Sci-fi and Heroic Fantasy discussion

I want to ask this of G33z3r in particular but if anybody cares to answer, I'm open to it.

A discussion G33z3r and I had over the merits and faults of Station Eleven indirectly lead to me re-reading Ringworld. And you know, it's funny, I had given it three stars originally because I read it when I was a teenager and I remembered the idea being really cool but not much else. But re-reading it, I'm finding it not very good at all. I'm actually shocked, G33z, that you gave it five stars. I find it just not that interesting. The idea of the Ringworld is interesting as an expression of scientific theory but man, what's the deal? What's the story? They come all the way to the Ringworld as a manifestation of Teela Brown's "luck" so that she can grow up? Really? It's as though Niven couldn't think of a reason for Louis Wu to go to Ringworld at all.

What the heck was all the hype about? I feel like no wonder I can't remember anything about it. And I have a hard time thinking that any race that had the capability to build Ringworld couldn't have found an easier way to save itself. And the fact of the Ringworld itself doesn't really have much to do with the plot, such as it were. How does all that crazy engineering figure in the lives of Louis Wu and company? Couldn't pretty much the same story have been written if they'd landed on any other, normal,spherical, hospitable planet?

It almost feels like it might have been a better book, G33z, if Niven took the tack you wanted Mandel to take in Station Eleven: in other words, the real story seems to be at the moment when creating a ringworld became necessary and then putting the reader there while it was happening, while the Ringworld Engineers were deciding that this was the way to solve their problems and then they encounter obstacles that lead to solutions, etc. They realize people need to sleep at night so they build the shields and blah blah blah. Because, man, as is, what happens? It almost seems as if Niven recognized this problem so he added in some fight scenes just to wake the reader back up -- and distract us from the fact that this fight could happen on any planet and there's nothing about the world being shaped like a ring that dictated it.

I mean, the whole subplot of Teela Brown's luck, my goodness, what a waste of ink. No more so than Teela Brown of course, who seems to only be there so that two hundred year old (again, why?) Louis Wu can have sex again and again and again with someone a hundred and eighty years younger than he is -- and she'll love him for it. And pout cutely when he teaches her life lessons. Definitely sounds like a fantasy we(men) all share but that's not necessarily good literature.

And one of the things that's so difficult about science fiction in general is the creation of aliens that only exhibit a single facet of the human condition. So, the Kzin are all warlike and the puppeteers are all cowards -- or insane. That's not a fault of this book alone, you see the same thing in Star Trek and Star Wars and everything else. No one thinks to match the diversity of life on Earth.

But anyway, what makes Ringworld so great? In your opinion(s)?

It's been a really long time since I've read Ringworld (probably not since you were born :) So you're going to have to wait till I get a chance to re-read it before I can respond with any reliability. (I did nominated for a Classic group discussion a few months back, because I thought it might be fun to have another look at it.)


Bobby wrote: "What the heck was all the hype about?..."

I think part of it has to do with it being the original Big Dumb Object of sci-fi literature. It's the antecedent to Rama and Gateway and dozens of other, later, "look what we found floating in space" stories.


Bobby wrote: "Couldn't pretty much the same story have been written if they'd landed on any other, normal,spherical, hospitable planet?..."

This Question is the quintessence of why we disagree on so many novels. :) To a lot of us, it's all about the geek, the creation of interesting new physical environment. I'm trying to explain the concept of "red" to a blind man. :)


Bobby wrote: "I mean, the whole subplot of Teela Brown's luck, my goodness, what a waste of ink...."

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Teela, either. (I don't actually remember the sex, though. Must have purged it.)


Bobby wrote: "And one of the things that's so difficult about science fiction in general is the creation of aliens that only exhibit a single facet of the human condition...."

I think it's part of one of the more general problems with science fiction, which is aliens who are humans with different shapes. Extra arms, green skin, enlarged foreheads. Literature has more leeway than older SF movies, because they weren't limited to the rubber suits, but even when authors imagined alien characters as different as the Puppeteers, they make them essentially human in social structure & general thought processes. So on that scale of achievement, placing them in some psychological position along the human spectrum might actually be considered an improvement in characterization. :)

I should mention that Niven wrote a lot of short stories in this universe (usually referred to as "Known Space"), including the Kzin (and their war with humans) and the Puppeteers, and the ever popular General Products Hull. Within those stories, depending on which race he's concentrating on, he does clearly introduce differences of opinion and personality among the population (or primary characters of the story, at least.) Puppeteers who are braver than the norm are usually considered insane, and Kzin who would prefer peace are usually considered cowards.

While you refer to aliens matching the diversity of life on Earth, I think you might concede that people can only diverge so far from the norm before we brand them crazy or worse.


I'll get back to you on the rest...

G33z3r wrote: "It's been a really long time since I've read Ringworld (probably not since you were born :) So you're going to have to wait till I get a chance to re-read it before I can respond with ..."

I do concede that, but what one culture on Earth considers diverging from the norm, another culture might not. Say, Vulcans, Klingons, and Ferengi all exist on the same planet. HeCK, those are all subcultures of Americans, if you ask me. But as I said, that's certainly not a failing unique to Ringworld.

And actually, as per our Station Eleven discussion, the narrative arc you outline there, of a group of people confronting a seemingly insurmountable problem and showing them a) figuring it out and then b) accomplishing it, overcoming obstacles and unforeseen circumstances (a la >gulp< The Martian would have been the more interesting story.

As long as they threw in some grief for the passing of the old ways and questioning the way of the future and petty squabbles exploding into full on rifts and people dying and hearts being broken over the choosing of the ways of the new world. You get the idea.

Though, actually what I'm talking about is Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars series.

the Ringworld is unstable! the Ringworld is unstable!!!

(that was the chant from a bunch from MIT when Niven accepted his Hugo)

I've only read a few Niven books, and I get the feeling they would have been more impressive on publication than they are today. Leiber's The Wanderer falls into that category, too.

These are books whose appeal was a concept that might have been more interesting or new decades ago than it is today.

Phil wrote: "I've only read a few Niven books, and I get the feeling they would have been more impressive on publication than they are today. Leiber's The Wanderer falls into that category, too.

..."

You know, it's one of those weird things where I feel like, generally, sci-fi readers are smart people. Heck, readers are generally smart people. And generally, when a work of art, any work of art, achieves a certain level of acclaim, I feel that, in general, it's deserved. That's just how I feel.

So, the concept is neat. But what action there is, from the initial travelling to the Ringworld in the first place, to everything else, feels totally contrived and, well, pointless. Why is Speaker-to-Animals a cat person? Why is Louis Wu two hundred years old? Why, why, why would someone who had the capability to build an incredibly massive and functioning and artificial planet, choose this method? (Cost effective it seems not.) And we never even meet the actual Ringworld engineers! (At least, in this book.) Probably because Niven actually had no idea why.

I know a writer who actually told me once, "A concept is a concept. It's not a story."

The more I think about this book, the less I like it.

The good: answers to all your questions are in other books in the series.

The bad: the other books in the series are much worse than this one.

If I was reading this book now for the first time, 2 stars sounds about right. But I read this at the golden age of science fiction (twelve years old) and nostalgia is a heck of a drug.

Also "big dumb object" is a legitimate sci-fi subgenre and this is one of the best examples that I can recall reading.

Brendan wrote: "The good: answers to all your questions are in other books in the series.

The bad: the other books in the series are much worse than this one.

If I was reading this book now for the first time, 2..."

Brother, you said a mouthful. I reread a bunch of my favorites from around that age period -- or in that era(my era, 12-18) and man, even Dune wasn't as interesting and I would've said that was not possible.

And this was my exact problem. I actually thought that about the other books (how many were there???). Heck, the next book is The Ringworld Engineers. You figure some answers have to be there. But -- and I realized that I must have thought this when I read the first one -- I just don't have the emotional momentum to move on to the next ones.

I'm scared to go back and read Rendezvous with Rama because I'm afraid the same experience will happen.

Oh well, there's always new stuff. (Sorry Geez!)

all that stuff I read when I was 12 that don't hold up now....makes ya wish you could be 12 forever....

I've re-read Dune many times and always find it just as good, but Herbert is one of my enduring favourites. I also think Rendezvous with Rama is a legitimately excellent book, and that is not nostalgia since I read it only about 5 years ago. The issue is that Niven is just not nearly on the same level of either wordsmithing or science fictional thought as a Herbert or a Clarke.

Brendan wrote: "I've re-read Dune many times and always find it just as good, but Herbert is one of my enduring favourites. I also think Rendezvous with Rama is a legitimately excellent book, and that is not nosta..."

It was funny with Dune. I would say I read that book when I was between fourteen and sixteen. It's like the absolute perfect book for that age. I mean, you're the same age as Paul. When I read it again, the glossary (yes, the glossary) was like dropping into a warm bath. I was immediately hooked. But after a while, it felt like the hook was nostalgia. And I remembered all the reasons why I loved it, and they were still there. It just, well, I don't know what it is. I finished it and put it away and that was that. But like, it will stay among my all time favorites. Actually, of the ones I've gone back to, only The Martian Chronicles holds up for me, emotionally, the same way.

Spooky1947 wrote: "all that stuff I read when I was 12 that don't hold up now....makes ya wish you could be 12 forever...."

Oof. I try not to think that.

Bobby wrote: "Spooky1947 wrote: "all that stuff I read when I was 12 that don't hold up now....makes ya wish you could be 12 forever...."

Oof. I try not to think that."

I have a long dark past with Piers Anthony that I just try to hide from myself.

Bobby wrote: "Phil wrote: "I've only read a few Niven books, and I get the feeling they would have been more impressive on publication than they are today. Leiber's The Wanderer falls into that cat..."

I read The Mote in God's Eye a lot more recently than this one, and I would say Niven tends to set up an idea and then just kind of coast. I didn't have issues with the concept not working, so much as him not doing that much with it.

I think it's interesting that some readers seem to care a lot more about plausibility than I do. I really don't mind giant holes in science or continuity as long as they make the book more fun. That's why I enjoy Edgar Rice Burroughs.

That's not to say I don't appreciate hard SF- I just enjoy pulp writing in a different spirit.

Phil wrote: "These are books whose appeal was a concept that might have been more interesting or new decades ago than it is today.
..."

I think the reason the Ring concept is less interesting today is the "big dumb object" (BDO) trope has really been done to death since Niven brought it to popularity with Ringworld. Niven himself helped beat it to death; as you say, he likes to set up a physical idea and then just write a novel to poke at it. So he comes up with lots of unusual environments in space: The Integral Trees, The Smoke Ring, Fleet of Worlds, and his most recent BDO, Bowl of Heaven (several of those with co-authors.)

I gave nit reread and Niven recently, but I think the world building, sense of wonder was a big part of his appeal when u did read him. The ring world, the smoke ring, the mote system. I was just fascinated by the engineering and the physics of a place do different from anything I knew. I may have to reread one or two of his books to see what I think of them now a few decades later.

Phil wrote: "Bobby wrote: "Phil wrote: "I've only read a few Niven books, and I get the feeling they would have been more impressive on publication than they are today. Leiber's The Wanderer falls..."

I'm definitely not Mr. Hard Science Guy. I'm more of a Magic Spell Guy. Generally, (and I think this is true of most art/audience interaction) the writer needs to catch me in his spell emotionally before my brain kicks into logic mode. So, say, James Bond is generally completely ridiculous if you think about it for half a second but the panache with which those movies are pulled off captured me and are more powerful for me than the part of me that says "This is stupidity."

Like Ray Bradbury doesn't actually care a lick about science. Though he's dazzled by it. But he just loves it because it sparks his imagination. I never think in a Bradbury story, "Well, that's just dumb." He's ALL story. And character. (Also, he writes great prose. Niven is as dry as they come, which Phil alluded to earlier.)

I don't even think BDO is bad. There's just no story here. The Ringworld is just out there. Why does Louis Wu have to go there? No reason. Why does Teela Brown's luck take her all the way to freaking Ringworld? To find true love? Really? I'd go on (again) but I've already gone on and the answers, apparently, are in the other (lesser) books. Weird.

Michael wrote: "I gave nit reread and Niven recently, but I think the world building, sense of wonder was a big part of his appeal when u did read him. The ring world, the smoke ring, the mote system. I was just f..."

MICHAEL, NOOOOO!!! Don't do it! Read something else! Just go with your memory of how great they were!

G33z3r wrote: "Phil wrote: "These are books whose appeal was a concept that might have been more interesting or new decades ago than it is today.
..."

I think the reason the Ring concept is less interesting tod..."

So are Arthur C Clarke novels BDOs? Or are they a different genre- Big Smart Objects? The Fountains of Paradise feels like your description of a BDO, except that it doesn't feel dated at all.

I think Rendezvous with Rama is the best novel of the BDO genre, Clarke was a great writer and I've never read a novel that conveyed a sense of overwhelming scale so viscerally. Fountains is, in my opinion not a BDO novel though I'm open to disagreement. I think that the mysterious origin of the BDO and its creators is a requirement of the subgenre.

An interesting modern take on the BDO genre is Blindsight but that novel is really overrated in some fan circles.

Brendan wrote: "I think Rendezvous with Rama is the best novel of the BDO genre, Clarke was a great writer and I've never read a novel that conveyed a sense of overwhelming scale so viscerally. Fountains is, in my..."

Blindsight

I tried to read Ringworld about a year ago for a different book club and just couldn't - stopped after a couple of chapters. None of the characters appealed to me - Teela was like a caricature, offensively so, and her luck thing made no sense, why Louis was the main character made no sense, he was pointless, the puppeteer and the Kzin were, meh.


I recently re-read Rendezvous with Rama and Titan and both were much more interesting and well done as stories, with real characters. I like Titan more, probably because it has a touch of fantasy to it (more so as the trilogy progresses) though I liked Rama more than I did the first time I read it. I think I better appreciated the scientific and methodical approach of the explorers this time.

Anyways, Ringworld might be the first BDO story, but I think others have definitely improved on the subgenre since.

Michele wrote: "I tried to read Ringworld about a year ago for a different book club and just couldn't - stopped after a couple of chapters. None of the characters appealed to me - Teela was like a caricature, off..."

Apparently, you read the same book I did.

Michele wrote: "I tried to read Ringworld about a year ago for a different book club and just couldn't - stopped after a couple of chapters. None of the characters appealed to me - Teela was like a caricature, off..."

If Teela bothered you, then definitely avoid The Mote in God's Eye. The female character in that is the worst. Niven should have done what Doc Smith did in The Skylark of Space and hired a woman to write the female dialogue. Know your limits, guys...

Niven's writings make it pretty clear that his view of women is somewhere on the same level as John Norman's.

It's bad, but it's not that bad. Nothing is that bad.

To be fair, I haven't read John Norman's books, but from what I've heard about them.

Phil wrote: "Bobby wrote: "Spooky1947 wrote: "all that stuff I read when I was 12 that don't hold up now....makes ya wish you could be 12 forever...."

Oof. I try not to think that."

I have a long dark past wi..."

I never read Piers Anthony! Don't know why, I just didn't. Any one you'd recommend?

Bobby wrote: "I never read Piers Anthony! Don't know why, I just didn't. Any one you'd recommend? "

Anthony has written in a lot of different types of books, so I'll list my favorites in each. He tends to start out strong & imaginative, but goes a book (or more) too far. The first 2 books of the Battle Circle trilogy are really good, weird post apocalyptic earth SF. They're sold as one book now, but stop at the end of the second. It's a cliff hanger, but I was stopped there for years & liked that better than after I'd read the third book. It was awful.

Macroscope is a SF standalone & Firefly is a horror standalone, IIRC.

A Spell for Chameleon & the next 2 in the Xanth series. The series goes on for ages, but they're all full of puns. Funny as can be at first, but get old quickly. The first 3 are good though.

The Blue Adept series is another that's good for the first few books - SF & fantasy, depending on which world you're in at the time.

On a Pale Horse is the first of the Incarnations of Immortality & was excellent when I first read it. Very different idea. I wasn't as thrilled by the time I read the last book, but it was an interesting series.

Refugee starts the Bio of a Space Tyrant. Pretty much the same as above.

Jim wrote: "Bobby wrote: "I never read Piers Anthony! Don't know why, I just didn't. Any one you'd recommend? "

Anthony has written in a lot of different types of books, so I'll list my favorites in each. He ..."

I'm not proud of the number of Anthony books I read. I'm also not proud of which Anthony books I read- the Xanth ones, the Adept ones, and a few others. I found out later that I probably should have read On a Pale Horse and Macroscope. I probably could have kept my self-respect while reading those.

Special notice goes to Bio of an Ogre for being the most repellent autobiography I've ever read.

Brendan wrote: "Niven's writings make it pretty clear that his view of women is somewhere on the same level as John Norman's."

I never got that impression, although they were often somewhat second class or not even there. More of a Campbellian attitude than Marqui de Sade like Norman. I only read one of Norman's books many years ago & the way he treated women was so bad it turned me off as a teen.

Phil wrote: "I'm not proud of the number of Anthony books I read. ..."

He's certainly not the greatest author, but why the shame? In a lot of ways, he reminds me of Terry Brooks. Both popular & imaginative. I enjoyed some of their books when I was younger. Can't reread many of them today, though. I used to like Doc Smith & Mickey Spillane a lot more, too. We grow up, tastes change & refine.

I've seen the Xanth series described as "soft-core porn for twelve year olds." That's a bit harsher than I would go, but it is a lot of the appeal.

The first book in a series is a usually pretty clever plot concept plus corny jokes, basic character development, and early teenaged boobs. As the series goes on, it tends to be more about the boobs and less about the other stuff, and you start to feel icky for reading it.

At some point, you start to reflect that Piers Anthony is a grown man who spends way too much of his time and energy describing adolescent breasts. It doesn't seem weird when you're thirteen, because your focus is on those same breasts, but when you get older and Anthony is still dwelling on that same age group, it gets awkward.

I think it's likely that this is just a case of a guy finding his niche and trying to hack out 4 novels a year with a money-making formula. If you google "Piers Anthony pedophile," though, you'll find people who shine a less generous light on it.

Ah, this explains why I never got the notion. I pretty much quit reading the Xanth books after the 4th. I might have skimmed another here or there, but never got into the series. I read most of his earlier stuff & had quit reading him pretty much entirely by then.

I hate it when authors go off the deep end. RAH did it with incest & that made even a reread of The Door Into Summer a bit creepy. I liked Lord Tyger, but heard Farmer's Doc Savage-Tarzan book was just weird. I tried reading Through the Valley of the Nest of Spiders by Samuel R. Delany & was horrified & grossed out.

It all made so much sense when I was 13...