4 ms·

I found it similar in style to the Foundation trilogy; trying to be very scientific but with very weak characters.

by esarbe 5y ago

lmm 5y ago
But the science was pure nonsense too. And not interesting nonsense. The videogame works by magic. The alien "protons" work by magic. The alien biology works by magic. It's not "what would the logical consequences be if the universe worked like this", it's just a bunch of stuff, tedious nonsense that means nothing. I hate the book (and while the people who told me it got better fooled me once, I'm certainly not going to read the other two and let them fool me twice) and can't understand where all the praise comes from.
- dobladov 5y ago
  In my opinion the first book is a mere introduction to what happens in the second one were really many opened questions and strategies take place.
  - EdwardDiego 5y ago
    Aye, Liu Cixin's biggest impact on speculative fiction thought was the Dark Forest's answer to Fermi's Paradox.
    - rsynnott 5y ago
      I'm not sure that it was that original. Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space had a pretty similar answer (everyone's staying quiet because Bad Things happen if you don't) and he acknowledges influence from Gregory Benford's stuff, say. The explicit game theory approach in the Three Body Problem was kind of new, I suppose.
  - hhmc 5y ago
    The ideas are far from complex enough to require people to suffer through the first book, just to get the necessary context. I think there's probably a decent short story to be extracted from the key idea in the second book.
    - dobladov 5y ago
      Is not a science book, what is the level of complexity needed for a book to be interesting?, In my opinion, just with the first book that is quite simple since the title gives you the main topic, made my mind wonder about many of the topics, like how another civilization adapts to the hardships of their environment, the naivety of humanity on contacting aliens, the cult behaviour that comes from it. At no point it felt for me like a waste of time, I agree most of the characters are bland, but the questions opened in the book are all societal, not about the individuals themselves.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  > can't understand where all the praise comes from. Probably from the other two. I've read them all one after the other, so when I talk about 3BP, I have trouble separating the book from the larger trilogy. > The videogame works by magic. What was magical about it? I don't remember anything especially weird here. > The alien "protons" work by magic. This was explained in detail (modulo sci-fi magic in the explanation), but I'm not sure if in 3BP or in Dark Forest. Other major tech advantages of the aliens were also explained in the latter books.
  - lmm 5y ago
    > What was magical about it? I don't remember anything especially weird here. IIRC the general tech level was essentially the recent past, but the technology to support this full-body VR game existed with no other consequences. And I think there was also an implication that it was multiplayer with another star system? (again, through unexplained technology with no other consequences).
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      As far as I remember (might be wrong, I don't have the book handy), the game was written by humans from the cult that formed around the first, lightspeed-bound, communication with aliens, and it was essentially "artist's impression" of the Trisolarians. The game was, IIRC, a recruiting tool for the cult.
- Lewton 5y ago
  The FTL communication the aliens used in the first book left a really sour taste in my mouth, especially because the plot could easily have worked without it
- ptx 5y ago
  The videogame parts were tedious (I can't see the point of describing in detail the appearance and behavior of virtual worlds, since they can be programmed to behave in arbitrary ways that are most likely meaningless) - but the second book is amazing, IMHO.
TeMPOraL 5y ago
Interesting to see you mentioning Foundation trilogy as an analogue, and in context of characters, with what I understand as an implication that in both cases, "weak characters" were their negative sides. I agree with comparison to Foundation, in that both books were not about characters at all, and that was a feature, not a bug. With Foundation in particular, I'm perplexed when I see it being criticized for lack of character depth, given that the books literally beat the reader over their head with multiple levels of reminders that the books are about large forces shaping societies, forces infinitely greater than individuals, and the only special thing about particular characters is that they happened to be at the right place and time when large changes happened[0]. -- [0] - The Mule aside, but (rot13 - spoilers from "Second Foundation") juvyr gur Zhyr qvq chfu uvfgbel va na hacerqvpgnoyr qverpgvba ol iveghr bs uvf vaqvivqhny fcrpvnyarff, nsgre uvf qrngu, tnynpgvp pvivyvmngvbaf erghearq gb gurve abezny ribyhgvba. Rira gur Frpbaq Sbhaqngvba qvqa'g vasyhrapr guvatf zhpu gb guvf cbvag, naq qvqa'g vasyhrapr gurz zhpu cnfg gung cbvag.
- technofiend 5y ago
  Upon review, Asimov had criticism for his plotting: as quoted on geek.com: In the author’s note for Foundation’s Edge, he says that, upon re-reading his earlier work, “I kept waiting for something to happen, and nothing ever did. All three volumes, all the nearly quarter of a million words, consisted of thoughts and of conversations. No action. No physical suspense… each book in the trilogy had at least two stories and lacked unity.”
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    That's true. I've seen this quote before. But it's fair - authors are people too, their views and styles evolve. It's worth remembering that Foundation's Edge was published 30 years after the trilogy. But it's also true that author's opinions after the fact have limited bearing on the work. People like me, who like the Trilogy as they read it, like it for what it is. I didn't mention Foundation's Edge because, beyond being a bit more action and suspense-packed, it departs a bit from the "no special individuals" rule. Incidentally, it's not the protagonist that's special in my opinion. Spoilers (rot13) follow: Juvyr gur punenpgref va gur obbx ercrngrqyl zragvba Tbyna Gerivmr'f fcrpvny tvsgf, vg'f erirnyrq gung ur'f bayl fcrpvny va gur Naguebcvp Cevapvcyr'f frafr: ur jnf gur crefba gung unccrarq gb or gur orfg nybat zrgevpf Tnvn jnf vagrerfgrq va, fb ur tbg envyebnqrq vagb orvat n cvibgny punenpgre. Vg'f Tnvn gung'f gur fcrpvny bar, orpnhfr vg'f orra qbvat gur fryrpgvat.

I found it similar in style to the Foundation trilogy; trying to be very scientific but with very weak characters.

by esarbe 5y ago

I found it similar in style to the Foundation trilogy; trying to be very scientific but with very weak characters.

lmm 5y ago

But the science was pure nonsense too. And not interesting nonsense. The videogame works by magic. The alien "protons" work by magic. The alien biology works by magic. It's not "what would the logical consequences be if the universe worked like this", it's just a bunch of stuff, tedious nonsense that means nothing. I hate the book (and while the people who told me it got better fooled me once, I'm certainly not going to read the other two and let them fool me twice) and can't understand where all the praise comes from.

dobladov 5y ago
In my opinion the first book is a mere introduction to what happens in the second one were really many opened questions and strategies take place.
- EdwardDiego 5y ago
  Aye, Liu Cixin's biggest impact on speculative fiction thought was the Dark Forest's answer to Fermi's Paradox.
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    I'm not sure that it was that original. Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space had a pretty similar answer (everyone's staying quiet because Bad Things happen if you don't) and he acknowledges influence from Gregory Benford's stuff, say. The explicit game theory approach in the Three Body Problem was kind of new, I suppose.
- hhmc 5y ago
  The ideas are far from complex enough to require people to suffer through the first book, just to get the necessary context. I think there's probably a decent short story to be extracted from the key idea in the second book.
  - dobladov 5y ago
    Is not a science book, what is the level of complexity needed for a book to be interesting?, In my opinion, just with the first book that is quite simple since the title gives you the main topic, made my mind wonder about many of the topics, like how another civilization adapts to the hardships of their environment, the naivety of humanity on contacting aliens, the cult behaviour that comes from it. At no point it felt for me like a waste of time, I agree most of the characters are bland, but the questions opened in the book are all societal, not about the individuals themselves.
TeMPOraL 5y ago
> can't understand where all the praise comes from. Probably from the other two. I've read them all one after the other, so when I talk about 3BP, I have trouble separating the book from the larger trilogy. > The videogame works by magic. What was magical about it? I don't remember anything especially weird here. > The alien "protons" work by magic. This was explained in detail (modulo sci-fi magic in the explanation), but I'm not sure if in 3BP or in Dark Forest. Other major tech advantages of the aliens were also explained in the latter books.
- lmm 5y ago
  > What was magical about it? I don't remember anything especially weird here. IIRC the general tech level was essentially the recent past, but the technology to support this full-body VR game existed with no other consequences. And I think there was also an implication that it was multiplayer with another star system? (again, through unexplained technology with no other consequences).
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    As far as I remember (might be wrong, I don't have the book handy), the game was written by humans from the cult that formed around the first, lightspeed-bound, communication with aliens, and it was essentially "artist's impression" of the Trisolarians. The game was, IIRC, a recruiting tool for the cult.
Lewton 5y ago
The FTL communication the aliens used in the first book left a really sour taste in my mouth, especially because the plot could easily have worked without it
ptx 5y ago
The videogame parts were tedious (I can't see the point of describing in detail the appearance and behavior of virtual worlds, since they can be programmed to behave in arbitrary ways that are most likely meaningless) - but the second book is amazing, IMHO.

TeMPOraL 5y ago

Interesting to see you mentioning Foundation trilogy as an analogue, and in context of characters, with what I understand as an implication that in both cases, "weak characters" were their negative sides. I agree with comparison to Foundation, in that both books were not about characters at all, and that was a feature, not a bug. With Foundation in particular, I'm perplexed when I see it being criticized for lack of character depth, given that the books literally beat the reader over their head with multiple levels of reminders that the books are about large forces shaping societies, forces infinitely greater than individuals, and the only special thing about particular characters is that they happened to be at the right place and time when large changes happened[0]. -- [0] - The Mule aside, but (rot13 - spoilers from "Second Foundation") juvyr gur Zhyr qvq chfu uvfgbel va na hacerqvpgnoyr qverpgvba ol iveghr bs uvf vaqvivqhny fcrpvnyarff, nsgre uvf qrngu, tnynpgvp pvivyvmngvbaf erghearq gb gurve abezny ribyhgvba. Rira gur Frpbaq Sbhaqngvba qvqa'g vasyhrapr guvatf zhpu gb guvf cbvag, naq qvqa'g vasyhrapr gurz zhpu cnfg gung cbvag.

technofiend 5y ago
Upon review, Asimov had criticism for his plotting: as quoted on geek.com: In the author’s note for Foundation’s Edge, he says that, upon re-reading his earlier work, “I kept waiting for something to happen, and nothing ever did. All three volumes, all the nearly quarter of a million words, consisted of thoughts and of conversations. No action. No physical suspense… each book in the trilogy had at least two stories and lacked unity.”
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  That's true. I've seen this quote before. But it's fair - authors are people too, their views and styles evolve. It's worth remembering that Foundation's Edge was published 30 years after the trilogy. But it's also true that author's opinions after the fact have limited bearing on the work. People like me, who like the Trilogy as they read it, like it for what it is. I didn't mention Foundation's Edge because, beyond being a bit more action and suspense-packed, it departs a bit from the "no special individuals" rule. Incidentally, it's not the protagonist that's special in my opinion. Spoilers (rot13) follow: Juvyr gur punenpgref va gur obbx ercrngrqyl zragvba Tbyna Gerivmr'f fcrpvny tvsgf, vg'f erirnyrq gung ur'f bayl fcrpvny va gur Naguebcvp Cevapvcyr'f frafr: ur jnf gur crefba gung unccrarq gb or gur orfg nybat zrgevpf Tnvn jnf vagrerfgrq va, fb ur tbg envyebnqrq vagb orvat n cvibgny punenpgre. Vg'f Tnvn gung'f gur fcrpvny bar, orpnhfr vg'f orra qbvat gur fryrpgvat.