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.
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.
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.
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
> 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.
> 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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 think what it all really comes down to is the simple fact that Asimov is not a very good writer. I think he would have been among the first to admit it. He had big ideas and wrote well enough to keep the reader engaged so that he could show them off, but that's about it.
Except for The God's Themselves, which feels like he was channeling a better writer.
It shows up on HN every now and then (though I wouldn't say it's very common). I use it when discussing potential spoilers for books/shows, because HN doesn't have a "spoiler tag".
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.