6 ms·

It's been pointed out before by smarter people than me. But the biggest implausibility of the book (besides the submarines) is the modelling of the moon fragmen

It's been pointed out before by smarter people than me. But the biggest implausibility of the book (besides the submarines) is the modelling of the moon fragments as rigid, brittle bodies. Large objects are not rigid.

mro_name 5y ago
> Large objects are not rigid. I like that a lot.
gmuslera 5y ago
I see it as 3 books, the first two with the race towards saving mankind from extinction, and the third one the future after 5000 years. No matter how implausible you find that the moon blow up and the fragments did a dance that ended 2 years later, but the third part was a solid block of suspension of disbelief, specially for the genetic and psychological/sociological aspects of it. I don't know, if the initial phrase was "the moon grow legs and walked through the sky", it would had been more plausible than the third part of that book.
Vecr 5y ago
The whole idea of the book is really weird in general. It feels like a writing exercise in taking something utterly implausible and putting enough "scientific" details in it that people take it seriously. What's with the multiple human subspecies thing as well?
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  That is more-or-less Stephenson's schtick. Snow Crash is metaverse + extreme libertarianism + software/mind virus. Diamond Age is nanotechnolgy + neovictorianism + clades. Cryptonomicon is digital currency (not quite blockchain, but close), plus some WWII stuff. The Baroque Cycle is "how did modern finance get invented* plus seggsytymes. Anatham is "philosophy, protractors, and starships, but medaeval-like". His earlier works (Big U, Zodiak, and the two he wrote with his uncle) also centre around one core technological concept, interacting with society, business, politics, etc. But the gist is "take some idea and run with it, see where it goes".
  - arethuza 5y ago
    I rather liked the pivot in the last book in the The Baroque Cycle universe where you can argue that the whole series really isn't about as anything as mundane as finance.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      It's been a few years. Which pivot?
      - arethuza 5y ago
        The explanation for immortal people (Enoch Root) and magical gold that is given in Fall; or, Dodge in Hell.
        dredmorbius 5y ago
        I'm don't consider Root's remarkable persistance across multiple novels a central theme. It's a common one (as in "shared").
        arethuza 5y ago
        Well, it's always been a strange component of the novels and the final book wraps it up rather nicely IMHO - whether this was planned from the start I don't know.
  - greedo 5y ago
    If you read the Baroque Cycle and came away with that as it's main theme, I'm shocked. If anything it's more of a pseudo-history for science in general. And to dismiss it and his other works as "take some idea and run with it" is to dismiss not only his work, but other well-written sci-fi. Would you call Ringworld "dudes built a ring around a sun but entropy kicked in? Ender's Game, "just another Campbellian archetype?"
    - 5y ago
- narrator 5y ago
  The second part of the book was a bit hard to take seriously. The whole "sonar tax law" thing in particular and its painfully awkward engagement with racial issues.
- skywal_l 5y ago
  But isn't it what science fiction is? You get science sure, but with a little bit of fiction also. You read Ringworld or Redemption Ark, or any popular science fiction and you will read many implausible things. The ratio of science to fiction determine the type of science fiction you get. Hard sci-fi, a la Arthur C. Clarke tends more toward the science bit while Ursula K. Leguin is more fiction than science. In the end, what we look for in Sci-Fi, I believe, is the "What if" thing. It lets you explore ideas and concepts that you normally wouldn't, using some amount of "suspension of disbelief".
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    I think seveneves lives in a kind of uncanny valley of plausibility. When I read it, it seemed to be saying, "what if real life, but the moon blew up?" But it's actually quite a bit less realistic than that. With space operas, you kinda know what you're getting. This isn't a criticism of the book. The second half was pretty unpleasant but I enjoyed the first part.
    - daveslash 5y ago
      I think you hit it on the head. As you said, with a Space Opera, you know what you're getting and you can easily suspend belief when needed. I would include Dune in this category to a large extend. With Hard SciFi, your "engineering brain" is turned only fully and you enjoy thinking through the actual plausibility of things; I'd include the Martian in that category. I didn't get far in Seveneves, but what I read felt to be uncomfortably in-between. I couldn't tell if I needed to suspend disbelief and look for the less technical meaning, or if I should be having fun thinking about the science/engineering plausibility. Uncanny valley is a good description to me. I think Stephenson found an interesting in between. Not a criticism of the book; just an observation/assessment.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
    >> But isn't it what science fiction is? You get science sure, but with a little bit of fiction also. Historically, most of science fiction has been the opposite: 80% fiction and 20% "science" which usually means speculation about future technologies, without going into the details of how they could be realised. Realistic treatises of future scientific or technological breakthroughs are, to my experience (long time fan) absent from science fiction which is, after all, a genre of popular literature meant primarily for entertainment. There is a trend of "hard" science fiction (like the Stephenson novel, which I haven't read) but since it's still just some guy (or broad) writing stuff in freeform language (rather than maths) without any attempt at formal definitions, or to prove theoretical results and test them empirically, one can only make very weak claims about "realism". To boil it down to plain English: if you're looking for science, look at scientific publications, not science fiction publications.
rbanffy 5y ago
> But the biggest implausibility of the book I'd start with the Moon blowing up for no reason. That's a biggie. OTOH, I also enjoyed Moonbase Alpha as a kid and still love the Eagle transporter design (even though, now, as an adult engineer, I recognize its shortcomings).
- DrBazza 5y ago
  > I'd start with the Moon blowing up for no reason. That's a biggie. Further to that, I'd start with the precise, huge, amount of energy required to "blow up" the Moon into exactly 7 pieces.
- skywal_l 5y ago
  There are many examples of science fiction novels which starts with unexplained events. Nobody knows where the Rama object in "Rendez-Vous With Rama" comes from. Or where does the "Black Cloud" comes from in Fred Hoyle's novel. For me this is not implausible, it is just unexplained. Something can be considered implausible when, once everything is explained, it doesn't hold.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    > There are many examples of science fiction novels which starts with unexplained events Unexplained is one thing, but something that violates the laws of physics requires some extra suspension of disbelief.

mro_name 5y ago

> Large objects are not rigid. I like that a lot.

gmuslera 5y ago

I see it as 3 books, the first two with the race towards saving mankind from extinction, and the third one the future after 5000 years. No matter how implausible you find that the moon blow up and the fragments did a dance that ended 2 years later, but the third part was a solid block of suspension of disbelief, specially for the genetic and psychological/sociological aspects of it. I don't know, if the initial phrase was "the moon grow legs and walked through the sky", it would had been more plausible than the third part of that book.

Vecr 5y ago

The whole idea of the book is really weird in general. It feels like a writing exercise in taking something utterly implausible and putting enough "scientific" details in it that people take it seriously. What's with the multiple human subspecies thing as well?

dredmorbius 5y ago
That is more-or-less Stephenson's schtick. Snow Crash is metaverse + extreme libertarianism + software/mind virus. Diamond Age is nanotechnolgy + neovictorianism + clades. Cryptonomicon is digital currency (not quite blockchain, but close), plus some WWII stuff. The Baroque Cycle is "how did modern finance get invented* plus seggsytymes. Anatham is "philosophy, protractors, and starships, but medaeval-like". His earlier works (Big U, Zodiak, and the two he wrote with his uncle) also centre around one core technological concept, interacting with society, business, politics, etc. But the gist is "take some idea and run with it, see where it goes".
- arethuza 5y ago
  I rather liked the pivot in the last book in the The Baroque Cycle universe where you can argue that the whole series really isn't about as anything as mundane as finance.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    It's been a few years. Which pivot?
    - arethuza 5y ago
      The explanation for immortal people (Enoch Root) and magical gold that is given in Fall; or, Dodge in Hell.
      - dredmorbius 5y ago
        I'm don't consider Root's remarkable persistance across multiple novels a central theme. It's a common one (as in "shared").
        arethuza 5y ago
        Well, it's always been a strange component of the novels and the final book wraps it up rather nicely IMHO - whether this was planned from the start I don't know.
- greedo 5y ago
  If you read the Baroque Cycle and came away with that as it's main theme, I'm shocked. If anything it's more of a pseudo-history for science in general. And to dismiss it and his other works as "take some idea and run with it" is to dismiss not only his work, but other well-written sci-fi. Would you call Ringworld "dudes built a ring around a sun but entropy kicked in? Ender's Game, "just another Campbellian archetype?"
  - 5y ago
narrator 5y ago
The second part of the book was a bit hard to take seriously. The whole "sonar tax law" thing in particular and its painfully awkward engagement with racial issues.
skywal_l 5y ago
But isn't it what science fiction is? You get science sure, but with a little bit of fiction also. You read Ringworld or Redemption Ark, or any popular science fiction and you will read many implausible things. The ratio of science to fiction determine the type of science fiction you get. Hard sci-fi, a la Arthur C. Clarke tends more toward the science bit while Ursula K. Leguin is more fiction than science. In the end, what we look for in Sci-Fi, I believe, is the "What if" thing. It lets you explore ideas and concepts that you normally wouldn't, using some amount of "suspension of disbelief".
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  I think seveneves lives in a kind of uncanny valley of plausibility. When I read it, it seemed to be saying, "what if real life, but the moon blew up?" But it's actually quite a bit less realistic than that. With space operas, you kinda know what you're getting. This isn't a criticism of the book. The second half was pretty unpleasant but I enjoyed the first part.
  - daveslash 5y ago
    I think you hit it on the head. As you said, with a Space Opera, you know what you're getting and you can easily suspend belief when needed. I would include Dune in this category to a large extend. With Hard SciFi, your "engineering brain" is turned only fully and you enjoy thinking through the actual plausibility of things; I'd include the Martian in that category. I didn't get far in Seveneves, but what I read felt to be uncomfortably in-between. I couldn't tell if I needed to suspend disbelief and look for the less technical meaning, or if I should be having fun thinking about the science/engineering plausibility. Uncanny valley is a good description to me. I think Stephenson found an interesting in between. Not a criticism of the book; just an observation/assessment.
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  >> But isn't it what science fiction is? You get science sure, but with a little bit of fiction also. Historically, most of science fiction has been the opposite: 80% fiction and 20% "science" which usually means speculation about future technologies, without going into the details of how they could be realised. Realistic treatises of future scientific or technological breakthroughs are, to my experience (long time fan) absent from science fiction which is, after all, a genre of popular literature meant primarily for entertainment. There is a trend of "hard" science fiction (like the Stephenson novel, which I haven't read) but since it's still just some guy (or broad) writing stuff in freeform language (rather than maths) without any attempt at formal definitions, or to prove theoretical results and test them empirically, one can only make very weak claims about "realism". To boil it down to plain English: if you're looking for science, look at scientific publications, not science fiction publications.

rbanffy 5y ago

> But the biggest implausibility of the book I'd start with the Moon blowing up for no reason. That's a biggie. OTOH, I also enjoyed Moonbase Alpha as a kid and still love the Eagle transporter design (even though, now, as an adult engineer, I recognize its shortcomings).

DrBazza 5y ago
> I'd start with the Moon blowing up for no reason. That's a biggie. Further to that, I'd start with the precise, huge, amount of energy required to "blow up" the Moon into exactly 7 pieces.
skywal_l 5y ago
There are many examples of science fiction novels which starts with unexplained events. Nobody knows where the Rama object in "Rendez-Vous With Rama" comes from. Or where does the "Black Cloud" comes from in Fred Hoyle's novel. For me this is not implausible, it is just unexplained. Something can be considered implausible when, once everything is explained, it doesn't hold.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  > There are many examples of science fiction novels which starts with unexplained events Unexplained is one thing, but something that violates the laws of physics requires some extra suspension of disbelief.