[LordBalthazar]

"But to answer your question, a book that has a beginning. middle and end is hopelessly outated as far as getting any critical appreciation for the structure of the novel. That's been done. However, a novel that tells seperate tales, out of time-order, and still manages to slowly reveal a new universe and let readers piece together over-arching plots and conspiracies while telling separate tales is pretty innovative. That's one of the things that got Hyperion attention."

I'd have to disagree that a book with a beginning, middle, and end is hopelessly outdated. In fact, I'd dare say it's still the norm. Hyperion's untraditional structure (the stand-alone tales within the body of the narrative as a whole) is something I enjoyed, but this "stories within a story" structure is not dependent on the novel as a whole being narratively atypical. In short, Simmons could have achieved the same narrative structure and still offered the reader closure at book's end.

"I'd suggest that isn't this what each pilgrim's tale was all about? Each was a self-contained work, yet tied expertly to the rest of the tales as part of a greater whole. The one book Hyperion accomplished what you wanted and that was one of its strengths."

It far from accomplished this as far as I was concerned. True, the individual tale's could be read as a self-contained works, but since each story was told within the context of this greater quest, then I would argue that since this goal was not achieved at the end of Hyperion, then "the greater whole" was incomplete and immensely unsatisfying.

"Simmons chose not to do the same with the series of books - it ends in a traditional cliffhanger. But I think that was intentional, not poor writing. It was the author's conscious choice to not come up with any manufactured sub-victory a la Wheel of Time."

I don't doubt it was inentional on the part of Simmons. My issue is not with the quality of the writing, but the decision on the part of the author to tell a story without offering an ending. I didn't need a sub-victory. Hell, they could have failed when all was said and done.

"I think they were tied together pretty well into a novel, although I also think the critics gave him slack knowing that there would be future books that helped tie them together as well."

Gave him slack? They should have a special sub-category for unfinished works that could be judged with a less critical eye in the hopes that ensuing books in the series will hopefully satisfy those niggling doubts.

[Bond]

I'd have to disagree that a book with a beginning, middle, and end is hopelessly outdated. In fact, I'd dare say it's still the norm. Hyperion's untraditional structure (the stand-alone tales within the body of the narrative as a whole) is something I enjoyed, but this "stories within a story" structure is not dependent on the novel as a whole being narratively atypical. In short, Simmons could have achieved the same narrative structure and still offered the reader closure at book's end.

I can understand your previous sentiment that the book should have forewarned that this is the first in a planned series or at least a duology. Still, I think to keep harping on the open ending of this book and consider it a fault is unfair too. Simmons could conceivably have tied up the story to fit your wishes and even have it make sense. I could see a quick ironic ending along the lines of Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story "The Ambitious Guest" working for example, but then what kind of story would we be left with? A story that was prematurely terminated by the desire to neatly fit it into a single novel that's what and not the full story that Simmons wanted to tell. The next book in the series may not have been made and we'd be the poorer for it considering how many love it and consider it even better than the first. Anyway the ending to the first book as is, isn't that bad as endings go. I thought the reference to The Wizard of Oz was pretty witty. You are free to speculate what fate awaits them. I imagine it appeals to people who profess enjoying ambiguity. In short if what you want is more complete closure, it is available: read the next book.

If you still insist on judging it on the basis of your definition of a "novel" you are free to do so but in my view it does kind of limit you from fully appreciating the broader story and it should not be surprising if others choose to take a wider perspective into account. Regardless I think Hyperion stands up very well on its own. I didn't read the other award candidates but it wouldn't surprise me if they were still inferior to Hyperion abrupt ending or no.

[Gildor]

I'm not sure your ire is entirely well placed. I found it very easy to simply read Hyperion on its own, I still haven't picked up the rest, and this is some six years after reading the first one ...

Whoopsy :o

[LordBalthazar]

"Anyway the ending to the first book as is, isn't that bad as endings go. I thought the reference to The Wizard of Oz was pretty witty. You are free to speculate what fate awaits them. I imagine it appeals to people who profess enjoying ambiguity."

Not to nitpick, but the first book doesn't have an ending. And while I don't mind speculating on ambiguous endings, the fact that Simmons does have an ending it mind (alas, one more book away), speculating in this instant would be no different than only reading half the book and imagining the rest.

In the end, I thought it was very well written, the characters very well drawn, and the whole very interesting. But, ultimately, unsatisfying.

[Bond]

And while I don't mind speculating on ambiguous endings, the fact that Simmons does have an ending it mind (alas, one more book away), speculating in this instant would be no different than only reading half the book and imagining the rest.

Either segregate the first book completely or don't, otherwise it would be a case of complaining there is no ending when one knows perfectly well there is one. So read the ending :)

If you read Fall of Hyperion, there is also the benefit of having another perspective with which to judge whether Simmons made the "right" move by not ending the first book more conclusively. After reading Fall of Hyperion I can honestly say I am pleased with Simmon's decision. It was worth it.

[ArthurFrayn]

I agree- it's better to move on to Fall of the Hyperion than it is to insist that you've been ripped off by the first novel.

[Raule]

I guess I'm puzzled why someone reading Hyperion in 2006 would think this was a stand-alone novel. I bought and read all four books last year, and it was pretty obvious Hyperion was not written to be a stand-alone. I don't know how it was marketed when it was originally published, though. I do remember Simmons saying in an interview that I read, that he wrote Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion within 18 months of each other. I always assumed this was a packaged deal with the publisher and the Endymion books were the follow-on that got negotiated after the success of the first two (could be wrong about that though). I think it is also important to understand that Simmons had been carrying these stories around in his head for a very long time before Hyperion ever became a novel. The Shrike was a character he created teaching gifted elementary students and they would often make up stories in his classroom about the Shrike.

Re Bond's comment:
... I think to keep harping on the open ending of this book and consider it a fault is unfair too. Simmons could conceivably have tied up the story to fit your wishes and even have it make sense. I could see a quick ironic ending along the lines of Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story "The Ambitious Guest" working for example, but then what kind of story would we be left with? A story that was prematurely terminated by the desire to neatly fit it into a single novel that's what and not the full story that Simmons wanted to tell.

I agree - it's not the story Simmons wanted to tell. From what I've read of Simmons so far, it seems he is not the kind of writer who likes to divulge everything for his readers (one must remember, he is a big Hemmingway fan!). He makes his readers work (perhaps it is the teacher in him?), and he likes leaving a few dangling, loose ends to tantalize us with.

I loved the entire Cantos (all four books), but I know readers who only liked the first two, or who favor only certain ones of the four. I found plenty to appreciate in all four books.