5 ms·
While we're talking spiders, here's a book recommendation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Time_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Time
by bentcorner 2y ago
While we're talking spiders, here's a book recommendation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Time_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Time_(novel) (it's a fantastic novel, if you have any interest at all don't spoil it for yourself)
- riffraff 2y agoI second this, I cannot recommend this enough. The sequels are also interesting, but not so much.
- throwanem 2y agoStrong second.
- jasonkester 2y agoYeah, it’s got a bit of that “sci-fi books that HN recommends “ syndrome in that it’s a cool idea for a book but not actually a good book. More interesting to have described to you by someone who has read it than to read. But probably worth forcing your way through the poor writing, character building and storytelling to get those cool ideas out of it. It’s a good book to have read, but not to read, I guess. Sadly, the second one squanders an even more interesting concept, and isn’t worth reading.
- hakfoo 2y agoI found the pacing a bit difficult, like they got 500 pages in and realized "okay, we've gotta wrap this up in a hurry".
- thaumasiotes 2y ago> it’s a cool idea for a book but not actually a good book This was my impression of K. J. Parker's work. (I read the Scavenger trilogy of his.) Intricate idea, uninteresting writing.
- shirleyquirk 2y agoI’m so glad to hear you say that, i was carrying it around while slogging through it and everyone else who saw exclaimed how good they’d heard it was. I do think the sequel is better, I can suspend my disbelief more and found parts of it honestly thrilling
- kmarc 2y agoI read it before I became a daily reader of HN. I always thought and still think it's a great book. It may miss some writer's instruments to make it "a good book" in the classical sense, but to me it wasn't missing at all. If anyone here neglects this book due to being a "sci-fi booksthat HN recommends", please give it a try!
- jimmydddd 2y agoI was a huge Asimov fan as a kid. Re-reading some of my favorites, I noticed they lacked a lot of classical "good book" elements. But they are still great in their own way.
- hluska 2y agoThat’s a whole lot of words to shit on a book that someone else wrote. It’s not a very good look. I mean, yes you’re smart, but have some class.
- adammarples 2y agoNot at all, that's a valuable review for me
- autoexec 2y ago> Yeah, it’s got a bit of that “sci-fi books that HN recommends “ syndrome in that it’s a cool idea for a book but not actually a good book. Since you seem to have a higher bar than many, what are some examples of sci-fi books that you think are actually good books?
- ilamparithi 2y agoDidn't work for me as well. Mainly pacing and writing style. Didn't finish the book.
- hultner 2y agoI have not read this but I can recommend Vernor Vinges book “A Deepness of the Sky” on a similar theme. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Deepness_in_the_Sky https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Deepness_in_the_Sky
- TheMagicHorsey 2y agoI've read both and both are 10/10. But if you use a 100-point scale then Vinge's book is 99/100 and Tchaikovsky's is 95/100.
- hultner 2y agoThen I will put this one on my to read list. I actually re-read the book by Vinge recently after he passed.