The Sword and Laser discussion

So. Finished.

Or rather, "finished." Because, as those of you who have gotten to the end of this book already know, the 'ending' of this book is no kind of ending at all. What we have here is the first in a series (though some of the Simmons fans are declaring that one need only read the second book to get the 'gist' of the story, not necessarily all four).

I am pre-lemming those sequels not because I think Hyperion failed, but because I think it succeeds best as a fragment.

What we have here is Schroedinger's cat, still locked in its box, suspended in a state, or states, of indeterminacy. If we open the box, the probabilistic waveform collapses and we have our definite answer, but only at the cost of excluding all other possibilities.

What if I want to remain in the state of possibility, in which all potential parallel literary universes are open for my interpretation? Who is to say, at this point, that Simmons has a necessarily better denouement for this tricky situation than his readers do?

When Keats' contemporary Samuel Taylor Coleridge revised The Rime of the Ancient Mariner to include an explanatory gloss, Charles Lambcomplained that the author had ruined the work. In most poetry, he complained, the joy comes from the reader's ability to invest a variety of meanings into the overloaded signifiers of the text. With the author's authoritative hand smashing downwards with an "official" meaning, that opportunity for reader engagement is lost, Adair's The Death of the Author notwithstanding.

So no. I am not going to open the box. Hyperion, part 2, does not exist, as far as I am concerned. Hyperion's pilgrims are both dead and alive, successful or not, happy or not, all at once. I get to enjoy all possibilities: in praise of the fragmentary, unfinished work.

I'm all in favour of books that leave the ending vague and open to your own interpretation.

Stephen King's "The Dark Tower" series should have ended where King wanted it to end. Not the crap he gave the readers who demanded an ending.

But with this book I didn't feel satisfied where it ended.

Don't get me wrong, I loved this book. I just need to see where it goes. I need some sort of closure to each of the pilgrim's stories and I just want more of it.

P.Aaron wrote: "What we have here is Schroedinger's cat, still locked in its box, suspended in a state, or states, of indeterminacy. If we open the box, the probabilistic waveform collapses and we have our definite answer, but only at the cost of excluding all other possibilities.

I found this part amusing since the 4th book starts with someone trapped in what is basically a Schroedinger cat box and he specifically refers to it as one.

You are really missing out though if you don't finish at least the 2nd book.

Rik wrote: "...You are really missing out though if you don't finish at least the 2nd book."

Missing out what? Simmons' particular take on the 'best' ending to these interesting stories? Missing out on the opportunity to stretch my imagination around other possibilities his text shuts out?

The literary fragment is an old form, with many adherants. I'm thinking it may be superior to the 'definitive' straight-line narrative in a case where the focus is not on forwarding the plot, but establishing the characters. That's what Simmons gives us in Hyperion, so I'm just rolling with what he has offered.

I'm going to stop reading so that I won't miss out on the possibilities of all the books I haven't read and all the ideas I haven't encountered.

I was only amazed by 2 of the chapters in the 2nd book anyway. I've read the 3rd but not that 4th book.

This thread calls to mind many thoughts I had about Mass Effect 3's ending as well. I agree with Aaron, at least in principle. I may still read Fall of Hyperion.

Aloha wrote: "I'm going to stop reading so that I won't miss out on the possibilities of all the books I haven't read and all the ideas I haven't encountered."

Har har. Reducto ad absurdiam aside, the point of the literary fragment is to evoke a sensation without collapsing interpretations. Obviously that isn't done if there's no initial evocation.

If it helps, consider the parallel 19th-century mania for impressionistic tone painting in musical composition. Better, consider the fad for 'follies' in architecture: intentionally incomplete buildings simulating ruins, to provoke reflection in the viewer.

There's also the argument as to whether the Sistine Chapel ceiling should be left browned and cracked with age. Some find that suits their aesthetic.

You must have heard of the Japanese aesthetic wabi-sabi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi

I just finished the book, I haven’t read any of the sequels, and like P. Aaron, I’m not sure I feel compelled to. Let me first say that I enjoyed the book – both the setting and the individual stories of the protagonists. That said, read as a stand alone book, there’s no getting around the fact that this book has an abrupt, clunky, even tacked-on ending.

What it is is this: Hyperion is a Ph.D. level instructional course on how to violate Chekov’s Gun – Chekov’s famous rule that, to paraphrase, if you’re gonna put a loaded pistol on stage, someone’s gotta shoot. The most obvious example of this is Het Masteen’s mysterious black box. Read as a standalone story, having that box and not opening it is a plot weakness. What’s crazy about the ending of Hyperion is that Dan Simmons has set up a Checkov’s Gun problem for each and every one of his characters, and there is utterly no payoff. What is the point of Brawne Lamia’s pregnancy? If Simmons hadn’t set it up they way he had, it would just be the touching culmination of a human – AI love story. But Simmons has set that kid up as Jesus 2, and there’s no payoff. What about Fedmahn Kassad? What’s his big plan to single-handedly slay the nigh-omnipotent time-stopping death machine? He must have one, but we’re kept in the dark. As a standalone book, that’s sloppy plotting.

In the framing story, Simmons fails to payoff other expectations he set up as well. For instance, after the third story, our characters were going to discuss the stories to see how they could help them survive the Shrike. By and large, they never do. This is particularly problematic after the big reveals of Lamia and the Consul’s stories, which should, at the very least, make Kassad consider whether his plan to kill the Shrike is a good idea in the first place.

So like I said, good book, well written, and maybe tied up well in book two. But it seems to me it’s pretty tough to argue that, as a stand-alone document, the end of Hyperion is a truly satisfying ending, or that it shows the same consistent quality as the rest of the book.

"But Simmons has set that kid up as Jesus 2"

The thought that the unborn child was the revered messiah never occurred to me. I automatically assumed they were referring to the Keats persona stored in her memory as the cyber transfer occurs right in front of the Shrike priests.

Patrick wrote: "So like I said, good book, well written, and maybe tied up well in book two. But it seems to me it’s pretty tough to argue that, as a stand-alone document, the end of Hyperion is a truly satisfying ending, or that it shows the same consistent quality as the rest of the book. "

Its not a stand alone book though. As I understand it he wrote the first two books as one long book but his publisher chose to split it in two.

The thought that the unborn child was the revered messiah never occurred to me. I automatically assumed they were referring to the Keats persona..."

I guess it's up for debate - although probably it gets answered in a later book. Certainly, one of my big disappointments with the end of Hyperion was the complex set-up and lack of resolution of the Brawne Labia story.

I think, though, that the Shrike priests believed AIs would be spared the coming apocalypse because they weren't born with original sin - therefore, the conception of a human woman by a Cybrid creates the possibility of a human child/savior born without original sin. Pretty Jesusy, if you ask me.

That and the explicit "mother" references and vague Mary imagery convinced me they were talking about the pregnancy.

Rik wrote: "Its not a stand alone book though. As I understand it he wrote the first two books as one long book but his publisher chose to split it in two. "

Yeah, I got that. I was just responding to P. Aaron's premise that Hyperion - if treated as a lone document rather than part of a series - has a satisfying ending.

If it was written as one book and then split up by the publisher, that explains a lot. Man, the first draft must have been one fatass tome.

I did not say it had a "satisfying ending." I said that I am satisfied by the lack of an ending.

I'm going to go to a movie and leave about half an hour in to experience that exquisite unfinished feeling.

Well, you said that it succeeds best as a fragment. Which is a pretty bold statement to make without reading the second half of the story...

Anyway, thanks for the topic, P. Aaron! Your ideas are always provocative!

Aloha wrote: "I'm going to go to a movie and leave about half an hour in to experience that exquisite unfinished feeling."


I can easily think of a dozen movies, my experience of which would have been vastly improved by just such treatment. Can't you?

I'm going to see Avengers 3D tomorrow, so I'll take that into consideration. The Japanese are great at the unfinished aesthetics. They also have a high suicide rate, so they have no hesitation in leaving things unfinished.

Personally I am not a fan of the unfinished feeling. If you are, fine, but I have hated the unfinished story since I was a kid. There are still stories that nag at me as an adult. I seem to pathologically be unable to let the story go unless there is some form of ending - even one I didn't like.

To me, especially in this book, the unanswered question type ending seems too much of a cop out in much the same way that the dues ex machina ending does. The author presents a crapload of mystery to intrigue the reader, but really doesn't know the answers to his own questions. Rather then come up with an answer, he chooses to be mysterious and tell the reader it is their fault if they don't like the ending.

I much more enjoy the books that present a mystery that the author has thought out from beginning to end. Clues dropped in the book are brought to fulfillment in the end, preferably in a way that makes you go "Oooo, so that's what that was about. Cool."

Using film as an example - the ending of Lost versus the ending of Firefly as provided by the movie Serenity.

I felt satisfied with the ending. I don't know why. Normally I would be cursing the author because the book is more a prologue than a story, but I liked it.

But I'm not like Aaron, the after finishing the first one I downloaded the second one in my kindle and so far I read the 10%... I feel as I'm reading the same book, not the second part in a series... like watching the second episode of 24 (the TV show), but without the recap. I don't know if that makes sense...

Napoez3 wrote: "I feel as I'm reading the same book, not the second part in a series..."

Just finished the second book and all I can say is wow. I agree, it feels like the same book taking off exactly where it left off. You are definitely missing out on a treat if you stop at the first book. The second book is like one giant pay off after pay off. Full of surprises but all the clues were there in the first book - excellent story telling. You would be hard pressed "imagining" a better or more convoluted (though not overly convoluted) story.
The second book end properly - ie no cliff hangers.
But I'm reaching for book 3 to get me some more of the Hyperion universe.

Oh wow, four of those? I probably could have handled two, but four is too much. The idea of "let's read some stand alone books" is a great one.

That said, P. Aaron is right on the money here, I don't want to know with certainty what happens next. And now I am wishing Mass Effect 3 had ended like that, push button, screen goes black, done.

Inception ended without actually telling us the facts, but letting us use our imaginations to resolve what happened.

I know it's all moot with three other books out there, and this really was a fantastic read, but it's as far as I'll go.

The first two books are a complete story.

I'm glad that we are going to be more careful about choosing "stand alone" books from now on. While I truly admired the writing skill and imagination and creativity Simmons demonstrated in this novel, I laughed out loud at the ending scene because it felt so incongruous to the rest of the book. Going from the exquisite suffering and losses of most of the characters (and others in the stories)to all six marching hand in hand and singing "We're Off to See the Wizard" just felt like a (bad) joke. I was put off enough by the ending that I am wary about trusting enough to go get the second book in order to find out what happens next.

Tamahome wrote: "The first two books are a complete story."

The first book all by itself is also a complete story.

The illusion that there is a definite "beginning" and "ending" to the story is easily punctured. The soldier's tale begins as he accesses a training simulation...but why there? Why not in his childhood? And given how much his parents influence who he is, why not their childhoods? Why not go back to the big bang? And as for the ending of any story, it's just as artificial. Consider the fairy tale which declares the protagonists "lived happily ever after." Did they? Didn't they have more struggles, have more triumphs, raise kids, grow old, die, and even then still continue to influence the world around them by the lingering effects of their actions?

So one artificial ending point is as good as another, if the reader thinks it's concluded 'enough.' For me, book one is concluded 'enough.'

So you don't want to know who/what the Shrike is? What the labyrinths are for? Who Moneta is? What happened with the Templar on the Benares? The purpose of the Tree of Pain? The origin and purpose of the cruciforms? Where does the Techno Core live? What happens to Rachel? Will the poet grow on you? Who and what are the Ousters? What happens when the Keats Persona meets the Shrike?

I still think stopping at the first book is like doing all the work and getting none of the pay off. The Hyperion story is a lot "bigger" than the first book.
The first book is entree while the second is main course and dessert.

I've started the third book - its a different story but it expands on themes and the universe from the First two. Just when you thought things couldn't get any weirder or more interesting Simmons keeps pulling rabbits out of the hat - like (view spoiler)[ Imagine travelling at speeds so great it turns the pilot to soup - not a problem if you're fitted with a cruciform(view spoiler)[ (hide spoiler)] (hide spoiler)]

David wrote: "So you don't want to know who/what the Shrike is? What the labyrinths are for? Who Moneta is? What happened with the Templar on the Benares? The purpose of the Tree of Pain? The origin and purpose ..."

I already have my own answers for those questions, or am content to leave them indeterminate. I suspect they're going to satisfy me more than Simmons' would.

Sharon wrote: "I'm glad that we are going to be more careful about choosing "stand alone" books from now on."

Only for the June selection. Series are back on the table after that.
As they should be, there are too many great series.

Sharon wrote: "Going from the exquisite suffering and losses of most of the characters (and others in the stories)to all six marching hand in hand and singing "We're Off to See the Wizard" just felt like a (bad) joke."

I liked the Wizard of Oz scene. It read to me as a group making a joke of a scary situation. They all essentially feel they are walking to their deaths.

Sharon wrote: "I'm glad that we are going to be more careful about choosing "stand alone" books from now on. While I truly admired the writing skill and imagination and creativity Simmons demonstrated in this nov..."

You know, in the end we'll have a poll to chose the book, and it will be a stand alone book in a 12 book saga hahahaha

I won't be reading the second book. The "Wizard of Oz" scene, to me, felt like an insult, a genuine slap in the face for the time invested.

All holding hands, eh? Who was holding the hand of the spy/traitor/Consul?

I found large parts of the book to be self indulgent. The first part of the battle from the Soldiers Tale mired in irrelevancies. The Poet was ponderous and boorish, but I accepted that as part of the self important attitude of those over impressed with themselves. (Seen it many times.)
The Consul's Story, wasn't even his story. More literary masturbation in my opinion.

Pages and pages of indulgences when what the story needed was closure.

Almost got the impression that the original story was "too long" according to the editor, so the author put in enough "filler" to make two books.

But the ending, wow, the entire book is melodrama, mystery, murder, and tragedy, and then the reader gets punished for actually sticking it out to the end, with a farcical hand hold singing number.

Well, Kumbaya and close the door on your way out Mr. Simmons. My pilgrimage stops here.

I think I'll go for the second, but after that I'll probably bail. I'm not typically a huge fan of long ongoing series unless they are uber-compelling somehow (Dark Tower, for one).

I agree that it ends like someone just pulled a plug on a dvd halfway through, and I'm glad to know it was originally one long tale cut in half. That gives me some hope for wrap up of plot in the second book. I like the characters enough to continue. But likely only one more, because if there's more to say after that (on this story, I should add), then dude needed a working delete key.

I hope the second volume is NOT chosen for June. This one was mostly a slog except briefly in the Scholar's Tale and The Detective's Tale where the characters had more life to them. I've no wish to read another book by this author...

They alternate fantasy and sci fi - so Junes pick will be a fantasy.

I am surprised at the number of people who like the first book but are happy with not reading the second. I actually have one book I will read in between, but I am eager to read the second.

In my mind, this novel is complete, but it requires a conclusion to their journey. It would be like reading the first LOTR book or Gene Wolfe's Shadow of the Torturer (wasn't that a Sword and Laser read -- I joined too late, but am in love with the series)

coincidentally - or not - I read the first LotR book through three times as a kid before I even knew there were two more books. :)

@PAaron
Maybe it isn't coincidence. It just goes to show you how each reader approaches works differently. That's interesting.

Craig wrote: "I won't be reading the second book. The "Wizard of Oz" scene, to me, felt like an insult, a genuine slap in the face for the time invested.

All holding hands, eh? Who was holding the hand of the s..."

We know from the semi-autobiographical poet's tale that the reader is detested. The ending is an intentional slap across the face and a taunting to buy the next volume he writes to see if he is "really" insulting them. A joke indeed. A sick one. But then nobody found the poet likable.

I agree with Aaron in the sense that I feel I've read a complete story. Specifically the 'Ego te absolvo' scene with its emphasis on touching worked wonderfully to round of the story, I thought.

The sense I applied to this book is that what happens at the Tomb isn't the real story, it's what brings our pilgrims there and why. So I felt very well satisfied.

I do intend to pick up Fall of Hyperion eventually, but since I don't have a real cliffhanger feeling, I'm not in a hurry;

This is exactly why I joined the club (just finished the book, a bit late, sorry). It's so interesting learning about other people's opinions. I never thought this would even be a debate, I thought either you loved the book and couldn't wait to read the second book, or you hated the book and couldn't care less about the Fall.

For me, I just go with the author's intention. If the author intended this as one book, I'll definitely read both books (and eventually the other two), if I enjoyed the first one. IMO its not even two books, it's just the format this one book is presented to us. If this were published as one book, would you stop halfway through, if you enjoyed it? If you enjoyed a movie, would you stop halfway through? (I don't ask these confrontation-ally, I'm genuinely curious).

But if the author intended for his/her story to end on an ambiguous note, I'd be satisfied to think of my own answers, and debate them with others endlessly (see Inception).

I personally read these books because I want to be entertained by the author's story, and if I enjoy their story I want to read what they intended for their characters. If I could make up my own stories (better stories) I wouldn't read any book to begin with.

Again I hope I didn't come off too confrontational, I just wanted to understand your opposing point of view.