[FicusFan]

I guess I will start the thread since nobody else has. Did anybody read this month's book ? I am behind on my reading and have not started it yet. :( But I hope to start it soon.

[Erfael]

I'm behind also, as always it seems of late. I am 50 pages in and still sinking the teeth in, so not much of an opinion yet. I did not like how the first 5 or so pages were written, with the intial conversation being interrupted by side-track after side-track midstream, but that could have just been a general unfamiliarity conspiring with his writing style to throw me off. I've been doing much better since then. I look forward to the rest of the book after all of the good things I've heard.

[Erfael]

Just a warning for anyone who hasn't started the US version yet:

There is an extremely stupid publisher's error on page 78 that can be extremely confusing. I believe there should be a section break in the last paragraph on the page that just isn't there.

After the words, "Especially home-made ones," there is a very stealthy shift to a completely different scene with different characters. Just a warning to save some of you rereading it three or four times like I did trying to figure out what the hell just happened.

[Mugwump]

I can't really say much more than that which I put in my review (I uploaded it last night to this site):


You might be a touch surprised when I say this but: the thing about good space opera is that it’s fiendishly difficult to write.

Remember the objective here is to transport you to, and make you believe in, a totally unbelievable environment, where a totally unbelievable story is developing.

Now the only way an author can successfully negotiate this troublesome hurdle is to provide the reader with a group of diverse, well-realised, and eminently interesting protagonists who will serve to engage emotion; thus distracting attention away from a backdrop that often borders upon the inane, and occasionally: the insane.

Over the last few years, only a handful of SF writers have managed to get to grips with this problem; the substantial remainder failing because they forgot the ‘Golden Rule’: never skimp on your characters.

Unfortunately, Alastair Reynolds does *exactly that* with Revelation Space, which is a pity really because after the reading the first few, well-written, chapters, it would seem more difficult to mess the story up than it would to do it right.

Problem number one – length: this book is too long, and the reason it is too long is that there are simply too many disposable characters running around serving no purpose other than to (very) occasionally rebound the plot. Triumvir Hegazi, Boris Nagorny, Sudjic, Kjarval, Girardeau and Sluka could have quite easily been written out of the story (transferring their roles to the primary characters) without much difficulty. This would have had the effect of tightening the convoluted narrative, thus reducing the book’s length by 150 pages (never a bad thing with these hefty tomes). Special mention must go to the painfully ‘realised’ Pascale (a major character), whose fleeting arrivals generally herald lengthy bursts of sloppy exposition and very little else.

Problem number two – characterisation: attempting to find a fully-realised, three-dimensional character in this book is like panning for gold in your own bathtub – don’t bother.

Problem number three - dialogue: very rarely does the dialogue contained within RS haul itself above ‘adequate’ and into ‘good’. If you have an aversion from lines such as, ‘You’re not going to like this’, or ‘You’re *really* not going to like this’, or ‘..something very bad is about to happen’ then you are not going to like this book. If you have an aversion from lines such as these being spouted every third paragraph, then – you’re *really* not going to like this book.

Problem number four – unacceptable stupidity: considering that we are asked to believe that the book’s major players are skull-bustingly intelligent (at least three are leading scientists), they do appear to spend much of their time being anything but. Put yourself in the position of the (supposedly) ultra-suspicious Sajaki for a moment: would you allow the duplicitous Volyova to hold free reign over the ship whilst you were in reefersleep - a ship that features nigh-on infinite firepower? Personally I wouldn’t trust Volyova with a soggy box of matches. There are endless other examples of head-scratching peculiarity I could quote – but I draw a line at 1000 word reviews.

Problem number five - incongruence: at several points in the book the protagonists act out of character, or appear to have been replaced by an inverse doppelganger (and no, we are not talking about those characters who have visited the ‘Pattern Jugglers’). Consider Volyova: early on she is painted as highly intelligent, yet cruel and sadistic woman. What’s more – the latter traits seem to be fairly well ingrained (Sylveste comments that Volyova had been ‘a bitch’ years previously). Now, examine the very same character at the finish of the story: almost unrecognisable and therefore infinitely less interesting in my opinion.

Now I concede that a couple of the above problems could be considered ‘nitpicks’ by many; after all, we are talking about ‘space opera’, a field that generally doesn’t hold up well to close scrutiny, even when written by the best of authors. However there are simply *too many* nitpicks here to ignore, and once you aggregate them all together Revelation Space would appear to be hopelessly compromised.

This is, in my opinion, a terrible shame as Reynolds succinctly demonstrates on numerous occasions in this text that he is extremely adept at working with all the other, necessary tropes of space opera. Strange and imaginative landscapes, energetic combat set-pieces, inscrutable alien life forms (just how they should be); all these essential aspects seem to flow from the author’s mind quite freely.

Alas, too often this noteworthy background work goes to waste as just when you are starting to ‘believe’, one of Reynolds’s annoying proto-characters clunks onto the page, opens its mouth and deposits you back into reality with a head-splitting thump!

[FicusFan]

Originally posted by Erfael
Just a warning for anyone who hasn't started the US version yet:

There is an extremely stupid publisher's error on page 78 that can be extremely confusing. I believe there should be a section break in the last paragraph on the page that just isn't there.

After the words, "Especially home-made ones," there is a very stealthy shift to a completely different scene with different characters. Just a warning to save some of you rereading it three or four times like I did trying to figure out what the hell just happened.

Thanks Erf, I will be on the look out. :) I have put my other book aside for the time being and have started RS. I see what you mean about sliding away into a flash back, or other side-track in the middle of a scene, and I have only read the first chapter ! :(

But I am thrilled to see them doing archaeology, one of my most favorite things. Not something you see much of in an SF work.

So I am hopeful. :)

[FicusFan]

Glad you stopped by Mugwump. :)

Sorry I have not yet read enough to chat with you about your post, and the issues you raise. You make some thoughtful points and I look forward to discussing them.

Your avatar thingy says your are in the UK, do you get or read Locus (US magazine) by chance ? I ask because the August issue was devoted to The New Space Opera.

Locus On-Line (http://www.locusmag.com/)

It has several authors, perhaps alll from the UK, writing about the New Space Opera. Reynolds is also interviewed in the magazine. The only one I have read so far is the article by Gwyneth Jones. I think there was also a panel on the same subject at Readercon this past July, which I heard was very good, but I was at another one at the time :(


I hope to have the book read by the weekend, when I will be glad to reply about the book. We seem to be a bit discombobulated with the book this month

[Rob B]

Well, this was slow going for me for the first 100 pages or so.

After that, it really picked up. The character interaction, alot of the backstory and pre-history of this universe is quite interesting.

I want to give it a complete read before posting all my thoughts, though.

[scooter13]

I read Revelation Space almost two years ago. I bought a copy in hard cover here in the States right after it was released. The synopsis sounded very interesting and I was looking for something new. I had not read on a continuous basis in years at that point, and most of what I had read during college and after (during the days that I always read) most would probably be considered some of the classics of sci-fi. Eventually I just couldn't find time to read anymore. Now no matter how much I felt I have read in the last two years and from prior, I know that I have not read a very broad scope of what represents the best in sci-fi. But I still consider Revelation Space one of the top three books I have ever read.

I can understand some of Mug's "nitpicks" above. I actually never thought about Sajaki's character flaw of being suspicious, yet giving Volyova free reign. Good point. But I do think that many of the other points are just being picky just in general. Now there are two ways I look at this to make that statement. First; this is just science fiction. We are not talking about Hemminway or Dickens. I don't expect to be blown away by character developement in a sci-fi book. Though I will agree that great character developement only enhances an already good book. You do tip your hat to Reynolds' skill as far as developement of the back ground.

"Strange and imaginative landscapes, energetic combat set-pieces, inscrutable alien life forms (just how they should be); all these essential aspects seem to flow from the author’s mind quite freely."

And to me, that is the most prominent thing I look for in a sci-fi book. Imagination. I think Reynolds excels at this in spades. To come up with something original, or even new twists on what has been done before is a very important skill. I didn't have a problem with the dialoue at all. Again that goes back to my point earlier that this is science fiction. And most sci-fi books are written by scientists (as in Reynolds case, too). The unpredictibility of the characters, or doing things uncharacteristic isn't that big of a hurdle to me either. That's what makes a story interesting, keeping you guessing. Honestly I see that sort of thing happen in real life when faced with extraordinary circumstances. No one sticks to their "true" characteristics all the time. Plus, I thought the story was fantastic. I liked the length, the sheer breadth of such a story. I never knew what was going to happen next. Of course that could be explained by the fact that I am just an idiot. :D

The second way to look at my "picky" statement is that I just read too many things that I adored about this book. I do tend to overlook things for the sake of the story. Or that they just don't effect me as much. (Read: I am too easy of a critic) I am one that reads more for the entertainment factor and base my opinion from there. Plus, I sure the heck don't have the talent to write a book. Even one that was horrible at best. And the fact again that I haven't read as much as most, therefore not having a broader base to compare to.

We are all entitled to our opinions. And I respect someone that goes into detail about what they didn't like, instead of just saying, "I didn't like it." I may say it's being picky, but it's because I respectfully disagree. Thanks for sharing your thoughts Mug.

BTW .......... are any of you that are reading the book fans of the rock bands Yes and/or King Crimson? At some point where Ana Khouri is practicing with a drone, Reynolds uses the line "... shining, flying, purple wolfhound ...." which is a line from the song by Yes titled Yours Is No Disgrace. And the race called the Pattern Jugglers is from In the Court of the Crimson King by King Crimson. Kind of makes you roll your eyes, but hey, rock bands have been naming themselves or songs after characters in LOTR for years. Why can't writers reverse the trend?

[ezchaos]

I, too, read this book about 1 1/2 to 2 years ago. I thought it was a generally good book, however if I remember correctly, it could have been about 100 pagers shorter. It was a little slow in places. However, I'm always a sucker for new ideas in scifi, especially the ones dealing with intelligent life in the universe or the lack there of. Reynolds comes up with a cool explanation for this.

[Mugwump]

Originally posted by scooter13
I read Revelation Space almost two years ago. I bought a copy in hard cover here in the States right after it was released. The synopsis sounded very interesting and I was looking for something new. I had not read on a continuous basis in years at that point, and most of what I had read during college and after (during the days that I always read) most would probably be considered some of the classics of sci-fi. Eventually I just couldn't find time to read anymore. Now no matter how much I felt I have read in the last two years and from prior, I know that I have not read a very broad scope of what represents the best in sci-fi. But I still consider Revelation Space one of the top three books I have ever read.

I can understand some of Mug's "nitpicks" above. I actually never thought about Sajaki's character flaw of being suspicious, yet giving Volyova free reign. Good point. But I do think that many of the other points are just being picky just in general. Now there are two ways I look at this to make that statement. First; this is just science fiction. We are not talking about Hemminway or Dickens. I don't expect to be blown away by character developement in a sci-fi book. Though I will agree that great character developement only enhances an already good book. You do tip your hat to Reynolds' skill as far as developement of the back ground.

"Strange and imaginative landscapes, energetic combat set-pieces, inscrutable alien life forms (just how they should be); all these essential aspects seem to flow from the author’s mind quite freely."

And to me, that is the most prominent thing I look for in a sci-fi book. Imagination. I think Reynolds excels at this in spades. To come up with something original, or even new twists on what has been done before is a very important skill. I didn't have a problem with the dialoue at all. Again that goes back to my point earlier that this is science fiction. And most sci-fi books are written by scientists (as in Reynolds case, too). The unpredictibility of the characters, or doing things uncharacteristic isn't that big of a hurdle to me either. That's what makes a story interesting, keeping you guessing. Honestly I see that sort of thing happen in real life when faced with extraordinary circumstances. No one sticks to their "true" characteristics all the time. Plus, I thought the story was fantastic. I liked the length, the sheer breadth of such a story. I never knew what was going to happen next. Of course that could be explained by the fact that I am just an idiot. :D

The second way to look at my "picky" statement is that I just read too many things that I adored about this book. I do tend to overlook things for the sake of the story. Or that they just don't effect me as much. (Read: I am too easy of a critic) I am one that reads more for the entertainment factor and base my opinion from there. Plus, I sure the heck don't have the talent to write a book. Even one that was horrible at best. And the fact again that I haven't read as much as most, therefore not having a broader base to compare to.

We are all entitled to our opinions. And I respect someone that goes into detail about what they didn't like, instead of just saying, "I didn't like it." I may say it's being picky, but it's because I respectfully disagree. Thanks for sharing your thoughts Mug.



Scooter, George Orwell once wrote an amusing piece about 'critics', and I happen to agree wholeheartedly with him:

'I often have the feeling that even at the best of times literary criticism is fraudulent, since in the absence of any accepted standards whatever—any external reference which can give meaning to the statement that such and such a book is “good” or “bad”—every literary judgement consists in trumping up a set of rules to justify an instinctive preference.'

In other words, the world would be a much poorer place if we all agreed. :cool: