Galactic North is an absolutely essential part of the RS universe. It explains the dark secret of the Conjoiner drives and also explains what the hell was going on at the end of Absolution Gap, so I'd recommend hurrying to it ASAP. Have you read Diamond Dogs, Turqoise Days? That's the RS book a lot of people miss.Originally Posted by MadProfessah
Reynolds has said he will be writing more RS books, but he's got an unrelated trilogy to go through first.
I didn't think Galactic North was all that essential. Sure it explained the Conjoiner drives but... so what. As for explaining the end of Absolution Gap, I guess it gives you an epilogue of sorts but only in the sense that you find out what happens to the galaxy.
Random question: In Reynolds' universe, why are groups so often referred to as "(Verb)ers"? We've got Conjoiners and Inhibitors and Pattern Jugglers. Not to mention Jumper Clowns, Nestbuilders, Scuttlers, and Shrouders.
Does anyone actually name groups like this? In WW2, the Allies didn't refer to the Nazis as "Goosesteppers" or "Jew Gassers", or the Japanese as "Chinese Village Burners" or "Ritual Suiciders". In modern politics, there are "Tea Partiers", but they do not "tea party". Republicans may label Democrats as "tax-and-spenders" or (if they are in an especially foul mood) as "baby-killers", but these are hardly in mainstream use. As for more benign groups, Catholics are not referred to as "Genuflecters", nor Jews as "Pork Avoiders".
So what's up with calling people by verbs?
Because it happened to become a naming convention in Reynolds's far future history? Who cares, anyway?
It also explains what actually happend in Absolution Gap, at the end of which a new threat appears without any explanation whatsoever that very quickly eclipses that of the Inhibitors. GN gives you the backstory to this plot element. Without it, AG doesn't make a lot of sense (the primary reason for the absolute kicking it's gotten over the years from fans and critics).
That far in the future the language they're speaking is not English, so I think this is one of a few small things Reynolds drops in to show they're not speaking or acting just like us.So what's up with calling people by verbs?
"Hi, I'm a Conjoiner."
"Well, what do you do? I mean, like, for a job and stuff."
"Well...mostly, I...well, I conjoin."
"Oh, I see. Well, how about for fun, you know, in your spare time?"
"Well...I conjoin a lot then too."
"I see, so you really love your work."
"Well...you know, it's in the name. We're Conjoiners, so we're theoretically supposed to do a lot of it. But sometimes..."
"Yes?"
"Sometimes, when I'm especially bored, I pattern-juggle..."
"HUSH, LAD! Do ye wanna get SUED???"
He takes this to a new extreme in House of Suns. Not sure if you're read that one or not yet, but be warned that you may get irritated
Ken
I liked the most about the story was the universe Reynold's has created. The different groups of space faring peoples were cool, too. Reynolds is a talent to watch (I hope I don't sound like a blurb-of-praise that you see on the back of books). I'll definitely be reading Chasm City when it comes out in paperback.
Last edited by Rob B; July 19th, 2010 at 12:23 PM. Reason: SPAM signatures not accepted
Heh, it's OK, I'm actually not a big Reynolds fan in general (see earlier trollish posts in this thread).He takes this to a new extreme in House of Suns. Not sure if you're read that one or not yet, but be warned that you may get irritated
I noticed that their is alot of comparisons between Reynolds and Simmons in this thread.
I haven't read Reynolds, but, always been curious about his stuff. Though, I have read at places it's hard scifi, which, disuades me from reading it.
And, Hyperion cantos is ranked as my favorite set of books.
Keyoke
Personally I don't think he's that hard scifi that it makes his books difficult reads. Hyperion's also one of my favourite books, and Alastair Reynolds is the author I'm reading at the moment after only 'discovering' him a few months ago - so I reckon give him a go!
I just finished Pushing Ice, another of his stand alone novels, and it didn't disappoint. I found it really focused on the character development more than any of his others I've read, but also as usual encompasses a long time frame and inter-stellar distances.
Central to the story line is the struggle for power between two close friends, and how they manage their people to get the best outcome. This is whilst pursuing an alien artifact (disguised as one of the moons of Saturn) that breaks orbit and heads off into distant space. What happens and where it takes them makes for an entertaining read.
Another 2 thumbs up for Reynolds. Next on the list is Century Rain.
I've just finished Absolution Gap, the third and final installment of the Revelation Space trilogy. The trilogy, plus Chasm City are the only Reynolds I've read so far and I have to say I love it.Personally I don't think he's that hard scifi that it makes his books difficult reads.
I don't really know what qualifies as "hard sci-fi," but what I have to say I really enjoy about Reynolds is his descriptions of stars, star systems, spaceship and their physics, and other various pieces of astronomy and astrophysics (and he gets better at weaving that stuff into the narratives as he goes along). I don't have any degree, advanced or otherwise, in science or physics of any kind and I have never found his books difficult to understand or digest. If "hard sci-fi" is including the above mentioned things (as well as others) then yes, that's Reynolds. But if "hard sci-fi" goes beyond just including it to relying up a reader's prior understanding of those scientific concepts in order for the book to make sense, then no, Reynolds doesn't do that.
I'd say Reynolds' corpus of work is approachable to any fan of the genre.
Agreed.
My understanding of the term "hard scifi" is where a scifi novel primarily leans towards the technical/scientific detail side of things. Reynolds does this but his approach doesn't go too technical and he balances it with some decent character building (better in some novels than others), with an obvious knack for story telling.
I'd say Reynolds would be at the soft end of hard scifi.
Nop, "hard scifi" is SF which doesn't contradict to at least high-school course of physics. For example faster than light shouldn't be possible at least locally and preferably globally. No force fields, lightsabers, perpetual motion, space pirates boarding moving ship, etc.
According to Wikipedia it is both
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction
I will admit that Wiki isnt infallible!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks