Wrapped up the first book after much struggle. Am I crazy for finding it extremely poorly written? Writing aside, the characters suck, the motivations suck, and the scenario building feels like it was tossed together by a 12 year old. I don’t get the hype. Everything is paper thin. The fictional science aspect is the most compelling part but as a cohesive whole it fails to land.
That’s because it’s great!
OK maybe it’s not like objectively great, like in a literary sense, but me and my friends really enjoyed it for its unique voice and fun mystery.
It also spawned so many great conversations between the other programmers I know.
You are correct. And it’s not a translation problem, I’ve heard native speakers that read the original say it’s precisely as awkward there.
It’s the most over-rated trash I’ve ever encountered, it’s like it’s written by someone that discovered the genre but never read a single SF book and just assumed everyone that reads it is a teenager. There’s more handwaving going on than a David Blaine performance.
And the later books show plotholes you could throw a truck through, when you get to the deus-ex-machina plot device that invalidates the whole marianne. And the character development never improves, it’s just, I have to use the word again, awkward.
I wanted my money back.
Whoa whoa whoa, hang on there a second. David Blane would never use enough energy to wave a hand. David Copperfield maybe.
My bad. You’re right Copperfield is way more of a flashy showman.
I just pulled the first magician I could think of out of my ass. Like a rabbit. Now how the hell did that get up there?
From your fiery post, seems you had a wild hare up your arse.
Dude, if I had a nickel for every rabb… Know what? This should go to a different thread.
Aliens live on a planet orbiting three suns. The planet regularly gets scorched by those suns. Hot enough to melt rocks. How tf these aliens keep evolving and advancing all the way to space travel?
It is utterly ridiculous.
Easy. DEHYDRATE!
They just gather their dragon balls, obviously!
Rant incoming
The three body problem is chaotic dynamical system. Chaotic means, between other things, that it is unpredictable: given two different starting points, even incredibly close, their behavior will diverge (become different) exponentially fast over time (and we saw during the Covid epidemic that exponentially fast is really damn fast).
So having a super smart mathematician approximating its simulation… that’s a load of bullshit, hot and steamy. That’s a master level example of how not to spend your days, because any approximation you do is going to impact your results exponentially fast.
Furthermore, the three body problem’s solutions don’t need to be bounded. What does this mean? That there is no reason for the planet to stay in orbit of the three suns. Any time it gets far, it could come back, but just as easily keep going further away and lose connection with its starting system. Any time it gets near the suns it could just as easily fall into one of them. So, most likely, during geological ages, the planet would have either gotten ejected or eaten up. If you want to go even further back, there is no way an asteroid belt would generate a planet in these conditions.
Finally, there are well-known configurations of solutions of the three body problem. Configurations are very specific situations (usually assuming two suns of equal mass and a sun that is much smaller and much further away) that can sustain periodic solutions, aka behaviors that repeat after a certain time. If a planet ever got generated in a three suns system, it would definitely need to be in one of these configurations.
The nail in the coffin: if there are three suns and a planet… it’s the four body problem. If you consider the planet to have basically zero mass with respect to the suns, you call it the restricted four body problem.
And this is why knowing way more than the author spoils the fun :( I could not enjoy the science part at all… even when i tried to suspend my disbelief.
Exactly what keeps me from writing anything, which is silly, but I hate the idea of somebody reading something I wrote and thinking, “what an idiot” 😔
Oh, I am sorry… but you can see this thread: even if there are quite some inaccuracy on the math and physics side of things, many people still really enjoyed this book (my partner included, even after hearing my rant many time). You should not censor yourself! (But accept criticism and improve from it). You go gender-neutral-guy!
Haha, thank you, I appreciate the sentiment! I recognize that this is a Me Problem, but in classic fashion I think I can overcome this, too, with just a little bit of self-improvement in a slightly new area of expertise. I mean really, how hard could it be?
I read/watch popular but stupid things to remind myself things don’t need to be accurate to be entertaining.
Here’s how I understand it to work.
They have random periods of activity in which they advance as a species so they make large leaps in scientific progress when they are awake as opposed to a slow and steady build up of knowledge. Their large leaps in advancements becomes a disadvantage at times but more so their way of thinking in general.
Because they kinda portray themselves as humanoid that’s how you’re lead to think about them, like approximately human sized smart mamal-ish creatures, when really they are between ant to beetle sized hive mind creatures. This is why the more of them that they are able to have active between the harsh sun cycles the faster they advance. Also makes the whole dehydration thing easier to swallow.
And how do Trisolarians manage to transfer knowledge from one stable era to the next? The surface of the planet literally burns during the chaotic era. Which begs another question, how do they rehydrate? With what water?
Yeah. I struggled with the cringy romance sections. Very much a freshman entry. But the series as a whole does work well. The Dark Forest is huge improvement. it also had a different translator and has a different structure that I feel works better than the first.
I enjoyed it and have recommended it, but then I reread it and yea, it’s not great. But it had some interesting new concepts, for which I’m still grateful I read the books, like the dark forest theory.
Except that the dark forest hypothesis completely falls apart when you examine it for more than a few minutes.
SPOILER
Basically, the fundamental problem is that it applies game theory really badly, by treating the value of “survival” as functionally infinite, which is something that - if we actually applied it in reality - would make life unlivable. For example, eating a chocolate bar contains a miniscule risk to your survival. But if you multiply any minute fraction by infinity you get infinity, so the risk outweighs any possible value you could obtain. This becomes true for every decision you can possibly make. At both the individual and societal levels, treating survival as a purpose that outweighs everything else just leads to total paralysis. Any society that operated on those principles would never actually advance to the point of being capable of interacting with the wider universe. Liu even has to treat humanity itself - our only extant example of a space-faring species - as an almost impossible outlier because our own behaviour completely shatters the hypothesis. Even our studies of animal life on earth repeatedly demonstrate that curiosity and altruism are actually traits that evolution selects for, not against. Yeah, it solves Fermi’s Paradox, but that’s literally the only argument for it. It fails every other test possible. It’s a really interesting idea for a scifi setting, but it’s not remotely supported by reality.
It’s not even a good analogy, the basic idea of a ‘silent dark forest’ is pretty nonsense. Forests aren’t quiet at night. Animals aren’t hiding out to avoid predators. Most aren’t active cause it’s dark and it’s hard to see, so they sleep instead. Most predators are in the same boat, they typically hunt in late evening/early morning, when their prey is also active. That’s ignoring the plethora of nocturnal species of course.
There’s literally no part of the theory I find compelling, it seems like a poor conclusion based on a foolish assumption.
I’m not really sure what you mean. I don’t think ‘infinifte’ value vs arbitrarily high value makes a difference here. Also evolutionarily, intraspecies collaboration is beneficial, not necessarily interspecies. Although we’re talking about civilizations making decisions, not animal behaviour.
I know it falls apart quickly, but I still like it as a concept. I also like dragons, magic and immortal beings as concepts.
I just read it as a parallel to the realists perspective of international relations on a cosmic scale. It the survival of the state in relation to other states that is the goal. In that respect it holds up well enough.
But even there it falls apart, because if it had any merit then every country in the world would be North Korea. And even that wouldn’t be enough, because even North Korea trades with China. The idea that the natural state of the world is total paranoia and the instant annihilation of every civilisation simply doesn’t hold up. The realist’s perspective of international relations actually serves to disprove; even when you begin from the presumption that their own survival is the primary goal of every civilisation, it can be observed that the optimal behaviours that arise from that goal are cooperative, not defensive.
Countries on the same planet results in a completely different situation. Dark Forest theory is a result of great distance (the enemy could become technologically superior within the time it would take just to gather intel), being hidden (so MAD doesn’t apply), and having a large number of civilizations (even if only a very small percentage of civilizations send out dark forest strikes, the principle holds.)
After much struggle I got some geeky friends of mine to start a book club. I suggested this as the first book based on the hype. Almost no one finished it. When we got together to drink and talk, only two others bothered to dial in (It was during COVID and we are scattered), no one else finished it.
I dislike this book in so many different ways. It has some interesting Ideas and some surprising insights into the modern Chinese view of the revolution, but as an actual story? Ive read better fan fic.
The fictional science of the sophons was also bad.
-
The book author thought that protons were fundamental particles. Protons are made up of quarks. So the idea of unfolding a proton when it’s made up of 3 quarks doesn’t make sense. Put 3 marbles next to each other. Label the 3 marbles a proton. Unfold it. ???
-
Quantum teleportation doesn’t allow for FTL communication.
Wouldn’t argue with point 1, but point 2 may be a misunderstanding of Einstein’s spooky action at a distance, or particle entanglement, which may enable ftl comms.
which may enable ftl comms.
It can’t. Take two playing cards and without looking at them, put them in an envelope and mail one to your friend across the country. Open up your envelope. You now know what card your friend has instantly. You can’t communicate instantly this way.
-
I believe its the authors first book. It gets significantly better.
I read it nine years ago and it was a slog. I had heard good things, but it definitely wasn’t for me. Needless to say, I did not read the rest of the trilogy.
To each their own!
I didn’t super care about the characters but the sci fi problems, solutions and ideas of the whole series were a blast.
That being said, I grew up reading a lot of classic/“hard” sci fi so I’m pretty used to characters taking a back seat to fun/cool ideas.
Yeah, I felt it was kagely a throwback to 1940s and 1950s western SF. Liu feels a lot like Asimov or early Heinlein. I was thinking it was like the kind of thing that a rapidly industrializing society would write as part of the cultural zeitgeist.
Yeah that’s the context I came at it from as well. It feels like a very Chinese perspective, which is novel compared to what I usually read.
I got a lot out of the excellent English translation, but it absolutely reads differently than a novel written from an English speaking/thinking person, or even when compared to English translated from a Romance or Germanic language.
Damn, that’s a neat take. Hadn’t thought of that, but yeah, the sheer, weird “what would happen if” premise is what kept me reading, so all of the exposition was yummy rather than annoying
Liu’s short stories are all like that, if you get the chance. What if the world had to be moved out of solar orbit? What if a small class of Chinese schoolchildren were chosen to be representative of all humanity? He has these bold, brash concepts that feel like they were written in a USA that felt that the moon was a stepping stone to the stars. Like Heinlein writing about a kid boshing up a spaceship in the yard.
Liu kinda represents a China that can dream really big in the same way.
I think books 2 and 3 could easily be separated into many short stories.
Or probably the other way around, book 1 was so successful that he stuck various unfinished short stories together to make 2 & 3.
Exactly how I felt! The premise and everything was so much fun. Like, the opening “mystery” of why physics seemed broken was such a wildly cool idea and the answer was so neat but opened up more etc.
Interesting, I really hadn’t considered much beyond the political context and hadn’t really thought about the societal ones but now that you mention it, yeah absolutely.
I definitely found many, maybe even most of the characters bordering on comically corny. But i hadn’t read anything like it regarding the core stories and concepts, and those got the hooks in me. Maybe for a bit i was holding my nose to keep moving through the story, but at some point i just didnt care and had to read all three books, and in the end they’re still a dear favorite. If the underlying story isn’t doing it for you, you’re only crazy if you force yourself to keep reading it.
I understand this community is about books, but I’m curious if anyone here who read this book also watched the Netflix series?
If so, do you hold a different opinion of the show?
I read the first book, and like OP found the characters bland and the writing boring. I reckon this is due to the way the original is translated into English. The style may be more appealing to a chinese audience. I guess there are cultural differences that transpire in one’s language and prose.
Unlike OP however, I found the story compelling enough to finish the first book. I struggled a lot more with the second one, until my dog did me a favor and decided to shred it to pieces while I was away =D
I did enjoy the Netflix show though, and I’ll happily watch season 2.
Thank you for the response!
I also enjoyed the Netflix series, at least at a conceptual level, and am looking forward to season 2. I don’t think I’ll read the book though.
The Netflix series wasn’t felt very different then the book. I found the mystery aspect in the first part of the book the most interesting, but the show completely skipped it. So the show wasn’t bad but I was still disappointed.
Yeah I can understand that. I liked Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings movies a lot, but there were some big differences between them and the books that I wished had been different. Tom Bombadil, for instance.
You are absolutely correct OP. They are genuinely terrible books. And no, it’s not - as some people like to claim - that book 1 is bad but the series gets better. Out of sheer morbid fascination I have made it to book 3, and it absolutely, categorically, does not get better. Dark Forest is actually worse than Three Body, considerably so. At least all the cultural revolution backstory in book 1 is kind of interesting and well executed. Dark Forest is a steaming pile of bullshit; utterly unlikable characters, one of the weakest versions of a scifi future ever committed to page, endless chapters worth of dumb Death Note style “Aha, but I knew that you knew that I knew that you knew that I knew that you knew that…” bullshit, and the signature premise of the entire book is a theory about the universe grounded in some absolutely atrocious game theory that can be disproved in five minutes. And ten chapters into Death’s End… Yeah, it’s still awful. Even more unlikable or just outrageously unbelievable characters - the author writes like he’s never actually interacted with another human being - and dull plotting with no sense of pacing or urgency.
Cixin Liu has some strengths as a writer; at times he shows himself adept at building anticipation, he’s good at knowing how to lay out his ideas towards a conclusion without suddenly dumping everything on you at the last second (something a lot of writers struggle with) and he really is very good at big crazy scifi ideas that make you go “Wow, that’s so cool.” But he’s a bad writer. I compare him a lot to Asimov, in that he’s strong on ideas and weak on everything else. But Asimov was primarily known for his short stories, where those strengths could shine and the weaknesses could be hidden (which is exactly why the Foundation novels get worse as they move away from being collections of novellas and towards being full length novels). Liu on the other hand writes interminably long books that absolutely expose those weaknesses. When it shines, it’s really cool. There’s one particular sequence in Dark Forest that really does stand out as being an incredibly inventive idea, executed very competently. But the standout moments just aren’t worth the dross you have to wade through to get there.
Thank you.
I read them all, hated them, and spent a good week finding negative reviews so I could fume at them in company.
I disagree with you on 3 Body, but I love reading reviews that match my opinion just so I can be like, “Exactly! Thank you!”
I liked the Chinese tv adaptation, didn’t read the book, and won’t watch the American version. I think the series was good largely because of the actors, not so much the plot.
