Liu Cixin's Remembrance of Earth's Past trilogy

[Rippounet]

I finished Death's End a couple of days ago and looked for a thread about it here. Apparently there isn't any (or perhaps far in the archives, I checked up to 2016), so I'd thought I'd give it a go.

I stumbled on a mention of The Three-Body Problem (on 9gag tbh) and thought it'd be interesting to see whether a science-fiction work by a Chinese author would be different.

And boy, was I not disappointed. The trilogy as a whole is unlike anything I've ever read, and the last volume is... Difficult to describe. I really wonder if others here have shared some of my impressions.

WARNING: I'll remain vague and carefully avoid spoilers, but if you really don't want to take any risks avoid reading beyond this point.

The great thing about the first book is how long it takes to know what kind of science-fiction it's even going to be. Since it starts with scientists, it could be about anything. It blends a detective story, science-fiction, and philosophical elements at the same time, with a great many scientific and mathematical references (not to mention literary ones).
The prose is unequal imho. The translator (Ken Liu) explains this in the postscript, saying that he kept some Chinese forms into English, even if it doesn't read as well. It can be a problem at times, especially for characterisation, but the plot itself is gripping enough to overcome it.
I was surprised by the critique of the cultural revolution at the beginning. Yet, Liu Cixin doesn't seem to have any kind of problem with the Chinese government (quite the contrary in fact).

The second book, by comparison is still intriguing, but far more predictable. The main character is slightly more conventional I'd say, and the title itself gives away too much.
The first and second books are great at presenting humans in a realistic way. It's not often in fiction that humanity's reactions as a whole are that credible. Except perhaps when far too many people are frankly dumb to the point that it stretches the suspension of disbelief.

The third book is the most alien. I don't even want to say anything about it since its structure itself tells too much. I would even advise people to skip the notes and table and jump straight to the book itself (the table of content is too revealing).

But what's great about the trilogy as a whole is how it continuously plays with the reader's sense of morality. It really challenges you to question the way we think of the individual in the West. Perhaps it's typically Chinese, I dunno, but the characters who are the most "moral" end up... not necessarily doing great. An excess of morality, especially consideration for the individual, can be a weakness... or not, depending on the situation.
And at the same time the book does focus on individuals, on their inner life and relationships, and does so in true poetic fashion more than once. So much so that in the end one can wonder what kind of book one is reading. Is this science-fiction? Romance? Something else? In the end it seems nothing matters, and the reader is given no "answers," but is left with tons of questions.

And it's dark. So fucking dark. The ultimate truth about the universe isn't just dark, it's depressing. I don't think I've ever read a book that had characters with such a diversity of moral and personal viewpoints, while at the same time proposing a setting that leaves little hope.

And the trilogy as a whole gives you hope just to snatch it away.  There's this passage about religion when it's explained that humans started to believe in God after being miraculously saved twice. Since this is a story, you expect the main characters to save humanity. "God" in a sense, is the author.
And then they don't. There is no God. So is there an author still? At the end you don't even know if there will be a universe...

[Lord Patrek]

Skipped most of what you wrote. But I've read the first two volumes and loved them.

Will have to read Death's End soon, methinks!

[Caligula_K3]

I really liked The Three Body Problem, especially for its combination of sci-fi and history. The Dark Forest was slightly more underwhelming, partially due to the translator not being as good, but it does have a very good ending. And then Death's End... what a trip of a novel. I love how out there it gets, how the scale just keeps on increasing and increasing and the ideas get more and more bonkers. I loved and was horrified by the use of weapons to reduce the dimensions of space.. such a terrifying idea.

I disagree with you that the books are effective at characterization. Most of the characters, imo, are pretty flat; only Da Shi and Luo Ji are really given any depth.  I thought Cheng Xin in Book 3 was a particularly bad character, and found it a bit irritating that the novel kept on finding ways to give her control of the fate of humanity/Trisolaris/the universe. But for me, in a sci-fi novel, if the ideas are cool enough and executed well enough, I can excuse flat characterization; and Death's End completely delivers on that front.   

[Rippounet]

On 12/31/2019 at 6:12 PM, Caligula_K3 said:

I disagree with you that the books are effective at characterization. Most of the characters, imo, are pretty flat; only Da Shi and Luo Ji are really given any depth.  I thought Cheng Xin in Book 3 was a particularly bad character, and found it a bit irritating that the novel kept on finding ways to give her control of the fate of humanity/Trisolaris/the universe. But for me, in a sci-fi novel, if the ideas are cool enough and executed well enough, I can excuse flat characterization; and Death's End completely delivers on that front.   

No, I did say that characterisation was a problem, though I blamed it on translation. I also wrote that the characters offer a diversity of moral and personal viewpoints, but that doesn't mean characterisation is well done.

Da Shi and Lio Ji are by far the best characters. Cheng Xin was immensely annoying from her introduction to the end. My GF hinted to me that she may be based on a Chinese mythical figure, which would explain a lot. I also wondered if she was meant to mock Western individualistic/moral perspectives given how close she can come to being a "typical hero" in a Hollywood-style movie.

Death's End was indeed quite a trip. It's what led me to create this thread because not only was the book unpredictable but the conclusion was... both brilliant and utterly crazy.

[polishgenius]

I thought Three-Body Problem was a hot mess ultimately- fun to read for the most part but I was really distracted by it's faux-Hard-SF presentation when actually a lot of even the most basic science is utter bunkum (this may be a bit unfair as the book's not really claiming to be hard SF but there was a lot of times when the plot stopped to explain a load of the underlying science, Neal Stephenson style, and I feel to get away with that there has to be at least some internal integrity to the science, which Three Body Problem lacked so hard that

ultimately there isn't even a three body problem because it leans hard on even the tiniest influence can cause chaos and unpredictability which means overlooking the influence of the planet on the triple solar system just doesn't hold up

).

What ultimately made me dislike it though is the ending in which

having discovered, or been conned into thinking, that the scientific principles they thought were real were not, scientists worldwide start comitting suicide en masse rather than going 'oooh a new mystery how fun!'. I thought that was a crushing misunderstanding of what a scientist actually is and genuinely found it quite offensive.  

I should read the rest as I've heard good things even from people who had issues with the first, though I have somewhat spoiled myself on what happens.

 

[David Selig]

57 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

What ultimately made me dislike it though is the ending in which

  Hide contents

having discovered, or been conned into thinking, that the scientific principles they thought were real were not, scientists worldwide start comitting suicide en masse rather than going 'oooh a new mystery how fun!'. I thought that was a crushing misunderstanding of what a scientist actually is and genuinely found it quite offensive.  

 

Yeah, this was really stupid and annoying.

I mostly enjoyed the book, but I also found it somewhat overrated too. The characterisation is really uneven, some of the main characters are complete cardboard cutouts who don't behave like actual humans at all. Wang Miao in particular is just a completely implausible caricature of a scientist who couldn't care less about his wife and daughter and suddenly becomes obsessed for months with what is described as frankly a pretty boring VR game and completely ignores everything else.

[williamjm]

7 hours ago, polishgenius said:

I thought Three-Body Problem was a hot mess ultimately- fun to read for the most part but I was really distracted by it's faux-Hard-SF presentation when actually a lot of even the most basic science is utter bunkum (this may be a bit unfair as the book's not really claiming to be hard SF but there was a lot of times when the plot stopped to explain a load of the underlying science, Neal Stephenson style, and I feel to get away with that there has to be at least some internal integrity to the science, which Three Body Problem lacked so hard that

  Hide contents

ultimately there isn't even a three body problem because it leans hard on even the tiniest influence can cause chaos and unpredictability which means overlooking the influence of the planet on the triple solar system just doesn't hold up

).

What ultimately made me dislike it though is the ending in which

  Hide contents

having discovered, or been conned into thinking, that the scientific principles they thought were real were not, scientists worldwide start comitting suicide en masse rather than going 'oooh a new mystery how fun!'. I thought that was a crushing misunderstanding of what a scientist actually is and genuinely found it quite offensive.  

 

I should read the rest as I've heard good things even from people who had issues with the first, though I have somewhat spoiled myself on what happens.

 

If we were judging it is as a hard-SF book I think it is also a bit of a problem that judging by the time it takes for the signals to arrive the Trisolaran system must be Alpha Centauri but even though that does have the right number of stars the system isn't like the one in books with two stars close to each other and a much smaller one a huge distance away. Parts of the ending also got very far-fetched.

I did think the same about the scientists. Maybe some would be driven to despair but I'm sure there would be some who would immediately get excited about the papers they could write trying to explain things.

I read the Three Body Problem a few years ago. There were things I liked about it, I thought the section during the Cultural Revolution was the most compelling part of the book and it does have some fascinating ideas. There were a couple of good characters but for a lot of the characterisation I wondered if something had been lost in translation. Overall it did feel a bit like a Chinese version of a 'Golden Age' Science Fiction novel - interesting ideas, bland characterisation. I did vaguely consider reading more in the series, but I'm not sure it's going to happen.

[Rippounet]

There's a pushback against Netflix's plans to adapt The Three-Body Problem because of Liu Cixin's declarations on the Uighur.
 

Quote

 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/sep/25/netflix-liu-cixin-adaptation-uighur-comments-the-three-body-problem

Netflix faces call to rethink Liu Cixin adaptation after his Uighur comments

Five US senators have written to question plans to adapt The Three-Body Problem after its author voiced support for China’s mass internments in Xinjiang

Five Republican US senators have asked Netflix to reconsider its plans to adapt the bestselling Chinese author Liu Cixin’s book The Three-Body Problem, citing Liu’s comments in support of the Chinese government’s treatment of Uighur Muslims.

 

I'd read about Liu Cixin's support for China's policies before. In fact, it's one of the first things I checked after having read The Three-Body Problem, because the book seemed surprisingly critical of the Cultural Revolution.

This is a thorny issue, which might deserve its own thread, as it touches many issues discussed on the forum these past few months, including cancel culture, international relations, or China's growing cultural influence.
What I personally wonder is whether Liu Cixin really has that much choice or agency, being a prominent author in an authoritarian country. Could he really do anything else than "officially" support his government? Does his refusal to stand up to an authoritarian government make him complicit and guilty, enough to censor his -unrelated- work?
What I wonder is whether his work isn't kinda subversive in some ways. And even if it isn't, the netflix adaptation could be.
Generally speaking, wouldn't it be the job of governments and diplomats to deal with the issue of China's persecutions, rather than Netflix's? Isn't it a bit hypocritical of US Senators to attack works of fiction to indirectly deal with Chinese policies?
I'm against both Chinese policies and censorship, and can't exactly make up my mind on this one.

[Gigei]

I have this in my "I should read this but I don't have the money right now" pile.

Hmm, horrible or at least extremely flawed translations are pretty much par for the course when it comes to Chinese to English translations. I've read a lot of classical works and the English translations can never come close but it's not that bad when it's a modern novel.

One other problem is that non-Chinese readers simply fail to pick up on obvious cultural/literary references.

For example, I was reading a story where there was something about comparing herself to a fan. It's a clear reference to Consort Ban's poem comparing herself to a fan that is kept in her lover's sleeve during summer but discarded once the cold season arrives. I needed a footnote to know about that.

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

What I personally wonder is whether Liu Cixin really has that much choice or agency, being a prominent author in an authoritarian country. Could he really do anything else than "officially" support his government? Does his refusal to stand up to an authoritarian government make him complicit and guilty, enough to censor his -unrelated- work?

Good grief! Of course, he can't openly criticize the government without being in BIG trouble. I'm surprised people don't know this.

I thought it was okay with the PRC if you criticize the Cultural Revolution. Heaven help you if you criticize Winnie the Pooh in China but the excesses of the Maoist regime is fine to complain about, I think. Farewell My Concubine was banned for a time but not because of the Cultural Revolution stuff - the censors objected to the homosexuality and suicide.

…Though it is possible that he really does support ethnic cleansing. Some people do. I mean, they genuinely do, not that they were brainwashed. I'm no expert on it but I'm pretty sure that, in fact, there are plenty of people who live in the area who just want everything to be over and support the government's concentration camps because they see the Muslim minority Ughyurs as troublemakers.

I must say that the tone of his interview is exactly the same sort of thing that I hear from people. This bit:

Quote

He went on, “Here’s the truth: if you were to become the President of China tomorrow, you would find that you had no other choice than to do exactly as he has done.”

... is almost word-for-word what someone told me yesterday about Mao.

[Rippounet]

6 minutes ago, Gigei said:

Good grief! Of course, he can't openly criticize the government without being in BIG trouble.

I know he can't criticize, what I was wondering is whether he is under pressure to voice support.

There is an interesting passage from the interview you posted:

Quote

Liu closed his eyes for a long moment and then said quietly, “This is why I don’t like to talk about subjects like this. The truth is you don’t really—I mean, can’t truly—understand.” He gestured around him. “You’ve lived here, in the U.S., for, what, going on three decades?” The implication was clear: years in the West had brainwashed me. In that moment, in Liu’s mind, I, with my inflexible sense of morality, was the alien.

It's not certain that the journalist actually understood what Liu meant here (or pretended not to understand). "You don't really -- I mean, can't truly -- understand" could mean many things.
For starters, he was talking with a journalist ffs, he had to be very careful about what he was saying. Parroting the Party line is exactly what one would expect from a successful Chinese author who doesn't want to throw it all away for the sake of candor.
He clearly stated he doesn't like to talk about such matters... That could be because he feels he has no choice but to parrot the Party line if people ask him for his opinion. In other words, by asking him that kind of political question, the journalist left him no choice, regardless of his actual thoughts on the matter.
And she knew that. Asking him that question may even have been dangerous for him. I'm tempted to despise her for it.

Now that I have a clearer idea of the context of the interview, I'd say the Senators attacking Liu are grandstanding.

Quote

And so, Liu explained to me, the existing regime made the most sense for today’s China, because to change it would be to invite chaos. “If China were to transform into a democracy, it would be hell on earth,” he said. “I would evacuate tomorrow, to the United States or Europe or—I don’t know.” The irony that the countries he was proposing were democracies seemed to escape his notice. He went on, “Here’s the truth: if you were to become the President of China tomorrow, you would find that you had no other choice than to do exactly as he has done.”

It was an opinion entirely consistent with his systems-level view of human societies, just as mine reflected a belief in democracy and individualism as principles to be upheld regardless of outcomes.

It's ironic that the journalist seems to see Liu's position as being pragmatic anti-democratism, whereas her "principled" defense of democracy would entail some kind of risk.

Having read the books, I am not certain that this is what he actually believes. One could say the books do present authoritarianism as pragmatism at times, but the story itself is open to other readings imho. In fact I remember being puzzled by the apparent lack of moral to the story. It certainly isn't a clear apology of collectivism at the expense of individualism. Considering how careful Liu has to be, I'm tempted to say his work is borderline subversive. But hey, what do I know.
 

[Gigei]

11 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I know he can't criticize, what I was wondering is whether he is under pressure to voice support.

There is an interesting passage from the interview you posted:

It's not certain that the journalist actually understood what Liu meant here (or pretended not to understand). "You don't really -- I mean, can't truly -- understand" could mean many things.
For starters, he was talking with a journalist ffs, he had to be very careful about what he was saying. Parroting the Party line is exactly what one would expect from a successful Chinese author who doesn't want to throw it all away for the sake of candor.
He clearly stated he doesn't like to talk about such matters... That could be because he feels he has no choice but to parrot the Party line if people ask him for his opinion. In other words, by asking him that kind of political question, the journalist left him no choice, regardless of his actual thoughts on the matter.
And she knew that. Asking him that question may even have been dangerous for him. I'm tempted to despise her for it.

Now that I have a clearer idea of the context of the interview, I'd say the Senators attacking Liu are grandstanding.

It's ironic that the journalist seems to see Liu's position as being pragmatic anti-democratism, whereas her "principled" defense of democracy would entail some kind of risk.

Having read the books, I am not certain that this is what he actually believes. One could say the books do present authoritarianism as pragmatism at times, but the story itself is open to other readings imho. In fact I remember being puzzled by the apparent lack of moral to the story. It certainly isn't a clear apology of collectivism at the expense of individualism. Considering how careful Liu has to be, I'm tempted to say his work is borderline subversive. But hey, what do I know.
 

Oh, I see what you mean! For what it's worth, the comments he made are exactly the sort of thing that people say in private but, as he is a public figure, I'm sure he has to toe the party line even if he doesn't want to. I really don't expect him to put his living and maybe even his life on the line by saying anything else. Hell, I would do the same thing if I were a popular Chinese writer.

I'll give him a pass regarding his support of the Ughyur issue since it's impossible to know what he would truly say if he was free to express any opinion.

You are also correct in that the journalist was definitely going for something controversial to publish. That's how an article gets clicks.

I don't believe that books necessarily reflect an author's current thoughts. They might have been what he thought when he was writing but it's fiction and people change. The trilogy was written 10-14 years ago.

[Crixus]

So I just finished this trilogy and was floored. It's the first series I've ever read by a Chinese author and the difference in style, approach, plot and more vs. Western writing is stark. I won't go on about it as @Rippounet has already said a lot of what I think. Suffice to say, I found it highly original, engrossing and thought-provoking. There were also some truly beautiful passages there, especially in book 1 and 3 (which were translated by the same person I believe). 

I'm torn about any adaptation of this. On the one hand, I'd love to see it. On the other, I think the work and the scale is pretty complex, which would present a challenge to the best of TV talent. In the hands of the illustrious D&D?? The pair who - imo - royally fucked up ASOIAF? It would be an absolute shitshow. 

 

[Clueless Northman]

On 9/26/2020 at 5:56 PM, Gigei said:

One other problem is that non-Chinese readers simply fail to pick up on obvious cultural/literary references.

I've only read 3-Body Problem so I'll merely comment on that bit.

When reading it, I strongly suspected that the unnamed very high-up party official who wrote recommendations about the secret astrophysical project would be Mao, considering what kind of role in the system, what kind of power he seemed to wield. Checking online, I found Chinese commenters who confirmed it and said Cixin Liu was even parodying Mao's flowery writing style in these reports. Something which is obviously lost in translation - and there shouldn't be much Westerners left around who would have any clue about Mao's style or even Mao's writings.

[IFR]

I'm glad this series has a discussion about it, because I'm a pretty big fan of all three novels.

There are criticisms here about the series lacking the rigour of a true hard scifi work despite its efforts to appear as such, which is fair enough. I believe pseudo-Neal Stephenson was the rough approximation, to coin a description.

For my part, I'm not bothered by this. I think the series covers its bases enough, and honestly I don't see how one could have the sheer mind-boggling ambition of the series (if one reads all the books), and even have the vestige of hard scifi. A presentiment is sufficient to build the atmosphere of the kind sprawling epic this series becomes. Other authors have attempted to write really ambitious scifi, but the "hard" quality plummets. Seveneves by Stephenson is far removed from hard scifi; as is 2001: A Space Odyssey; many authors managed pseudo-hard scifi space operas (Stephenson, Clarke, Asimov, Niven, et al), but none have, as far as I'm aware, produced a truly rigorous hard scifi space opera. (Btw, if someone knows of one, I would really like to read it.)

I consider this series to be of similar ilk to The Expanse and Foundation series, and it truly is the best at what it does.

@Crixus

I share your skepticism. The series is ridiculously ambitious, and I can't even begin to imagine how one would adapt it. Despite the ending of Game of Thrones, though, I do feel that if anyone can manage it, Weiss and Benioff will pull it off. Consider that A Song of Ice and Fire was thought to be impossible to adapt because it was far too complex and long and would require a staggering budget. And what kind of fantasy had been produced up to that point? Xena and Hercules? Kiddy grade Whedon nonsense like Buffy? Game of Thrones came charging in and completely altered the landscape of fantasy (which Martin himself has said on his blog). It ended up being the most watched show in recent times and the most awarded show in prime time television history. I'd call that a success.

And what has come after? Mediocre fare for the most part (at least in my opinion). Netflix is regularly churning out laughably awful teen targeted fantasy; and other channels are hardly doing better. Nothing has come even close.

That being said, I still find myself in your boat. Seriously, how can this series be adapted? It seems crazy.

[polishgenius]

18 hours ago, IFR said:

I don't see how one could have the sheer mind-boggling ambition of the series (if one reads all the books), and even have the vestige of hard scifi.

 

 

I mean it depends what you mean by 'hard'. If 'it means applying only science we definitely know is a thing in the real world today, then there's not many. But there's also a lot of extremely wild SF written by authors spinning off extant (at least at the time: since science marches on some will be more dated than others) theories. It's speculative, but it's all either potentially possible or at least they can make the explanation make sense within science as we know it. Stephen Baxter, Alastair Reynolds and Hannu Rajianemi have all done this (though Rajianemi in particular I have to kind of take people's word for it-  I understand enough physics to follow what Baxter and Reynolds are talking about but Rajianemi's just out there even though in terms of sheer scope he's got the smallest 'verse- remaining in our Solar System. I recommend all three though (Xeelee from Baxter, Revelation Space from Reynolds and The Quantum Thief from Rajianemi). 

 

As far as I can tell, Liu isn't doing that. Which is fine, some of my favourite stories have no basis at all in reality and some of the moments in book 1 I thought were realy cool were really out there, but when it spent a lot of time and effort describing things that were fairly basic and missed that's when it fell down for me.

Specifically, the sun amplifying signals just doesn't make sense to me at all and didn't particularly need to be there, but as I mentioned above the really annoying one was it's a whole book named Three Body Problem that doesn't have one in it. It hammers home that even the tiniest element can introduce wild chaos, and never balances that with the fact that the three-star system has a planet that would definitely fall within those parameters.

 

Still, those were annoyances not book-killers, I would have liked it if it was just the sciency bits that were bothering me.

[IFR]

@polishgenius

Fantastic, thank you for the book recommendations! You're the second person on this board to recommend Alistair Reynolds, so I'll definitely give his books priority (and check out the others as well).

Your assessment is fair. I'll respond to some points you made. Please note that I'm not trying to persuade you that you're "wrong" for not loving these books. It's a totally subjective thing and your response is totally valid. I'm simply providing the perspective of someone who didn't mind these aspects that you criticize.

Spoiler

With regard to the point of solar cavities appreciably amplifying radio signals, that is indeed nonsense science. 

Honestly, what I suspect occurred is the author found himself in need of a method of relaying radio signals over a distance of many light years and a broad range without attenuating to undetectable noise. I don't think it's too much of a spoiler to hint that this is an important plot point that is integral to the structure of all three books.

The author wanted to endow the characters with the ability to overcome this limitation but still seem grounded, and so he went with a techno babble solution. He could have simply ignored the issue of attenuation (which also would have received criticism from others dissatisfied with that approach), but he chose this route.

I was fine with that. I feel like if you had a poll for the audience of these books, most would not have a clue whether solar amplification was theoretically feasible technology.

The author actually does this in other cases too. In the second book (I really don't consider this a spoiler), scientists are designing a nuclear weapon with a yield greater than 200 megatons. It's suggested that the understanding of nuclear weapons has to be dramatically overhauled in order to achieve this end. This is not a problem with a real world basis. Limitations on the design of nuke yields are related to payload delivery and concern for fallout (and the dimished returns of damage per joule of energy), which isn't presented as much of a problem in the series. With proper staging a nuke could easily be designed to achieve much higher than 200 megatons. 

But again, I don't think most people would know that. And it is something that makes the plot interesting.

And ultimately, the jargon is there to give a sense of realism to what is undeniably a scifi fantasy. The introduction of the sophons really drive that home. And it gets more fantasy scifi with each successive book. The series has the jargon to give a sense of realism, but it in no way tries to hide that it is a fantasy.

With regards to the three body problem of orbital mechanics, I guess I don't understand what you mean. It has been a while since I've read the book, but I recall the dilemma of the Trisolarans was that the orbit of the suns could not be predicted. This is a three body problem. Even though it involves four bodies, the three body problem refers to any chaotic dynamic of orbiting systems that is introduced when bodies are of the integer n > 2. Initial states result in wildly different calculations, and the solution becomes a matter of brute forcing by iterative calculations.

 

[polishgenius]

2 hours ago, IFR said:

 

Spoiler

t has been a while since I've read the book, but I recall the dilemma of the Trisolarans was that the orbit of the suns could not be predicted. This is a three body problem. Even though it involves four bodies, the three body problem refers to any chaotic dynamic of orbiting systems that is introduced when bodies are of the integer n > 2.

 

 

Fair enough, if my mockery of the title is wrong, though to my recollection

Spoiler

the book does focus very much on it being three- the three suns. It was that there was a theme to the book about chaos theory and at no point did the tri-solarians at least go 'oh our own planet is making the calculations even harder' that threw me off.

 

 

But yeah these are pet peeves, I likewise aren't trying to put off anyone from liking the books by airing them.book's presentation didn't engage with me.,

[Loge]

13 hours ago, IFR said:

@polishgenius

Fantastic, thank you for the book recommendations! You're the second person on this board to recommend Alistair Reynolds, so I'll definitely give his books priority (and check out the others as well).

Your assessment is fair. I'll respond to some points you made. Please note that I'm not trying to persuade you that you're "wrong" for not loving these books. It's a totally subjective thing and your response is totally valid. I'm simply providing the perspective of someone who didn't mind these aspects that you criticize.

  Hide contents

With regard to the point of solar cavities appreciably amplifying radio signals, that is indeed nonsense science. 

Honestly, what I suspect occurred is the author found himself in need of a method of relaying radio signals over a distance of many light years and a broad range without attenuating to undetectable noise. I don't think it's too much of a spoiler to hint that this is an important plot point that is integral to the structure of all three books.

The author wanted to endow the characters with the ability to overcome this limitation but still seem grounded, and so he went with a techno babble solution. He could have simply ignored the issue of attenuation (which also would have received criticism from others dissatisfied with that approach), but he chose this route.

I was fine with that. I feel like if you had a poll for the audience of these books, most would not have a clue whether solar amplification was theoretically feasible technology.

The author actually does this in other cases too. In the second book (I really don't consider this a spoiler), scientists are designing a nuclear weapon with a yield greater than 200 megatons. It's suggested that the understanding of nuclear weapons has to be dramatically overhauled in order to achieve this end. This is not a problem with a real world basis. Limitations on the design of nuke yields are related to payload delivery and concern for fallout (and the dimished returns of damage per joule of energy), which isn't presented as much of a problem in the series. With proper staging a nuke could easily be designed to achieve much higher than 200 megatons. 

But again, I don't think most people would know that. And it is something that makes the plot interesting.

And ultimately, the jargon is there to give a sense of realism to what is undeniably a scifi fantasy. The introduction of the sophons really drive that home. And it gets more fantasy scifi with each successive book. The series has the jargon to give a sense of realism, but it in no way tries to hide that it is a fantasy.

With regards to the three body problem of orbital mechanics, I guess I don't understand what you mean. It has been a while since I've read the book, but I recall the dilemma of the Trisolarans was that the orbit of the suns could not be predicted. This is a three body problem. Even though it involves four bodies, the three body problem refers to any chaotic dynamic of orbiting systems that is introduced when bodies are of the integer n > 2. Initial states result in wildly different calculations, and the solution becomes a matter of brute forcing by iterative calculations.

 

The three body problem is the problem to solve for the orbits of three or more stars / celestial bodies interacting and bound together by gravity. It can't be solved analytically but you can run computer simulations. There are a lot of stellar systems out there with three stars. It's always a configuration where there's a binary system and a third star in an orbit around that binary at a larger distance, or something like that, which reduces the three body problem to two two body problems. No lack of predictability there, and no instability. Truly chaotic systems would be short-lived, as one or more stars would simply be kicked out as the result of a close encounter.

[Starkess]

What's funny is that I'm actually a planetary dynamicist and I was not at all bothered by the 3-body problem name. In fact I was quite tickled to see things that I actively work on research on making it into the plot of a book! Was it entirely accurate? No. But it certainly drew on true underlying science--the 3-body problem is indeed intractable and requires approximations to solve.

[IFR]

@Loge

12 hours ago, Loge said:

The three body problem is the problem to solve for the orbits of three or more stars / celestial bodies interacting and bound together by gravity. It can't be solved analytically but you can run computer simulations.

Yes.

12 hours ago, Loge said:

There are a lot of stellar systems out there with three stars. It's always a configuration where there's a binary system and a third star in an orbit around that binary at a larger distance, or something like that, which reduces the three body problem to two two body problems. No lack of predictability there, and no instability. Truly chaotic systems would be short-lived, as one or more stars would simply be kicked out as the result of a close encounter.

Spoiler

Sorry, I guess my sentence was unclear. The trinary orbit of the Trisolarans could not be predicted by the Trisolarans. Even the book doesn't suggest that it's impossible to predict the orbit. In the book it's suggested that the Trisolarans have come up with simulations that have correctly modeled the system for a time, enabling predictions of the Chaos era, but then eventually the simulation failed. A character in the book is of interest because they are working on a mathematical formulation that could be used to properly model the Trisolaran system.

@Starkess

I'm actually very interested - would you mind going into what the book gets correct and what it gets incorrect? That would be a fun post!

Edit: I realize that the internet being what it is, this post could be confused as having a mocking tone. For the record, this comment was made in earnest. Cosmology is well outside my bailiwick and there's much I don't know, so having the perspective of someone whose field happens to be the very topic under discussion is naturally an exciting bit of serendipity.

Also I can see how having the spotlight suddenly put on oneself can make some people uncomfortable. There's, of course, no pressure to answer intended. Feel free not to engage in this topic. I just seized the opportunity that seemed to present itself. But if you feel comfortable answering, please do! Or PM me if that is more agreeable than a public response.