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.
A community for all things related to Books.
Community icon by IconsBox (from freepik.com)
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!
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?
They just gather their dragon balls, obviously!
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.
I liked it, even if the characters weren't great. I liked book 1 in kind of a detective/mystery novel kind of way. The first book is very different from the next two, which is where I think the series really starts to address larger questions. It's still kind of flimsy and the characters might get worse, but I like some of the questions and hypotheses about the universe that it addresses. It gets into a more philosophical approach to the universe and how other species may interact with each other, mutually assured destruction, and how the human race would react to a sword of Damocles hanging over our head for 400 years. It's told from a Chinese perspective as well, so it was interesting to me to see how he thinks these might play out as opposed to my assumptions coming from a western perspective.
I think the dark forest hypothesis as an answer to Fermi is reasonable, and I like a lot of the big picture ideas.
But yea, it's not really a character driven series.
I think there's a real struggle in translating Chinese literature into English.
For what it's worth, the second book - The Dark Forest - starts off much stronger and builds from there, making the first book feel more like it was just introducing the story.
the Dark Forest sucks just as hard if not more so. the premise of the story
spoiler
Mutually Assured Destruction
isnt an original thought, but the author refuses to acknowledge it until the end, pretending like it wasn't obvious the whole story. then he hand waves the problems he sets up (how do you deal with an alien technology so much more sophisticated than your own) pretending like the sophons just couldn't deal with the threat. All this and the character doesn't ever really develop. Things happen to him, but we don't get any meat to his personality, just external bullshit.
I started listening to the third book because I am a gluten for punishment and I have a long commute, but it just meandered. If it was another author Id give them the benefit of the doubt, but I havnt been able to get through it.
Dark Forrest: Gump with a Gun
and the third book is even better.
But I agree with OP that the writing is bad, I just enjoy the intrigue and sci-fi enough to read the books, esp. at that particular part of the second book (the first book and first part of the second book were admittedly less compelling to me than the rest of the second book and the third book).
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.
Okay, to start: not every book is for everyone and everyone is entitled to opinions. My opinion is that it is okayish. I liked the second one more (Dark Forest).
That said, the book is weird. It's like going to an art gallery and staring at paintings. Each painting is a chapter. Everything is beautifully depicted but totally static. The chapters in the book are look someone describing a painting to someone in the gallery who is blind.
And the paintings (and their descriptions) are good, but they aren't mind blowing or anything.
But, if you sit an digest it for a bit afterwards -- continuing the metaphor: you're on the train home from the gallery and it hits you -- there's themes woven between them. In my opinion, it's actually better once you step back and look at the whole book as though it was an exhibit of paintings with a theme. A few days removed from the book, you'll be returning to the ideas in it, even if all the characters and plot points blend together.
Anyway, my two protons.
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 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.
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.
I agree that the natural state with the total paranoia is tad silly. Even the books toy with the idea of cooperation between Tri-solaris and Earth. It would have been better if it was treated as the domineering ideology in their area of space and a theory with flaws from the characters.
If North Korea location was secret, there where no way of telling the difference between North Korea and Switzerland, we had no countermeasures against nukes, and communication increases the risk that North Korea finds you, tensions would way more likely lead to a fist strike doctrines. You only really need one actor with the doctrine to force others to adjust to it.
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.
I tried to read the book but good God it was so bad and so boring it took me months to get about halfway, then the show came out and I was like 'yes! Maybe this will give me motivation!' and I couldn't be bothered to finish that either.
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.
It happens sometimes.
I really enjoyed the movie Arrival, so I picked up the story collection it’s based on. My, what a load of genre fiction in the worst possible meaning of the word.
oh no, Ted Chiang is a delight!
Ted Chiang is one of my favourite authors.
Seriously ? I loved Tower of Babel, hate arrival the movie 😅
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 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.
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 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.
I believe its the authors first book. It gets significantly better.