[MikeBVaughn]

I found Echopraxia a disappointing follow-up to Blindsight, because the thematic core was much harder to grok, and it felt diffuse and attenuated. It's very hard to write a novel that explores what it means for scientists to encounter the limits of scientific rationality as we understand it.

Interestingly, (and apropos) McCarthy's last, Stella Maris, I think, did a much more eloquent job of exploring the same themes. Stella Maris is astounding, it's cosmic horror without the 'supernatural.' Instead there's only Gödel and Metzinger.

[digging]

My impression is that Watts is best at first books in a series. Both Blindsight and Starfish were (and are) absolutely incredible to me, but both of their sequels fall short of the original promise. However, from reading his blog, this is not unexpected. He doesn't write sequels to further explore the same ideas, but to move background ideas into the forefront and explore those. This would naturally lead to disappointment if the reader wants more of the original premise.

That said, I think Echopraxia is a better sequel than Maelstrom and a pretty good book on its own. He is working on a final book in the Blindopraxia trilogy and I expect it to move even further from the wonder of the original book, but now that my expectations are set I am looking forward to it all the same.