Sorry, all, I got swamped these past few days and have been offline. Of course, anyone should feel free to start the discussion.
I am still reading this book, but I am likinig what I am reading. I will admit that at times, I get a little bored with certain passages, but it is certainly a gripping tale and I am looking forward to finishing it.
Well I will post. I read the book previously and decided I would re-read it for the book club.
I just loved the dark, eerie ocean floor environment. I loved watching all the people in the book on the bottom of the ocean change into something that wasn't quite human anymore. It is what I call a fly-on-the-wall book - because I am so fascinated with seeing what they do, just living, that I don't really care if there is a story or a plot or not.
I think the contrast in response between the characters in this book and Red Mars is very interesting. Of course these people are not normal to begin with, but they seem to have a more realistic adaptation to such harsh and extreme conditions, where the people in RM, seemed to just sail through all that isolation, lack of outside views, and permanent banishment.
I think the idea that there may be places to utilize the sick and the socially mal-adjusted is an interesting one. Of course there is also the aspect of big-brother (company -who seems to be the government) experimenting with people like lab rats - because they are just a bunch of sickos anyway.
This was my first read of the book (had never even heard of it), and I thoroughly enjoyed most of it.
My favorite aspect was the fly-on-the-wall feel that Ficus mentions. I was totally engaged throughout most of the book with just observing how all of the different characters dealt with each other and with themselves in that environment. I would have liked even a little more of that sort of thing. There were characters there that we knew very little about. Why were they there? What was their "defect"? I know many of them were hinted at, but not really fleshed out.
I was actually most disappointed with the ending. It didn't really seem that the ending fit the book. He mentions in the preface that it started out as a short story and then was changed to a novel, which is fine. I think where he got into trouble with me is when he went further and tried to set the whole thing up as the first book of a trilogy. I would have rather seen them all simply go native or get nuked than have the whole alternate life form thing he did. It just seemed that the whole focus of things shifted, and in my opinion not for the better.
I did find the internal thinking of the AI at the end fairly interesting. I found it a little strange that he should pick chess and checkers as "complex" and "simple." Seems that once computers(gels) get as far along as that, chess and checkers are on about the same level of complexity, though maybe I'm giving them too much credit.
Though as some have mentioned, I'm not exactly looking forward to the next installment. I'm afraid he'll just further ruin the really great impression I got in his undersea setting.
I too could have spent the whole book on the ocean bottom watching them interact with each other, and their environment and watching them change.Originally posted by Erfael
This was my first read of the book (had never even heard of it), and I thoroughly enjoyed most of it.
My favorite aspect was the fly-on-the-wall feel that Ficus mentions. I was totally engaged throughout most of the book with just observing how all of the different characters dealt with each other and with themselves in that environment. I would have liked even a little more of that sort of thing. There were characters there that we knew very little about. Why were they there? What was their "defect"? I know many of them were hinted at, but not really fleshed out.
I was actually most disappointed with the ending. It didn't really seem that the ending fit the book. He mentions in the preface that it started out as a short story and then was changed to a novel, which is fine. I think where he got into trouble with me is when he went further and tried to set the whole thing up as the first book of a trilogy. I would have rather seen them all simply go native or get nuked than have the whole alternate life form thing he did. It just seemed that the whole focus of things shifted, and in my opinion not for the better.
Though as some have mentioned, I'm not exactly looking forward to the next installment. I'm afraid he'll just further ruin the really great impression I got in his undersea setting.
He could have done more fleshing out if they had stayed there. I wouldn't have wanted chapters devoted to their lives before they ended up down there, but he could have worked it into their interactions. I would also have liked to see them doing more work in the deep sea envirnoment - what they do today, and what he thinks might be plausible in the future.
Of course I am a scuba diver and so I am partial to the ocean (not that I ever get anywhere near that depth) and stories set in it.
Funny you had the same reaction I did the first time I read it. I felt the whole RNA thing was an add on. I thought it kept the book from being totally perfect. I think it could have done more with the characters and the work aspect, but I have never before read a book that sucked me into a world so much that I would forget I was reading. I felt like I was watching this amazing movie, and every so often I would have to remember to breathe.
I think the RNA was added not because he had trouble stretching the length, but more because without it, the novel doesn't have a real goal or a plot. I am fine with the fly-on-the-wall aspect, but I have heard that some don't think that there is any action or reason - plotwise for the story to exist until the RNA stuff is brought in. I felt like at the time it clicked in, you could almost hear the echoes of him and his editor saying, 'oh my god', how do we end this story (and complete the book)
I struggled though the next installment, it has none of the dark and haunting goodness of this one. In fact it struck me as the main character, Lenie, wandering the landscape in search of a plot. But other's mileage may vary.
Erfael, I work in AI... well, okay, I do software for an AI company and I've done the basic reading... and can tell you for sure that checkers is way simpler than chess. Think about the number of moves possible from a typical/random game position and you'll see why.
lemming, as an avid abstract strategy gamer, I am also extremely familiar with the differences in computing those two things. All I meant was that these AIs they're dealing with seem to be extremely bright. As such, even though chess and checkers are several orders of magnitude apart in complexity, I would think that these particular gels would be so far past it that it would make that "miniscule" difference trivial.Originally posted by lemming
Erfael, I work in AI... well, okay, I do software for an AI company and I've done the basic reading... and can tell you for sure that checkers is way simpler than chess. Think about the number of moves possible from a typical/random game position and you'll see why.
I just read this and I really cant say if I liked it or not.
I feel no need to read the next two so I guess that answers that.
The story at first was fine but did drag for long bits.
The whole power thing was interesting as well but will never happen as we will use mostly solar in the future.
This novel was initially conceived as a short story. In retrospect, I kind of wish Watts had gone that way. Not that I think a short story would have been a necessarily better version of Starfish - but, at the very least, a mercifully shorter one. Sorry to say this one was a plodding, occasionally excruciating read punctuated by occasional flashes of genuinely interesting ideas: the smart gels, ganzfeld effects, his various visions of the future. Not enough to hold my interest or, in many instances, keep me from setting the book aside for a welcome break. 350+ pages and not one engaging, likable, or particularly well-rounded character in the bunch. If anyone finds the jacket synopsis interesting, I'd advise them to skip the book and check out the research readings listed in the afterword.
None of the characters are supposed to be any of those things.Originally Posted by LordBalthazar
It would spoil the book. They are dark and disturbed to begin with, and the environment, and isolation makes them worse.
Just a fabulous fascinating read. So I don't agree with you about skipping the book, but I do agree the reference section at the end is great too.
This is one of the few books I have read that I would say rated a 9.75 or 10. There a few flaws, but the characters weren't any of them (to me at least).
I have to disagree. True, one can argue that the characters were written to be unlikable in many respects (although I'd also argue that it is still possible to offer reprehensible yet very human characters - ie. The Sopranos), but they need to be engaging so that the reader can invest themselves emotionally in the story. The reader may not love them, but they should, at the very least, believe in them.None of the characters are supposed to be any of those things.
.
It is not the fault of the writer if the reader has to have likable characters, or an emotional identification with them to enjoy the book.
The Sopranos are not even close. They are choosing to be reprehensible, and are basically normal people with a skewed sense of loyalty and an odd worldview. The characters in Starfish are not. They are mentally and emotionally ill. They are not normal, and probably never have been. In the story, rather than offer them treatment and support, they are used, and their dysfunction is exploited. They are very believable if you have ever had any contact with people who are mentally/emotionally ill and without treatment.
I agree. The writer does not have to present likable or emotionally identifiable characters. But I would settle for engaging. I can only base my take on what I took away from the book. I felt that even though we were spending time with these people, we were not really getting to know them. As a result, the emotional impact at novel's end didn't resonate as strongly for me.
Interesting theme this, which is also in Peter's latest, Blindsight. There the characters are also mentally and emotionally ill (or at the very least, have a skewed world view!), and the author himself in the Afterword admits that the characters are rather unlikeable. But, so far, a fascinating read, which makes my brain hurt...
Hobbit
Mark
Watts did the most wonderful, inventive and funny presentation at Readercon last summer. All about the corporate benefits of vampires.
Funny about characters being engaging, I was totally engaged by Lenie in Starfish, but in the 2nd book she seemed to just be wandering a rather boring landscape. Couldn't connect, and still have to read the last two (really one book split by the publisher).
I am not sure it was really the character that wasn't engaging so much as I was expecting something as cool as the set-up and atmosphere at the bottom of the sea, and the cyber world just didn't work for me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks