4 ms·

> These are good books with some flaws. You should read them. Counter view-point: These are bad books with a few thought provoking ideas that are never explore

by burnte 3y ago

> These are good books with some flaws. You should read them. Counter view-point: These are bad books with a few thought provoking ideas that are never explored, left behind to explore a ridiculous plot full of nonsensical actions taken by paper cutout characters chasing a political goals that also make no sense. Granted I didn't read the third book, but that's because I gave up not halfway through book 2. When I got to the end of book 1, I had no emotional attachment to any of the characters due to the poor writing, but some of the ideas were interesting, so I opened book 2. As it went on it became harder and harder to tolerate the incomprehensible motivations, stilted dialog, and the scope creep of the story, so I read the Wikipedia summary, and promptly realized I was right to stop reading the books. Yes, the end makes you feel tiny, so tiny that it's impossible to connect the start of the books with the ending, plus the way it ends makes you feel like there was no point to anything to start with. In my opinion the only way it could have been worse was if it was all just a dream/snowglobe all along. Nothing is ever resolved, just a few neat ideas sprinkled out with outrageous nonsense, and the stakes keep getting higher and higher until the universe itself is no longer big enough for the ending. I truly think they're bad books, I haven't read anything this bad since Atlas Shrugged. That said, I'm glad that other people enjoy them, and I'm not trying to say people who enjoy them are wrong only that like all art, beauty is in the eye of the reader.

luyu_wu 3y ago
I think some of this is definetly due to lacking translation. The general consensus among fans is also that the first book is the least interesting, while the second and third become far better. IMO this is because the only role of the first book is a general setup with few Sci-Fi elements, of which all are hard!
jnovek 3y ago
I think your criticisms are legit. I think the books are love 'em or hate 'em. Like you I never connected to any of the characters, but the direction of the story and its almost exponential growth in scale was what drew me in. But c'mon, almost nothing is as bad as Atlus Shrugged (aside from maybe The Fountainhead). :-P
- burnte 3y ago
  > But c'mon, almost nothing is as bad as Atlus Shrugged (aside from maybe The Fountainhead). :-P I actually made it through The Fountainhead, but just couldn't make it to the end of Atlas Shrugged. I think The Fountainhead could actually be rescued as a story, but Atlas Shrugged is just a bad political manifesto with some narrative elements thrown in. :D
logicprog 3y ago
>scope creep I think this is the fundamental point where people like you who didn't enjoy the books and people like me who deeply did depart. I thought the unfolding scope of the trilogy felt like a logical, justified progression, in the manner of an escalating conflict. Yes it does escalate quickly, but there is a good reason at each scope level that it needs to expand to the next as the conflict spirals out of control and the technology involved improves. And in general I enjoy when things sort of escalate in scope like that, like Akira for instance. Maybe you prefer books that stay at the same scope the entire time but that's a personal preference. Also I really don't see how the nature of the ending is at all akin to the "it was all a dream" type ending, because it doesn't fundamentally undercut that the things that happened actually did happen, and had consequences. Yes our assumptions about the nature of the fabric of reality are undercut, but not in a way that means that anything that we thought happened didn't actually happen or anything like that, and not in a way that undercuts stakes, if anything the stakes are far greater. And the choice to restart the universe so it can be better again is actually a deeply consequential action with a lot of seeks to it. Likewise I don't see how the larger scope of the later books makes the smaller scope of the earlier ones not meaningful? That's how we got here. And I think more than enough interesting and unique speculative fiction ideas are introduced, and I think they are explored enough, in a grand and stunning enough fashion, to justify the book, even if they aren't perhaps looked into as deeply as you think they should be, despite the paper thin characters with nonsensical motivations. Especially since the actual political chess/information game between the trisolarans and humans is so interesting.

by burnte 3y ago

luyu_wu 3y ago

I think some of this is definetly due to lacking translation. The general consensus among fans is also that the first book is the least interesting, while the second and third become far better. IMO this is because the only role of the first book is a general setup with few Sci-Fi elements, of which all are hard!

jnovek 3y ago

I think your criticisms are legit. I think the books are love 'em or hate 'em. Like you I never connected to any of the characters, but the direction of the story and its almost exponential growth in scale was what drew me in. But c'mon, almost nothing is as bad as Atlus Shrugged (aside from maybe The Fountainhead). :-P

burnte 3y ago
> But c'mon, almost nothing is as bad as Atlus Shrugged (aside from maybe The Fountainhead). :-P I actually made it through The Fountainhead, but just couldn't make it to the end of Atlas Shrugged. I think The Fountainhead could actually be rescued as a story, but Atlas Shrugged is just a bad political manifesto with some narrative elements thrown in. :D

logicprog 3y ago

>scope creep I think this is the fundamental point where people like you who didn't enjoy the books and people like me who deeply did depart. I thought the unfolding scope of the trilogy felt like a logical, justified progression, in the manner of an escalating conflict. Yes it does escalate quickly, but there is a good reason at each scope level that it needs to expand to the next as the conflict spirals out of control and the technology involved improves. And in general I enjoy when things sort of escalate in scope like that, like Akira for instance. Maybe you prefer books that stay at the same scope the entire time but that's a personal preference. Also I really don't see how the nature of the ending is at all akin to the "it was all a dream" type ending, because it doesn't fundamentally undercut that the things that happened actually did happen, and had consequences. Yes our assumptions about the nature of the fabric of reality are undercut, but not in a way that means that anything that we thought happened didn't actually happen or anything like that, and not in a way that undercuts stakes, if anything the stakes are far greater. And the choice to restart the universe so it can be better again is actually a deeply consequential action with a lot of seeks to it. Likewise I don't see how the larger scope of the later books makes the smaller scope of the earlier ones not meaningful? That's how we got here. And I think more than enough interesting and unique speculative fiction ideas are introduced, and I think they are explored enough, in a grand and stunning enough fashion, to justify the book, even if they aren't perhaps looked into as deeply as you think they should be, despite the paper thin characters with nonsensical motivations. Especially since the actual political chess/information game between the trisolarans and humans is so interesting.