theory of relativity is not science fiction, it's a fantasy novel set in "space". You can't transmit information faster than light using quantum entanglement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Quantum_mech...
- ericjang 9y agoMaybe the laws of our math and physics are not invariant to space and time :)
- shpx 9y agoSpecial relativity is a fact. It is literally how the universe works. I don't know what else to say. There's no debate, it's a certainty that you cannot transmit information faster than light. Space and Time in Special Relativity is 240 pages, and you only really need to read like half of them. Maybe gravity doesn't exist on the sun. Maybe electrons attract in the Sahara desert. This is what you're suggesting. Authors are making a common mistake, and you're justifying it. The point of science fiction (at least hard scifi[0][1]) is to predict the future given some assumptions or premise like "we can control individual neurons"[2] or "there's life on a neutron star"[3] or "the moon exploded"[4] or "message from outer space"[5]. You get some outlandish sounding ideas that readers can consider seriously because the author genuinely thought them through. Ideas that don't respect relativity are useless. It's like writing fiction about Napoleon with walkie-talkies. It doesn't make sense, you could (probably) do much better than Napoleonic tactics with a walkie-talkie. A military tactic in space that relies on instant communication is a useless idea. Plus I just plain think it would've made a better story if they had to strategize around the speed of light. (spoiler) to be fair, The Three Body Problem almost did it right, their ships travel at non-relativistic speeds, and the first 3 messages take 5 years to transmit. But I didn't bother reading past the first book after the quantum entanglement mistake on the last few pages. Maybe I'm getting elitist. The hard/soft scifi thing is an old conversation. I understand that the social commentary is a big aspect of some books, just don't call them science fiction. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15462327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15462327 [1] https://www.google.ca/search?q=three+body+problem+"hard+science+fiction" https://www.google.ca/search?q=three+body+problem+"hard+scie... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nexus_Trilogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nexus_Trilogy [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_Egg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_Egg [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveneves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveneves [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Master%27s_Voice_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Master%27s_Voice_(novel) https://books.google.ca/books/about/Space_and_Time_in_Special_Relativity.html?id=sCW2AAAAIAAJ https://books.google.ca/books/about/Space_and_Time_in_Specia... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8937197 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8937197 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7888847 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7888847 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4588938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4588938
- Cyph0n 9y agoOne of the best hard sci-fi series I've ever read, hands down.
- Jun8 9y agoAnd I'm halfway through Death's End (the third volume in the series). I didn't think this was possible but I can tell you that it gets much.
- pretendscholar 9y agomuch what? Don't leave me hanging.
- thatcherc 9y ago'Bigger' is the word I would use. The scope of the story is incredible
- algorithmsRcool 9y agoYeah, that is one way of putting it. Liu escalates the arms race between races in the last third of the book so far that i was genuinely shocked and mildly unnerved at the implications of it. The trilogy really should have been called "The Dark Forest" because that is precisely what is described therein.
- once_inc 9y agoThe trilogy is actually named "Remembrance of Earth's Past". That name is apt enough, though a bit bland. The Dark Forest is a pretty good concept though, and much more important to the story than the three body problem.
- once_inc 9y agoI recently described the scope as an exponential function, which is really the only acceptable way of doing justice to the book.
- xpil 9y agoI've read it a couple of months ago. Interesting idea but terrible book overall. Very naïve. Will definitely not read the second part.
- once_inc 9y agoPart two and part three are both exceedingly more brilliant. Very much advise you to read them.
- ryanjodonnell 9y agoBooks 2/3 are waaaay better! You’re missing out
- coldtea 9y agoI, for one, found it a masterpiece.
- mercer 9y agoCould you elaborate? I usually read positive stuff about this book, so I'm very curious to hear diverging views.
- dmitriid 9y agoIt's a brilliant trilogy in a shitty packaging. From a personal recommendation elsewhere: Pros: - the premise is good - many of the plot twists are good or brilliant - many problems described are obvious in hindsight, but something you would never think about Cons: - Writing is uneven. Some parts you sail through, some parts make you physically cringe - Many (too many) parts are "here's a scientific theory I learned about, let me give you a brief Wikipedia-style description. (Contrast with Blindsight where explanation of theories used is done in the appendix to the book, and is an interesting read on its own) - No person in the history of this world has ever spoken like characters in the book. Dialogs are just people explaining things to each other - Some things are introduced "just because". Otherwise the crises in the book couldn't be solved (e.g. it's assumed that the book talks about now and suddenly there are advanced nanomaterials and working hibernation) All in all: It's a very solid "hard" science fiction book which could be absolutely brilliant. But it's greatness is greatly reduced by the language and structure.
- coldtea 9y ago>Many (too many) parts are "here's a scientific theory I learned about, let me give you a brief Wikipedia-style description. So? Doesn't sound that different from 90% of classic sci-fi, especially Asimov. >- No person in the history of this world has ever spoken like characters in the book. Dialogs are just people explaining things to each other Ditto.
- Armisael16 9y ago> So? Doesn't sound that different from 90% of classic sci-fi, especially Asimov. That doesn’t make it good writing.
- coldtea 9y agoNo, but it means it can still be good sci-fi. Sci-fi was never about the writing, in the way hi-brow literature was. Heck, it started from pulp magazines aimed at teenagers.
- jcoffland 9y agoWhat do you prefer?