Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Sometimes a book series is so important that you want people to put everything aside and just read it. I'm not the only one who feels this way about N.K. Jemisin's Broken Earth trilogy. The first and second novels in Jemisin's trilogy, The Fifth Season and The Obelisk Gate won the prestigious Hugo Award for the past two years in a row—the first time this has happened since Ender's Game and its sequel Speaker for the Dead won sequential Hugos in 1986 and 87. Now the final Broken Earth book, The Stone Sky, is out. You can gobble up the whole series without interruption.
There are a lot of reasons why this series has been hailed as a masterpiece. There are unexpected twists which, in retrospect, you realize have been carefully plotted, skillfully hinted at, and well-earned. There are characters who feel like human beings, with problems that range from the mundane (raising kids in a risky world) to the extraordinary (learning to control earthquakes with your mind). The main characters are called orogenes, and they have the ability to control geophysics with their minds, quelling and starting earthquakes. Somehow the orogenes are connected with the lost technologies of a dead civilization, whose machines still orbit the planet in the form of mysterious giant crystals called obelisks. To most people on the planet, the orogenes are known by the derogatory term "rogga," and they're the victims of vicious prejudice.
But Jemisin is hardly retelling The X-men, only with orogenes instead of mutants. She's created a sociologically complex world, and the more we read, the more we understand how the orogenes fit into it. As we travel with our protagonists across the planet's single megacontinent, we discover the place is full of many cultures, often at odds with one another. The brown urbanites from the tropics think the pale, rural people of the poles are ugly idiots; the coastal people aren't too sure about the inland people; and of course everybody hates the orogenes. These tensions are part of a long and complex history that we learn more about as the series develops. There are a number of mysteries to unravel in this series, but one of them is understanding the devastating origin of prejudice against orogenes.
[...] The Broken Earth is exciting, full of incredible technology, and powered by a dark historical mystery. It's something you can read to escape, or to ponder philosophical questions in our own world. In short, it's that rare series that appeals to a love of adventure, and to the urge to reflect on the unseen forces that drive our civilizations.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @03:26PM
oh yeah
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Weasley on Monday September 18 2017, @03:33PM (20 children)
Is there at least a plausible reason how this could be so? This sounds more like a super hero comic than science fiction. Granted one of my favorite science fiction books is basically super hero fiction too (Dune), but that one slipped through my guard when I was still young and turned out to be an exception.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JNCF on Monday September 18 2017, @04:01PM
I haven't read it, but the obvious explanation based on TFS is that the orbiting obelisks are controlled by symbiotic nanobots that reproduce inside of their hosts, the orogenes. The obelisks are being used to send extremely low frequency electromagnetic waves which excite the ionosphere, as described in Bernard Eastlund's patent. [google.com] This excitation of the ionosphere interacts with a tectonic fault beneath it, through the same phenomenon which sometimes (maybe) causes auroras to form before and/or after earthquakes. [wikipedia.org]
tl;dr nanobots and space-HAARPs.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday September 18 2017, @04:48PM (18 children)
Yeah, not science fiction. Call it fantasy, and it makes more sense - but then you don't need the extraterrestrial artifacts. But that's not the biggest problem.
From TFA "The brown urbanites from the tropics think the pale, rural people of the poles are ugly idiots", or from the author "I'm trying to write decolonized fiction, for our postcolonial world". In other words, this is a political rant. Maybe the story doesn't have to make sense if you agree with the politics?
As for the writing, let's be generous: maybe it's a matter of taste. The writing style is bizarre, and the sentences sometimes barely make sense. From the first page of the first book: did you know that you could describe something "continentally"? It's like bad modern art, when the artist is trying so hard to be clever that they forget about the "art" part. In this case, the overwrought writing is just...well...go look at the free preview on Amazon and see what you think.
To me, the award looks like affirmative action. Given the current political climate of the Hugos, and the overreaction to the puppies (who deliberately did not vote this year), how could a black woman who writes lesbian fiction not get an award?
Ok, mod me troll, I deserve it.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @05:01PM (10 children)
God, every time you idiots fight over sci fi vs. fantasy, I wanna PUKE. Worse, when you idiots think you're being intellectual with hard/soft science, high/low science, science fantasy, Star Wars: sci fi or not sci fi, etc.! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @06:01PM (8 children)
So, puke you worthless fuck. If you had any intellect, AND if you had any intellectual honesty, you would understand what 'science fiction" is all about. Heinlein mastered Science Fiction before he attempted to make social statements with that science fiction. And, Heinlein never allowed his social statements to overshadow the sciencey part of his science fiction.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @06:51PM (4 children)
You have got to be kidding me. It is clear you are a certain type of person, specifically the type where cognitive dissonance reigns because you are incapable of introspection.
Heinlein had plenty of woo-woo scifi, the biggest example being Stranger in a Strange Land.
"Heinlein explored some of his most important themes, such as individualism, libertarianism, and free expression of physical and emotional love."
Yup, not at all surprised by your vitriol and hypocrisy. When it fits your own personal viewpoint it is fine, but if it even DISCUSSES prejudice you're the fuck out of that SJW nightmare. Libtard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @09:09PM (3 children)
I guess today is alt-reich marching day, upmod the whiners, downmod the people calling out the whiny stupid bullshit! Carrion eater is trying to bury posts so it can dig them up later for personal consumption.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 19 2017, @01:36AM (2 children)
What about L. Ron Hubbard? He wrote some great sci-fi, too. *ducks*
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday September 19 2017, @03:11AM
*chainsaws low*
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Tuesday September 19 2017, @05:36AM
I read Battlefield Earth and judge it acceptable pulp SF. Mission Earth on the other hand was a challenging but hilarious read; ten frickin' volumes but who cares! If anyone can still find a set, read the first one and see what I mean. Guy was a madman, knew he was dying and wrote like he didn't give a damn anymore. Knowing he wouldn't be around to get sued he gleefully settled accounts in humorous fashion. Two thumbs up.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Monday September 18 2017, @07:26PM (1 child)
If you limit that statement to before _Number of the Beast_ then I'd probably agree. After that I'm not sure what the Hell they were writing. I did still read most of it but I certainly wouldn't pretend it was Science Fiction.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @07:40PM
Here's another example of the jmorris bot showing off the limits of its capabilities. Looks like it was built to work in tandem with religious nutjobs. Still working on its end-game, devs haven't made that one easily apparent.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @09:27PM
Someone hasn't read Farnham's Freehold, eh?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday September 18 2017, @06:27PM
"every time you idiots fight over sci fi vs. fantasy, I wanna PUKE"
Sci-Fi vs. fantasy matters, because people want to find books to read.
Look, suppose you like reading mysteries. And every time some new romantic fiction comes out, the reviewers say "Look at this great mystery". So you go to Amazon, have a look at the book, and realize that it's a Harlequin bodice-ripper that just happens to include a detective or maybe a policeman as one of the characters.
The names of the genres have a meaning, and they are (supposed to be) used to classify books, to help people find stuff they want to read. There seems to be a whole Pink SF [blogspot.ch] movement, where authors, reviewers and the mainstream publishers are trying to pass off fantasy as science fiction, by tossing in a gratuitous alien artifact, or claiming that the story takes place in the future.
It gets irritating.
FWIW, the solution is to stop reading anything from the major publishers. Go to Baen [baen.com] or Beam [beam-shop.de], or buy directly from Indy authors.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @06:10PM
I thought "The brown urbanites from the tropics think the pale, rural people of the poles are ugly idiots" was some over the top white guilt/"cuckery" but no, just another dumb negroid spewing racist propaganda unchecked.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @06:21PM (3 children)
Jesus, this post should would the Most Political Tripe award of the year.
To quote a sci-fi standard: " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Guess you're still a caveman, can't fathom neurally linked massive energy projectors. Yup, total fantasy route there! SJW stuff? Gee, I didn't realize prejudice was a taboo topic, did it trigger your feelz? "Muh oppression!"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Weasley on Monday September 18 2017, @07:22PM (2 children)
And Sauron's ring was a cloaking device that bent light waves around the wearer, so Lord of the Rings was actually science fiction too!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @07:25PM (1 child)
Nope, cause the ring was "magic" quite specifically, part of Sauron's soul. This is about semi-humans who are able to access ancient machines. Guess you're too triggered for common sense.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Tuesday September 19 2017, @02:01AM
Nice try. We all know that Sauron's 'soul' was just his collection of Midichlorians. Sci-Fi again!
My take - it's not Sci-Fi unless there is at least an attempt to explain how something works. If the books contain some detail about how these people interact with the obelisks then that may suffice. If it's just 'ooh, ancient alien tech that works in unknown ways!', then it may as well be a magic sword.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday September 18 2017, @07:11PM
Science Fiction has always tried to use future technology to make social commentary. Bradbury did it. Dick did it. Granted, they didn't do it like this; ancient technology is not the same as future technology.
But if you expect your "Science Fiction" to start from anticipated tech and derive the social consequences from it...then you are immediately very limited. Star Trek is straight out. Anything about time travel too. AI stuff becomes questionable.
I like it better when the tech comes first. But that doesn't mean that's the only way to do SciFi.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Monday September 18 2017, @07:34PM
Anytime someone breathlessly tells me I MUST READ something, I usually make my excuses and run away before the rant starts.
I've read a lot of sifi. I've read less Fantasy.
But somehow when something doesn't hang together and can't make a realistic case for plausibility It takes much much MUCH more to attract my attention. Dune was ruined for me when food was glibly handwaived into existence on a desert planet where water was so scarce measured down to the deciliter.
Repackaged social issues mark a work as transient and transparent.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @04:16PM (5 children)
"If you (see/read/listen to/consume) only one (media format) this year, it should be (promoted item)."
They pimped Star Wars Episode 1 so hard using that phrase. And then they delivered the limp, soggy disappointment that was Star Wars Episode 1.
I'm not going to be fooled a second time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday September 18 2017, @04:30PM (4 children)
I haven't read any of these books, but you're making a terrible comparison. This blurb is about book 3 in a trilogy, with the previous 2 books having come out in the last 2 years. Those two books apparently won some prestigious awards, so the expectation is that this one will be just as great.
This just isn't comparable to Episode 1. Ep1 came out over 15 years after the last installment of the first Star Wars series; it wasn't the 3rd episode of a trilogy. It also differed from the others in many ways: ESB and RotJ were both written and directed by people other than Lucas (Lucas had co-writing credits I think), it had entirely different actors, it used an entirely different method of filming (it used a ton of CGI, which didn't exist in the 80s), etc. Granted, many of us at the time were indeed fooled, as the stuff I just listed is really hindsight being 20/20, but still, we can look at that and compare with this, and it's pretty obvious that isn't not comparable. I don't have any idea how good this book will really be, but I also never read the two other books in that series which did win awards. I do think it's safe to say, however, that anyone who really liked the other two books will probably like this one too.
A better comparison is with the Dune series: anyone who liked Dune and Dune: Messiah will probably also like Children of Dune (the 3rd book in the series). And even this one isn't perfectly comparable, as there was a *long* stretch of time between Dune and Children of Dune. Perhaps the LotR series (of books) is a better comparison.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TheRaven on Monday September 18 2017, @04:46PM (2 children)
This is probably true, but a lot of people who liked Dune and Children of Dune hated Dune Messiah (I found it improved a lot on the third reading). The styles of all three are quite different and it's very easy to like only one or two out of the three. God Emperor is a different style again, and though Heretics and Chapter house follow a single narrative they're also very different in the scope of the action and of the characters that they follow. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of people who like different subsets of the two trilogies. That said, in comparison to the crap that his son and Kevin J Anderson wrote they're all perfect masterworks of fiction.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @06:55PM (1 child)
I read his son's work out of pure dedication to the universe. I just try and remember them like historical timelines and would have been perfectly happy with a single book that condensed them all into a history book format.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Tuesday September 19 2017, @08:53AM
The prequel trilogy was just badly written. The Butlerian Jihad sequence annoyed me though, because it seemed to be based entirely on the intro to the TV version of the Dune film and not on the books. In the books, Frank Herbert explicitly stated that the problem was over-dependence on machines, which made humans stop thinking and gave control to people who had control over the machines. That has turned out to be quite prophetic in an age of Facebook and smartphones. The idiot duo turned this into a cheezy fight against robot monsters who had no sensible motivation - why were they enslaving humans, when machines are more efficient at manual labour? Why are they even bothering with the human empire when they could just expand geometrically as Von Neumann replicators? The books made a few superficial attempts to explain these, but the end result was that the humans were able to win because the machines were mind-numbingly stupid.
The ending of the sequels was similarly horrible. They brought back the machines, which made no sense. In God Emperor, Leto II tells the two witches that thinking machines are no longer a threat and explains why. Frank Herbert telegraphs two explanations of the real threat over all six books and leaves you guessing which one he was going to go with: The first is that in the scattering, some descendants of humans have evolved to a point where they're unrecognisable as humans and have a huge survival advantage. The fleeing Honoured Matres are unable to compete in their ecosystem. Teg and Idaho hint at this a few times. The other ending that's hinted about is the existence of external threats: no other sentient creatures evolved (or, at least, weren't exterminated) in the Empire, but the Empire is a fairly small subset of the whole universe and outside there may be many other civilisations at different levels of advancement. Leto II hints at this somewhat in God Emperor, as motivation for the scattering - humanity in his empire is vulnerable to external attack, but afterwards it will be practically impossible for anything to exterminate them all. He also hints at the evolutionary explanation, by pointing out that he's retarded development and directed evolution in small groups specifically with the goal of making them amenable to future adaptation.
sudo mod me up
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @06:43PM
I'm sorry, I'm just not going to read anything written by a woman, even if George Lucas likes it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Monday September 18 2017, @04:19PM (22 children)
Is it me, or does this sound a lot like a rip-off of GRRM's A Song of Ice and Fire? A fictional world, with a bunch of different cultures at odds with each other (the various feudal houses of Westeros, plus the Dothraki and various other cultures from Essos), a long and complex history (the First Men, the building of the Wall, dragons, Valeryans, etc.), one megacontinent vs. two (Westeros & Essos), a number of mysteries to unravel (the White Walkers and the Army of the Dead, Dragonglass, the stuff that happened to Bran, various religions including the Lord of Fire that brings people back from the dead, etc.), old technological relics left over from the ancients (Valeryan steel, Wildfire). GRRM's first book in the series was out back in 90s, so this honestly feels like this author basically copied some of these concepts, but amping up the old technological relics bit, and perhaps not copying so many elements from medieval Europe.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @04:30PM (8 children)
There are no new stories, just new ways of telling them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @06:27PM (7 children)
*BBZZZT* wrong
you're just falling for the same problem we all experience as we get older. We see the underlying patterns and realize SO MUCH is not overly new. There are still new stories, but harder to tell the "new" sometimes when its built on familiar patterns. Even then, there still are original stories.
I see you still like to operate from an absolutist perspective, how's the whole "no censorship" thing going? Seems to be failing, I had to ADD a sentence to pass your shitty filter. Same text before, new text after, should still trigger it...
Ya done fucked up boy!
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday September 18 2017, @07:55PM (6 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots [wikipedia.org]
or maybe 9: http://www.how-to-write-a-book-now.com/basic-plots.html [how-to-write-a-book-now.com]
Yes, there are many ways to present the plots -- as many ways as books in the world -- the question I guess is whether the plot is the story, or the way the characters are developed and run through the plot.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday September 18 2017, @08:05PM (1 child)
The story is in the telling. The plot is just the vehicle.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @08:43PM
Finally, a car analogy! Now I get it. Thank you.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @08:27PM (3 children)
This list is interesting and sounds comprehensive... until you realize it isn't. For example, they don't have:
1) Survival stories (such as "The Martian")
2) Slice of Life stories (such as "Yokohama Kaidashi Kiko")
3) Philosophical plot-twisting stories (like "I Am Legend" the book, not the movie/etc)
4) Satire/commentary (such as "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies")
5) Mysteries (including but not limited to Detective stories)
And that was just with 60 seconds of thinking.
This list reminds me of those people who say "Hollywood never makes anything new." Then, when confronted with a list of new innovative movies Hollywood has done, abruptly changes the goalposts saying that "those don't count" and "I was talking about blockbuster movies."
What have those Romans done for us, anyway?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @08:32PM
The aqueducts!
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday September 18 2017, @08:48PM
I'm not familiar with the references in 2-4, but wouldn't a survival story just be a monster story where nature is the monster?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday September 18 2017, @10:53PM
Overcoming the Monster, Voyage and Return, Rebirth, The Quest, Comedy.
Voyage and Return, Rebirth, Comedy, Tragedy
Overcoming the Monster, Rebirth, Tragedy
Comedy
Overcoming the Monster, Tragedy, Comedy
I assure you I spent about as much time thinking the above responses.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday September 18 2017, @05:59PM
That sounds like a good description of every book I have ever enjoyed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Monday September 18 2017, @06:57PM (1 child)
Isn't by the same standard A Song of Ice and Fire just a rip-off of Lord of the Rings?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday September 18 2017, @07:52PM
Yeah, after I wrote this, I started comparing ASoIaF to LotR and Dune and it does seem there's similarities. But there's some differences too (note that I haven't read the books that are the subject of today's article; I also haven't read ASoIaF, I've only seen the TV show):
In Dune and LotR, the plot is written entirely from the PoV of the protagonists, whoever they may be. In LotR, it's all about the Fellowship and their adventures. In the first book, they're mostly a single group and travel together, then in the later books they get separated so the story switches between the few groups (Sam/Frodo, Pippin/Merry, the rest). You never hear the story as told by any other groups not in the company of the Fellowship members, and certainly not by the orcs. In Dune, I seem to remember that it's from the PoV of Paul and his buddies, and later his descendants, then in the later books from the Bene Gesserit and their ally Miles Teg IIRC (it's been a long time). I don't recall any scenes where, for instance, it gets deep into what the Harkonnen are thinking as they plot against the Atreides; it does have scenes where, for instance, the Harkonnen are interacting with Leto Atreides or Doctor Suk. In GoT, on the other hand, there's plenty of scenes where you get to see the "villians" (Lannisters) at length, even though there's none of the protagonists (Starks) around, and you learn a lot about their psychology and motivations. Also, the line between who's a "villain" and who isn't is pretty blurry at times: are Jaime and Bron protagonists or not? Jaime starts out as a definite villain, but then becomes much more sympathetic, but now in season 7 is directly fighting against our protagonists again.
Also, GoT is a bit unique with the sheer number of important characters that you have to keep track of. It's a bit like the Silmarillion that way, except with an actual detailed plot rather than basically being a banal history book. And in GoT, major characters get killed off fairly regularly.
But overall, I guess most fantasy fiction is going to have a lot of similarities to either.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by vux984 on Monday September 18 2017, @07:42PM (4 children)
You said it was a rip off of GRRM's... but then everything you said was in Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit.
Men, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Goblins, Dragons, Eagles, Ents ... Sauron
Lost Tales, Similiarilian, ...
the First Men ==> the First Men
the building of the Wall ==> Minas Tirith (city of Gondor, holding back Sauron's forces)
dragons ==> dragons + balrogs
Valeryans ==> Valar although any number of Tolkien civilizations could take the place; i just picked that one for the phonetic similiarity.
Westoros ==> Middle earth (aka the 'the west')
Essos ==> 'the east' (where from the Easterners in Sauron's army hail)
the White Walkers ==> Ring Wraiths aka "Black Riders" (LOL when you start lining them up it starts looking ridiculous.)
the Army of the Dead ==> well... I guess that lines up with "the Army of the Dead" (Dead Men of Dunharrow)
Dragonglass ==> Sting maybe, or mithril.
valeryan steel ==> elvish swords (Glamdring, Orcrist, Sting, the Barrow blades, Narsil, ...)
wildfire ==> Saruman's bomb at Helm's deep
And LotR was half a century before that.
Not sure I'm going so far as to call GRRM's GoT a 'ripoff' here, but I don't think we can hold him up as the pinnacle of originality either, and saying another novelist ripped off GRRM sort of rings a bit ridiculous.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday September 18 2017, @07:59PM (3 children)
fictional world, with a bunch of different cultures at odds with each other
Men, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Goblins, Dragons, Eagles, Ents ... Sauron
One big difference I see here between LotR and ASoIaF is that in LotR, the different cultures aren't actively warring against each other, they're divided into 2 camps, along with some that are more-or-less neutral. The Men, Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits are all allied, with some help from the Ents and Eagles, and Sauron and the Orcs and Uruk-Hai are allied, with a little help from a cave troll and a balrog (though it didn't seem the balrog or cave troll were working for Sauron, they were just attacking some intruders into their domain for the sake of evil AFAICT). In GoT, the different groups are actively fighting each other, with alliances changing over time, and there frequently isn't a clear "good" or "evil" side as there is in LotR.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by vux984 on Monday September 18 2017, @09:05PM (2 children)
"One big difference I see here between LotR and ASoIaF is that in LotR the different cultures aren't actively warring against each other"
Yes and no.
The lord of the rings events leads up to a final showdown with Sauron, but until he rose and threatened *everybody*, they were NOT allies.
There is some pretty clear animosity between the elves and dwarves, and some strong bad blood between them. Elsewhere, the battle of five armies in the hobbit started out as a battle between: Humans vs Dwarves vs Elves. Treebeard the Ent answered what side he was on, was that he wasn't on anybodies side, because nobody was on his side. Further by the time of the events in LotR, the elves had more or less retreated into isolationism and had a pretty low opinion of man, and i expect did not tolerate most of them in their territories perhaps except the Rangers. The LotR history though is pretty bloody - they formed up as allies to fight morgoth and later Sauron, but the elves waged some pretty brutal wars against even their own kind in the Silmarillion.
I agree with you though that LotR was definitely more arch-typical with usually clear 'good' and clear 'evil' and a few more tragic figures caught in-between changing sides (Saruman, Gollum, and Boromir for example). However, GoT is pretty black and white too; he's just trying to be a lot more coy with who is who; and he has a lot more 'Boromir' where people change, and he isn't afraid to kill off a few 'lawful good' types. And it worked really well at the start... but now its starting to wear thin, with lots of StarTrek 'redshirts' in one camp, and "Jesus Snow" & co in the other.
So that's what... LotR with what, medieval england politics with a bunch of flawed nobles of varied wealth, power, status, and inbreeding vying for influence and the throne. :p
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday September 18 2017, @09:34PM
So that's what... LotR with what, medieval england politics with a bunch of flawed nobles of varied wealth, power, status, and inbreeding vying for influence and the throne. :p
I am really curious how it's going to wrap up. Obviously, they're pitching this new romance (with some inbreeding) between dragon-girl and Jon Snow as the ultimate union to stand against Cersei and the Army of the Dead, but Cersei has plans to stab her in the back, and now with the dead having their own dragon, things are looking pretty murky. I'm kinda hoping that Cersei's treachery will end up causing the living to lose. It'll be a nice lesson in how we stupid humans can't recognize the existential threat we face until it's much too late and too many of our leaders are greedy assholes leading us to ruin.
(Score: 2) by bart9h on Tuesday September 19 2017, @03:00AM
As I interpreted it, Boromir never changed sides.
He was just not strong enough to resist the power of the ring. When he "attacked" Frodo, it was the the ring itself (or Sauron) that was really acting.
See, when he went after Frodo he was not thinking about getting the ring. That occurred only when he got near to it. Just as, after Frodo ran away with the ring, he immediately came to his senses again.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday September 18 2017, @07:56PM (3 children)
The whole ancient technology bit gets really old, and is often over used. Especially when said tech is somehow carried through secret history, known to only a few, or found in some cave on earth, or something similar.
The appeal to ancient technology lost to modern science is so pervasive in Sifi and poorly educated people.
More plausible are the found tech on other worlds (Alien, Prometheus etc). Still the same problems though. Where did the original owners go? How good was their tech if we keep finding them dead among their surviving tech.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Grishnakh on Monday September 18 2017, @08:11PM (2 children)
The whole ancient technology bit gets really old, and is often over used. Especially when said tech is somehow carried through secret history, known to only a few, or found in some cave on earth, or something similar.
You act like the entire idea is ridiculous. Why? You seem to be assuming that good tech couldn't possibly be lost somehow, or that cultures don't regress, stagnate, or disappear.
I'll give you one real-world example of actual ancient technology that's now mostly lost: Roman concrete. It's better than the concrete we have now (doesn't degrade in saltwater, quite the opposite in fact), and, for about 1000 years, we didn't have any concrete at all, between the fall of Rome and the invention of Portland cement. We still can't quite make concrete as good as the Romans, though in recent years we've mostly figured it out, but we don't bother really trying to re-create it because we're cheap and lazy and we don't care if stuff falls apart in 50 years as long as it costs less, because the managers who made the decision will be long gone by then.
There's other stuff that's clearly inferior to older technology: computer keyboards for one. Show me a brand-new laptop with a keyboard as good as the Thinkpads had in the early 00s; you won't find one. Desktop UIs are another: they all were much better in the mid-00s. OS UIs (e.g., Windows 8/10) have gone down the tubes, and website UIs are unbelievably bad now for the most part.
How about electric streetcars? We used to have those decades ago, but they were killed off because the automakers wanted everyone to drive cars.
Of course, the idea that the ancients had anti-gravity tech or something like that seems pretty ridiculous. But I think the idea of a story about some alien civilization with lost technology isn't so far-fetched at all; we have clear examples on our own world of civilizations collapsing and losing technology. Technology isn't perfect and won't prevent its makers from being killed by things
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday September 18 2017, @11:38PM (1 child)
You need to check your facts.
Roman Concrete is neither unique. Its structure was well known for as long as concrete was made. It wasn't lost knowledge.
It was merely the unavailability of two ingredients.
Volcanic Ash and Sea Water located close enough together to make concrete economically.
Then you turn a discussion of Lost Ancient Technology to keyboards. WTF!!???
Again Nothing has been lost. If you want to pay $200 for a keyboard there are several to choose from. If you want to pay $15 there are even more to choose from.
So again I ask, what is a "clear example" on our own world of civilians collapsing and losing technology?
Pyramids? Nope. Slavery combined with any of a dozen methods.
Stone Henge? Nope again. Serfdom, religious zealotry, and stone axes
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Grishnakh on Tuesday September 19 2017, @01:17AM
Its structure was well known for as long as concrete was made. It wasn't lost knowledge. It was merely the unavailability of two ingredients.
Oh bullshit. If the knowledge wasn't lost, they would have continued building concrete structures throughout the Dark and Middle Ages, but they didn't. They've only recently figured out how it was really made.
https://www.nature.com/news/seawater-is-the-secret-to-long-lasting-roman-concrete-1.22231 [nature.com]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/roman-concrete-mystery-solved-scientists-a7824011.html [independent.co.uk]
Again Nothing has been lost. If you want to pay $200 for a keyboard there are several to choose from. If you want to pay $15 there are even more to choose from.
Bullshit. Prove it. There are no laptop keyboards made today that match those in the Thinkpad circa 2001. If you disagree, prove it or STFU. You can't buy a laptop keyboard off-the-shelf.
So again I ask, what is a "clear example" on our own world of civilians collapsing and losing technology?
I already pointed it out, you idiot: Roman technology, including concrete, roads, buildings, etc. After the empire fell, no one built anything like that for over 1000 years. All the practical knowledge was lost while Europe was mired in feudalism and Christianity. No one's still made anything that matches the Pantheon (the largest unreinforced concrete dome in the world). You can also look at the Aztecs, Incans, etc. They made astronomical discoveries that were lost after their civilizations collapsed.
Here's a quick article [toptenz.net] listing a bunch of lost technologies, including the fairly recent Apollo program moon lander (we couldn't build a copy today if we wanted to; the design docs are gone and all the people involved dead or close to it).
It doesn't take that much to lose technology: just a loss of interest by the people who know how to do it, a loss of any documentation, and a little bit of time so the people who knew how to do it are all gone.
Pyramids? Nope. Slavery combined with any of a dozen methods.
Stone Henge? Nope again. Serfdom, religious zealotry, and stone axes
Wrong again: these technologies were also lost. People forgot how to do them, and never did them again. Hint: if you can't very quickly repeat making or doing something, then you've lost that technology. We still don't know exactly how those things were built, though we do have very good ideas now, after thousands of years, including plenty of time for archaeologists to analyze them with the benefit of modern technology. But the civilizations that built those things lost the technology, as proven by the fact that they never built things like them again.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday September 19 2017, @02:10AM
Hah, that's nothing.
Read The Fellowship of the Ring [goodreads.com] (first half) then read The Sword of Shannara [goodreads.com] and ask yourself why Terry Brooks wasn't sued into oblivion for plagiarism.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @04:49PM (12 children)
Ars Tech must have been taken over by the same marketing agency that took over the Hugo Awards. They have been pushing Jemison hard and it's not for the quality of her writing.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @06:38PM (8 children)
Well this site has been taken over by blowhards so apparently there still is balance to the Force.
(Score: 1, Funny) by aristarchus on Monday September 18 2017, @08:34PM (7 children)
Will not someone spam mod this spam, if spam it truely be? Do we have Sad Pubbies with Red Pillars in the house? An entire thread is kindled askew when forjack is the only one making any sense. Nice to see that bradley11 is still colonizing the Canton, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @08:44PM (6 children)
I think you need an intervention.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday September 18 2017, @10:20PM (5 children)
A ha! Just as I thought! Not really spam at all, just something that tweaks the conservative nose in its own political incorrectness, which happens to also be artistic and scientific incorrectness! Well, sorry, but Fascism lost, both militarily and in the Judgment of History.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @11:03PM (4 children)
Heh, nope now you need therapy after the intervention. Pegged the wrong AC, I goose step for no one!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 19 2017, @12:00AM (3 children)
*steps on goose*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 19 2017, @12:00AM (2 children)
*gets flogged by angry goose*
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 19 2017, @01:25AM (1 child)
"No large waterfowl were harmed in the production of these comments. Comments supervised by People for the Ethical Treatment of ACs."
(Score: 3, Funny) by fyngyrz on Tuesday September 19 2017, @10:35AM
You are hereby notified that the use of the word "fowl" when speaking of geese is now socially unacceptable, as it may trigger insecure geese who are feeling guilty about cloaca-based excretion; when the word is spoken, they cannot know if you're saying "fowl" or "foul."
Please join the Social Justice Movement. Geese everywhere are being triggered, and no one cares!
Don't worry about me, I'm just winging it. You can bill me later. (Ducks.)
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @06:47PM (2 children)
Feminist tech writer on left-leaning somewhat tech site promotes female sci-fi author.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday September 18 2017, @09:03PM (1 child)
God forbid you ever expose yourself to any ideas you don't already agree with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @10:50PM
You haven’t read the series, so your comment is irrelevant.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by insanumingenium on Monday September 18 2017, @09:22PM (3 children)
For all the people who are claiming that it is some sort of ancient nanobots and it really is science fiction
spoiler warning
Second level orogeny is literally magic. Not as in I am comparing it to magic, it is called magic, and is what you would expect from the name magic.
The writing was not my style, entirely too much time is spent comparing texture of hair for my taste.
As far as it being SJW politics, hell yes it is, and that is undeniably why it won the Hugos, but Sci-Fi Fi has always been political. I just wish socially progressive still looked more like Heinlein and less like "safe spaces"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @09:43PM (2 children)
If they are connected to machines that perform the "magic" then it is still scifi. Telepathy is a common scifi tool, so I think the doors are pretty wide open for this story. If the second level orogeny doesn't use the machines then fine it starts falling into a more fantasy realm, if the characters call it magic then that just means they didn't understand how it worked.
Undeniably why it won? I dunno, seems like whiny "get off my lawn" antics from someone stuck in the past. Heinlein pushed the barriers for his time, but he included a lot of personal politics I found disagreeable, and many of his stories contain old men fawned over by young hot women. Pretty ridiculous sometimes.
(Score: 3, Informative) by deimtee on Tuesday September 19 2017, @03:48AM (1 child)
Many of his stories contain rich old men fawned over by young hot women. Look around, it's not ridiculous at all.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 19 2017, @03:28PM
Then the whole "progressive" bit is gone as we return to barbaric humanity where people whore themselves out. Heinlein is a good bridge from old school patriarchal horrors to women have value.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @09:48PM
If you read one series over the next 15 years, it should be the Stormlight Archives.
Also has a third book coming out this year, though it's not finished yet. (Meant to be a 10 book series, in two sets of 5.)
Also has deep mysterious history. (What doesn't?)
Also has magic tech. (Though Sanderson is honest enough not to try dressing it up as SF.)
(Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Tuesday September 19 2017, @12:42AM
The main thing about science fiction in my understanding of the genre is to ask 'what if?' and to speculate on what that might mean and what might happen if it were. The focus has to be on this one question: 'what if?' This is what makes Star Wars not SF in my book: it's fantasy every bit as much as Lord of the Rings even if it is set in space and alien planets and has blasters rather than magical swords (wait, there are magical swords too) and knights (wait, there are knights) in shining armour (well, not this then). Science fiction by definition has to speculate, and the speculation has to drive the story. Dune is like this, even if it does contain some fantastic elements. Star Trek definitely does. Do these books by Jemisin speculate, and is the speculation the focus of the story? If not, then they are not SF. That doesn't make them bad works, just makes them not-science fiction.
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.