Hyperion! - April SFFWSFBC Book

[Rob B]

Talk it up folks, it's April and time let loose.

Its been a few years since I've read Hyperion but a few things stick till this day"

For lack of a better word, how literate the novel was. The stories of each of the companions was pretty compelling.

The haunting figure of the Shrike is a mystery and something truly alien.

[Gravity's End]

Just...a...little...farther... ...almost...finished...

LOL, I've got about 60 pages left to go, so I'll finish that up tonight and be ready to dissect and discuss tomorrow.

For the time being, let me just say that now I'm hooked and will probably have to read the follow-up books as well!

[Kamakhya]

I read this a couple of year's ago and remember really liking Hyperion, but by the end of The Fall of Hyperion, I had had enough.

I am currently re-reading it for this discussion, but am making only slow progress. I still have almost 300 pages to go!

One of the things I do like very much about this novel is the use of character flashbacks. The individual stories are unique and interesting. They remind me of The Canterbury Tales. (I hope I got that title right! ).

I was extremely impressed with the priest's tale. I loved the description of the fire forest. The Bakura were fascinating, though much remains unexplained (at least so far).

I have also gotten through Kassad's story which was pushing the limits of believeability. But I enjoyed the concurrent themes of pain, fear and sex.

I'm finding the novel an exhausting read. I can read maybe 30 or 40 pages at a time before the words start to blur on the page.

Am I correct in assuming that spoilers are ok in this forum where it is assumed that everyone has read it?

Kamakhya

[Gravity's End]

All right, I finally finished the book at about ten minutes to midnight. As no one else has provided too much to comment on just yet, I'll post a broad overview of my thoughts on the book.

First of all, the novel was well-planned and executed, logically speaking. It's already been mentioned how HYPERION is written in much the same fashion as Chaucer's CANTERBURY TALES (with the possible exception of the Prologue, which is exclusively from one character's viewpoint). There are other "classical" references as well, particularly to John Keats.

Overall, I enjoyed the book very much. I will say, however, that this story is NOT self-contained or stand alone. Some people may argue that, but the stated purpose of the characters was to make a pilgramage and confront the Shrike, and that objective was not completed by the book's end.

Of the six stories that were told, the first and last were my least favorite. In fact, I think the Consul's story was very anticlimactic and disappointing. I could sense that Simmons was trying to build our sympathies and understanding for how the Consul was torn in making the decisions that he did, but it just didn't hit me on an emotional level. I thought the story of Sol and Rachel was much more effective as far as emotional impact.

I was impressed, however, with how Simmons could write from the viewpoint of each different personality type. The stories that corresponded with each character changed tone and focus to match that particular person, and that is no small task for a writer.
His skill in that regard cannot be denied, and though there were a few awkward sentence structures throughout the book (particularly when Simmons would repeat the same phrase or word within one sentence), overall his writing is excellent.

What are everyone else's thoughts?

[Gravity's End]

Just out of curiosity, did anyone here actually READ this book last month? If you guys are just running behind a little (as I was at first), that's fine. And I know Fitz and Kamakhya have both read it before (and presumably did not reread it); but seeing as how a couple of people nominated and/or seconded this book, and it did win the vote, I'm surprised that no one else has commented on it all week.

[alan empty]

I first read it years ago and could remember a lot of it, but I thought I'd re-read it for this thread. Finished Hoyt's tale last night. I found this really enjoyable, particularly the way it's actually Dure's story. I found Dure to be a very sympathetic character, Hoyt less so.

The Bikura were an interesting idea. I like the idea of them losing all aspects of individuality over time, kind of like rock weathered by the elements. Not particularly realistic in certain ways, but my reservations here get sort of answered by later revelations (in other books I think).

My only real complaint is an incredibly minor one. I'm a big fan of good first sentences/paragraphs in novels - I usually find them more reliable than the blurb on the back. I don't have Hyperion with me to quote in full, but "saurian things" - surely Simmons could do better that "things"?!!

Generally though I love the way Simmons writes. I think he uses language well, throws ideas at you and manages to always entertain. Sometimes I think he promises more than he delivers but that isn't unusual in SF.

I'm looking forward to re-reading the whole series. My recollection is a bit hazy, but I can remember which elements of the story have most implication for later events and I'm storing them away in my brain this time. I think I probably missed a lot first time around.

[Gravity's End]

Alan, I have to agree with you that Dure earned more sympathy from me than Hoyt did. Perhaps that's because we became much more intimately acquainted with the former, or because he suffered constant agony for several years until Hoyt found him.

The concept of the Bikura was interesting, although the ultimate lack of an explanation for their society was frustrating. One thing that puzzled me a bit (and I don't know if it was an author error or not), was how the labyrinth, which was supposedly studied in great detail by many people, could have an opening DIRECTLY ACROSS from the opening to the cathedral, and yet no one else besides the Bikura had found the cathedral. I chalked it up to the fact that it was an inaccesible area and perhaps not all of the labyrinth had been discovered and explored, but I still felt that it was a little unlikely.

It would be interesting to see how the "cruciform" and the Shrike are related. I hope this is explained later on in the series.

[alan empty]

GE, there will be an explanation for the Bikura. I don't remember all of it but I wasn't completely convinced by it, although it was quite cool. I won't spoil it for you though

I agree about the labyrinth - I can't remember exactly where Simmons goes with this (where has my memory gone??) but he certainly addresses some issues (though not all). When I first read the series I wanted to read them again immediately to fit it all together. I'm hoping this time that I might be able to get a clearer picture. I suspect that they'll be some holes in the story though - he's painting on a very large canvas at times.

There's a lot of unlikely stuff in the series and much of it makes sense in the end.

You get to find out much more about the cruciform and the Shrike - stick with it. You're in for more than a few twists and turns, if memory serves me right (which it clearly doesn't!).

OK, off to read Kassad's story.

[FicusFan]

I read this book a few years ago, and was so outraged by the end of the book that I threw it against the wall and refused to read the rest of the series.

My main complaint is the stated plot of the book is this important, dangerous journey upon which rests the fates of ..(something really, really important, it escapes me now), and the plot is not even really broached in the book. It ends where they should have been way back in the beginning.

My other problem is that the character sketches were really nothing more than the literary equivalent of an SF info dump. Some of that info was important to the story and character development, but it should have been worked into the plot, not become roadblocks to it.

Most of it was filler and backstory that DS wrote so he could make his characters seem real and believable. Making us read it all, is like transcribing your research index card -- 'if I had to write it/research it all, by god you are going to read it all.' Extended character flashbacks are one of my least favorite devices, and that was mostly the whole book.

I realize the structure of the book works like the Canterbury Tales, but you know if I want the Canterbury Tales, I will read them. Whatever else a story does for me, it must first and always entertain -- this one didn't. I felt like I was hanging on by my fingernails to get past all the flashbacks and then the book ends.

I suppose I found the way the book was written so awful because I did love what I got of the real story. I thought DS had a smooth and interesting writing style. I loved: The dangerous, mysterious Shrike, the Time Tombs that move backwards in time, the huge twinkling tree that is their space ship taking them to the planet.

I will probably read the rest one day but I feel really, really ripped off by the whole set up.

[alan empty]

That's an interesting perspective. I really enjoyed Hyperion when I first read it but I remember feeling a bit let-down as well. My reaction though was to immediately read the next book (I was on holiday in Canada at the time and it was fairly easy to find thankfully). I don't remember throwing anything

As I said above, I'm now re-reading it. I'm enjoying it even more this time. Probably because I'm not desperate for the plot to advance. I know where Simmons is going this time, so I can just sit back and enjoy the journey.

I finished Kassad's story last night and loved it. I don't think I enjoyed it that much the first time. I can't really discuss why it has more resonance the second time (massive spolier) - you'll have to trust me! FicusFan, you refer to Simmons overuse of background information. For me, that's what makes it such a rich series. Within a couple of pages of Kassad's story you get so much history thrown at you and then it's gone, mostly never to be mentioned again. I love it. For me, it just reeks of authenticity. I was smiling as I read some of it, just savouring Simmons' writing. But, like you, I was probably screaming "get on with it!!!" the first time.

Poet's Tale next. Looking forward to this one.

[Gravity's End]

FicusFan,

It sounds like you were even angrier than I was by the end of Hyperion! As I stated earlier, I was disappointed that the main plot was not resolved by the book's end, and felt like I'd been cheated into having to purchase and read the next book to get a resolution.

However, I can't fault the style in which the book was written. Although unusual, I think it would have worked well, provided the actual plot had been given a resolution.

I think too much has been made of Hyperion's similarities to Canterbury Tales. In Chaucer's book, those tales were not always directly related to the character telling the story (in fact, I don't remember if ANY of them were). So they weren't flashbacks, but simply tales told to pass the time while the pilgrims were on their journey. In Hyperion, you're right, they are essentially long flashback sequences joined together. Again, I feel this would have worked well if there had been more substance (and an ultimate resolution) to the pilgrimage itself.

[Gravity's End]

And Alan, thanks for not posting any spoilers for the next book

Btw, is there just one more book (The Fall of Hyperion) in this set, or more?

[alan empty]

After Fall of Hyperion there are 2 more books - Endymion and Rise of Endymion (there's also a short story - published in the Legends collection I think).

Fall of Hyperion is effectively the second half of Hyperion. The 3rd and 4th books are set further ahead in time and have their own story.

You could probably read the 2 Hyperion books and not read the 2 Endymion books. And vice versa. I'd recommend all 4 though.

[FicusFan]

Originally posted by alan empty
That's an interesting perspective. I really enjoyed Hyperion when I first read it but I remember feeling a bit let-down as well. My reaction though was to immediately read the next book (I was on holiday in Canada at the time and it was fairly easy to find thankfully). I don't remember throwing anything

As I said I felt ripped off because the book didn't match the description, no way I would reward such activity with money (buying the next book). I have heard that at some point they published the first two together, and people I have talked to who read it that way had a really smooth experience.

Unfortunately because the book was almost all character sketches, even if the info might have been good and interesting, after a while my mind glazed over. It was just more blah, blah, blah. If there had been only one or two in the book, and maybe the rest scattered throughout the rest of the books in the series it would have more memorable, but I didn't retain most of it from one sketch to the next.


Nothing could compel me to re-read it.

[FicusFan]

Originally posted by Gravity's End
FicusFan,

However, I can't fault the style in which the book was written. Although unusual, I think it would have worked well, provided the actual plot had been given a resolution.

[snip] In Hyperion, you're right, they are essentially long flashback sequences joined together. Again, I feel this would have worked well if there had been more substance (and an ultimate resolution) to the pilgrimage itself.

I think the size of the sketches and I assume the length of the actual plot (please tell me there is a plot right, somewhere) would have made a huge book. I think they only published the first two together after it was a hit as it were.

If it had been described properly, I would never have purchased it. As I have said, long character flashbacks are one of my least favorite ways to read a story. I don't like a very static plot, and looking backwards for most of the whole book is not satisfying or interesting to me. So short of an almost total re-write this book would never have worked for me. Which is ok, just don't fool me to get me to buy it.