4 ms·

I actually gave up on Banks’s The Player of Games a couple of days ago. Maybe I didn’t give it enough of a chance, but I just couldn’t get interested.

AndrewStephens 8y ago
The Player of Games is sort of Banks-lite. If you didn't like that then you are not going to get into his other stuff. Personally I like his novel but I can understand why others don't - he has a certain style and way of constructing plots that either grabs you of leaves you bored. There are certainly many books that I struggled through and wished I didn't, but there are others that I thought I was going to hate long past the 50 page mark that brought me around in the end. But 50 pages is enough to know that a book is _terrible_.
sulam 8y ago
Player of Games is the book I recommend to people to know if they'll like all of his books. It's kind of a set piece for all of them. So I can say with some confidence that you probably won't like many of his books.
- monochromatic 8y ago
  I thought Consider Phlebas was pretty good. Maybe I should give this one more of a chance.
  - pavel_lishin 8y ago
    I think Consider Phlebas was more of a generic action/adventure yarn, whereas Player of Games is a good tour of The Culture (by contrasting it with Azad). I read Consider Phlebas first and enjoyed the hell out of it, but definitely think that Player of Games is, in 90% of situations, is the "correct" introduction novel.
    - discardable_dan 8y ago
      I couldn't get into Consider Phlebas---I found the 'protagonist' too deeply flawed and unlikable. Is it likely I'll enjoy his other work in light of this?
      - pavel_lishin 8y ago
        If your only issue was the unlikeable "antihero" protagonist, then maybe? Most of his characters tend to be, at best, morally ambiguous. I know I said so in the previous comment, but Player of Games isn't too bad - the protagonist isn't really a good guy, but he's also not an amoral killer-for-hire. Excession might be a better bet, although a lot of the novel basically consists of reading emails between characters. I'm pretty sure you'd hate Use of Weapons.

AndrewStephens 8y ago

The Player of Games is sort of Banks-lite. If you didn't like that then you are not going to get into his other stuff. Personally I like his novel but I can understand why others don't - he has a certain style and way of constructing plots that either grabs you of leaves you bored. There are certainly many books that I struggled through and wished I didn't, but there are others that I thought I was going to hate long past the 50 page mark that brought me around in the end. But 50 pages is enough to know that a book is _terrible_.

sulam 8y ago

Player of Games is the book I recommend to people to know if they'll like all of his books. It's kind of a set piece for all of them. So I can say with some confidence that you probably won't like many of his books.

monochromatic 8y ago
I thought Consider Phlebas was pretty good. Maybe I should give this one more of a chance.
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  I think Consider Phlebas was more of a generic action/adventure yarn, whereas Player of Games is a good tour of The Culture (by contrasting it with Azad). I read Consider Phlebas first and enjoyed the hell out of it, but definitely think that Player of Games is, in 90% of situations, is the "correct" introduction novel.
  - discardable_dan 8y ago
    I couldn't get into Consider Phlebas---I found the 'protagonist' too deeply flawed and unlikable. Is it likely I'll enjoy his other work in light of this?
    - pavel_lishin 8y ago
      If your only issue was the unlikeable "antihero" protagonist, then maybe? Most of his characters tend to be, at best, morally ambiguous. I know I said so in the previous comment, but Player of Games isn't too bad - the protagonist isn't really a good guy, but he's also not an amoral killer-for-hire. Excession might be a better bet, although a lot of the novel basically consists of reading emails between characters. I'm pretty sure you'd hate Use of Weapons.