Does Ringworld have an amazing ending?

**Ropie** · May 12th, 2008, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by RimWorlder

readers that take issue with (that) are bound to be disappointed not matter what he (Niven) does.

I was far from disappointed with Ringworld: for me it is a good, middle of the road SF novel, having elements that make truly great SF as well as being a good example of the problems that are often cited as common criticisms of the genre as a whole. For that reason I think it is probably essential reading for anyone interested in SF not just as 'entertainment'. I have heard good things about some of the follow-ups too and will probably read them one day.

I think my enjoyment trumps anyone else's dislike.

I'd say it's 50/50

**Ropie** · May 12th, 2008, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Andols

The story has some great elements although they don't get explored as much as I would like.

Perhaps this is something taken up in the sequels..? I'd say Niven is good enough to carry on reading.

**Andols** · May 12th, 2008, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Ropie

Perhaps this is something taken up in the sequels..? I'd say Niven is good enough to carry on reading.

Did the sequels win it a set of awards?

I'm not going to quit a Hugo/Nebula winner. I've gone through about 30 so far, with a few endings that justified the grind.

I just don't see the usual shining aspects that make it a winner. This is the first oddity in my awards collection.

**Andols** · May 12th, 2008, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Ropie

I'd say it's 50/50

I'm with Ropie on this one

Your enjoyment hasn't done a thing for me so far.

**RimWorlder** · May 12th, 2008, 10:15 AM

darn it, its a Hugo winner - therefore, you MUST like it.

Don't get upset - I know science fiction fans are about the last group you can expect conformity and respect for authority from.

On the other hand - Hugo-Zombies do sound somewhat compelling...

Being former fans of course, they'd be FAST Hugo-Zombies, and selective when eating brains. They only eat the part of the cortex where critical faculties reside - and only that portion that engenders dislike for Hugo-winning stories.

Closely allied to Nebula-Zombies, but less viscious.

**phil_geo** · May 12th, 2008, 11:27 AM

I encourage you all to post your feelings on my 5 year old thread:
Ever Read a Hugo or Nebula Winner You Didn't Like?

**Andols** · May 12th, 2008, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by phil_geo

I encourage you all to post your feelings on my 5 year old thread:
Ever Read a Hugo or Nebula Winner You Didn't Like?

Give me about 60 pages and I might just resurrect your thread.

**Andols** · May 12th, 2008, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by RimWorlder

darn it, its a Hugo winner - therefore, you MUST like it.

Don't get upset - I know science fiction fans are about the last group you can expect conformity and respect for authority from.

On the other hand - Hugo-Zombies do sound somewhat compelling...

Being former fans of course, they'd be FAST Hugo-Zombies, and selective when eating brains. They only eat the part of the cortex where critical faculties reside - and only that portion that engenders dislike for Hugo-winning stories.

Closely allied to Nebula-Zombies, but less viscious.

What about the dreaded Hugo-Nebula-Combo zombies?

And i will reserve further judgment until I finish the book, but this could be the first of the award winners that didn't have something that merited a nod or approval in my mind.

**Andols** · May 14th, 2008, 07:42 AM

Officially unimpressed.

I found it read almost like one of Heinlein's less favorable works (like Double Star).

For the time I can see it having some standing merit. I guess I got suckered by the hype machine.

**homosap** · May 14th, 2008, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by Andols

Officially unimpressed.

I found it read almost like one of Heinlein's less favorable works (like Double Star).

For the time I can see it having some standing merit. I guess I got suckered by the hype machine.

well it just goes to show, I find Heinlein painful to the point that I just don't get the adoration for him. whereas Niven I thoroughly enjoy and thought Ringworld was great. I would say that when reading older books it is always worth trying to imagine the times it was written in. Groundbreaking SciFi, of its day, can easily seem mundane in years to come if you don't look at when it was written. But I also feel it stands the test of time well, can't think of any more impressive BDO's than the Ringworld itself.

Also starting a negative thread on a book you've not completed, hoping for a big ending, doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's not like it's a long book that needs hours of wading through. Maybe you could be described as being of the 'impatient generation'

**Andols** · May 14th, 2008, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by homosap

well it just goes to show, I find Heinlein painful to the point that I just don't get the adoration for him. whereas Niven I thoroughly enjoy and thought Ringworld was great. I would say that when reading older books it is always worth trying to imagine the times it was written in. Groundbreaking SciFi, of its day, can easily seem mundane in years to come if you don't look at when it was written. But I also feel it stands the test of time well, can't think of any more impressive BDO's than the Ringworld itself.

Also starting a negative thread on a book you've not completed, hoping for a big ending, doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's not like it's a long book that needs hours of wading through. Maybe you could be described as being of the 'impatient generation'

I just wondered if it was an "end justifies the means" kind of novel. which in a way it was. And I don't see what the problem is with a "negative thread". Plenty of other posts/threads similar to mine.

**RimWorlder** · May 14th, 2008, 10:12 AM

this thread has prompted me to re-read Ringworld (I'm now a third of the way through) and I'm developing a theory.

In order to test that theory, I need a little help.

Could those of you who found Ringworld lacking, particularly in the "characterization" department, give me a couple of examples of novels that are similar (high concept/hard sf) where you found characterization that met your needs?

Preferably, I'd like a quoted example or two illustrating what you mean by good characterization.

**Yobmod** · May 14th, 2008, 11:16 AM

Could those of you who found Ringworld lacking, particularly in the "characterization" department, give me a couple of examples of novels that are similar (high concept/hard sf) where you found characterization that met your needs?

Preferably, I'd like a quoted example or two illustrating what you mean by good characterization.

I haven't got access to quotes, but Vinge's Fire Upon the Deep and Deepness in the Sky has far superior characterisation, of Pham, the bad guys, the alien characters, even the minor characters.

**Andols** · May 14th, 2008, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by RimWorlder

this thread has prompted me to re-read Ringworld (I'm now a third of the way through) and I'm developing a theory.

In order to test that theory, I need a little help.

Could those of you who found Ringworld lacking, particularly in the "characterization" department, give me a couple of examples of novels that are similar (high concept/hard sf) where you found characterization that met your needs?

Preferably, I'd like a quoted example or two illustrating what you mean by good characterization.

I found them lacking in the fact that I was not drawn to them. They stayed perfectly within the mold they were cast in. Teela was arguably the only character that developed.

It seemed very much a weak parallel to Wizard of Oz. A scared character, a lion, a pseudo-alpha male and a female.

**RimWorlder** · May 14th, 2008, 11:52 AM

I've got VInge's books; I'll dig them out and take a look.

I don't want to argue individual points just yet - but I'll say that I disagree with the 'no one develops except Teela' position.

I'd like a couple more examples, one is just too slim to go on.