this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
162 points (90.9% liked)

Books

6325 readers
298 users here now

A community for all things related to Books.

Rules

  1. Be Nice. No personal attacks or hate speech.
  2. No spam. All posts should be related to books.

Official Bingo Posts:

Related Communities

Community icon by IconsBox (from freepik.com)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 8 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Not crazy at all imo. I've only read the first book and I don't plan on reading the rest. I found it interesting for the mainland Chinese societal influences that were sometimes explicit, but often just peeking through. It's obvious that the writer is from a different background as scifi authors that grew up in a western country. But the character writing and scifi aspects, were only kinda meh imo.

I had also read someone recommending the books as hard scifi and I can't agree with that either. The three body star system is a very interesting premise, but the godlike single proton that can envelop a planet is pure fantasy. Too much deus ex machina for good world building.

[–] JokeDeity@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 hours ago

Haven't read it, but the show was interesting enough for me to watch the entire season.

[–] frozenpopsicle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

I read all three. I thought they excelled at creating new plot devices. Sentient particles, Thought as light, dimensional weapons. Its really hard to come up with new sci fi tropes! And Liu casually comes up with a dozen new ones. I thought the characters and plot were... unsatisfying. But I believe that is mostly intended as a portrayal of people's failings. I'd say it's a worth it read for real sci fi junkies though. Definitely disagree that it is "Not good", but taste is subjective. They seemed longer than they needed to be... I dunno.

[–] joonazan@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 10 hours ago

It is easy to come up with nonsense. I much more respect works that explore the consequences of one fantastical thing.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

Its really hard to come up with new sci fi tropes! And Liu casually comes up with a dozen new ones.

Unfortunately, then he shoves them all into the same book. He needs to be the show runner of a sci-fi TV series.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

The sequels went on forever, to the point that I figured out what the Dark Forest theory was early on and had to finish that book just to find out I was right. Characterisation is pretty non-existent, it’s true.

[–] nik9000@programming.dev 2 points 9 hours ago

I felt the same way about the characterization. I thought it might be a translation thing. I don't know that many folks that read it in Chinese, but I'm leaning towards "no, it's just like that."

It's a fun series to read a wiki about.

[–] Profligate_parasite@lemmy.world 8 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I also did not love it. The premise is fascinating and is relatively unique as far as 'first contact' stories go. At the end of the day, though, the first book is much more about Chinese history than aliens, and the 'science' part of the science fiction is so garbage that I had a hard time getting through it. I recommend "Blindsight" by Peter Watts if you're looking for a really cool first-contact story.

[–] BrundleFly2077@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago

This is the correct answer. The sequel was excellent as well, but nothing has ever touched Blindsight for me in terms of sheer alienness

[–] Sagan_Wept@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

The three body problem is the ONLY SciFi series to repeatedly blow my mind. I read a lot of scifi, it's always the same stuff.

[–] Lazhward@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago

I read a lot of scifi, it's always the same stuff.

As someone who enjoys sci-fi this sounds like a very odd statement from someone who reads a lot of it. I wouldn't say I've read that much sci-fi but I could quite easily name some books that could hardly be any more different. Sci-fi seems incredibly diverse to me.

[–] Harrk@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Same for me! But it’s also the first proper sci-fi series I read so it’s a bit skewed haha. However, I did truly enjoy it for the most part. Wasn’t a fan of how the ending turned out as one of the events just felt… cheap. Not to mention the lead character in the third book made me want to scream in frustration…

I’ve tried other sci-fi since and I’ve yet to find something that captures me. I started the Bobiverse which is a fun take, but it’s a completely different theme. So if any sci-fi vets have any recommendations I’m all ears!

[–] MaddestMax@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I was very happy to stumble upon this post. I’ve been struggling through The Dark Forest for what feels like forever. I’m usually a pretty voracious reader, but this series is like quicksand to me. It’s really really boring. I just keep hoping it will get interesting. It threatens to…and then starts sucking again. I never DNF books, but I’m so SO tempted here. Glad there are others out there!

[–] rogue_moravec@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

Yea, the Dark Forest is a slooooooooog. While I liked the way the last book wraps up the metaphysics of this world, getting there was utterly exhausting.

[–] timeghost@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not to mention the entire premise is invalidated by a cursory review of the Alpha Centauri system.

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thank you. It was so annoying reading that constantly thinking "that's not how the three-body problem works, and even if it was, that sure as hell doesn't describe Alpha Centauri."

And that's just the beginning. People calling this shit hard sci-fi is crazy.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca -1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, the first part of the book is kinda exactly how it works. Well 4 body, anyways.

Tap for spoilerThey're trying to find an equation to know when their planet will pass out of the habitable zone. Every equation fails to describe the orbits. So they try to simulate it, and it seems effective, but eventually the errors accumulate and the simulation fails to describe the orbits.

But yeah, we have been able to tell for a long time the Alpha Centauri isn't like that.

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

No, they're not just trying to find an equation, which may not be possible. They say it's impossible to predict where the objects will be in the near term, which is nonsense.

The three-body problem doesn't say it's unpredictable, just that there is no universal equation to describe it. You can still determine where things will be with a high degree of probability with iteration. The earth, sun, and moon are a three-body problem but we know where they will be tomorrow, next year, next century, next millennium, etc. The error bars increase with time but the moon isn't suddenly going to be ejected beyond the orbit of Pluto in an unpredictable way due to some bullshit from the chaos of the three-body problem. The entire solar system is a (very large number)-body problem, but we know where every major body is going to be with a large degree of certainty for a long time.

Whether or not they could have found a way to preserve their civilisation thorough the periods inimical to life is also beside the point. They claim they couldn't predict the occurrences, which is bullshit. You don't need a computer for that, even a biological computer (which I admit was actually kind of a cool concept), you just need paper and pen.

You can't have pretentions to hard sci-fi and just talk nonsense. Either be hand-wavy soft sci-fi or make your explanations conform to our best current understanding. You can't try to explain shit and also get the most basic concepts wrong.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Predicting the orbits of the sun-earth-moon system is easy to do accurately because of the relative sizes and proximity of the bodies.
You don't even need to treat it like a 3-body problem, because the size of the earth/moon have an inconsequential impact on the sun, the size of the moon had an inconsequential impact on the earth, and the proximity of the moon means the sun has an inconsequential impact on it too. So you use a traditional "sphere of influence" 2 body problems, and get very accurate results.

But when the bodies are all large enough to significantly affect eachother's orbits, like a trinary star system, then doing simulation (iterative calculations) quickly builds up errors, especially as the steps are far apart (which they must be with their biological computer, given how slow it is). I haven't run the exact calculations, but I've done interactive simulation in the past and it can pretty quickly fall apart

Edit:

You're gonna look at me and you're gonna tell me that I'm wrong? Am I wrong? She wore a crown and came down in a bubble, Doug. Grow up bro, grow up.

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Now i just think you're being disingenuous.

Are you really trying to say you think the author understands the three-body problem?

Are you saying the errors from iterative calculations of three stars and a planet build up so fast, and that they move so fast, that they can go to sleep one night with everything fine and completely without warning wake up the next morning with a sun filling the entire sky or all three suns looking as far away as Sol from Neptune?

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

When in the book do you think that happens in a single night?
Do you mean in the video game invented by the aliens as a puzzle game, presenting a dramatized retelling of their society's history to keep the humans engaged in the puzzle, that clearly played it super lose with the passage of time?

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] Yaky@slrpnk.net 43 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Three Body Problem is what I call "big ideas" sci-fi. Large-scale problems, global crisis, often detailed world-building, sometimes decent plot, but boring characters, who often act simply as reader's eyes / observers.

Many of Alastair Reynolds' novels are like that, so was Red Mars, and even Blindsight and Rosewater.

Not everyone's cup of tea, and I completely understand why.

[–] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Love the books but completely agree. I devoured the trilogy but all of the charcters felt like cardboard cut outs. I liked the concept and the story, but hated all of the charcters and the writing in general.

[–] Wabbitsmiles@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This. I absolutely loved the concept especially how book 2 and 3 turned out, not a typical sequel in a linear fashion, that blew my mind.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I hated book 3, which tainted book 2 retroactively. It was just so unsatisfying.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

Book 3 was trying too hard to get the snake to eat its own tail.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I’m glad you said it. I read so many great reviews for it. It was recommended to me. I tried to read it. Couldn’t get past the first few chapters.

I’m an avid sci-fi reader. I’ve read hundreds of sci-fi books of all sorts; from goofy pulp to sci-fi-smut to high stakes epic novels. But I simply could not get into Three Body Problem.

I thought maybe it was that something was lost in translation.

[–] mr_satan@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Now that you mention it, yes. The characters are quite 2 dimensional and unlikeable (not all, but definitely important to mention).

That being said I thoroughly enjoyed the books and didn't stop too much on the characters. Under unlikeable, flat, awkward characters there was an interesting premise and good thinking to be had: living in a society that has no private thoughts; dark forest theory, life in a society after the end.
So what I did was take a big sip of suspension of disbelief and enjoyed the ride. The interest to see the conclusion of the story was enough to coast through all three of the books.

Also, I read those just before the hype. I first heard of the first book a few years before from an Adam Savage podcast and the premise stuck to me. So after reading the Witcher I wanted something sci-fi'ish and this hit the spot.

[–] UnrepentantAlgebra@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

I agree that the underlying ideas were interesting, but the books had so much padding. So much of the story was just "but wait, it gets worse" that I found it hard to get through at times. I feel like the books could have been half as long and still conveyed the same interesting concepts without losing much.

[–] Smokeydope@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

In the middle of reading it now. Its a dual effect. One is that its natively written in chinese so a lot of its cultural stuff like the beginning will go over english readers heads not knowing that the chinese people literally had an violent orwellian book burning period of their history against academia. I imagine it was an attempt to pull readers in emotionally but Its hard to be emotionally invested in a cultural history you have no knowledge of and its paced badly.

The second is that the sci-fi genre is unfortunately nearly universally populated by nerds with good ideas pretending to be writers. This results in very interesting ideas and thought provoking settings being brought low by eye wateringly boring characters, piss poor narrative through lines, souless or confusing writing style, ect. Go ahead and try to read an Asimov book or Dune and you'll realize This was always the case for decades at least.

In fairness to the authors its hard to tell a civilization spanning futuristic world ending drama while also keeping it grounded.

As an enjoyer of sci-fi you kind of just have to power through the slog of some dead writing to get to the interesting concepts. I've never had the pleasure of reading a harcore sci-fi novel that was also an excellently written character drama. The only soft sci-fi book that pulled off the balance and stuck the landing was The Martian.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 hours ago

You did not just slander my boys Asimov and Herbert.

The Godmakers was fantastic.
Foundation is a series where the civilisation itself is the MC.

Also you have to remember at that time, they were mostly just writing short stories, especially Asimov.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not sure why The Cultural Revolution is supposed to be an alien concept to English readers that goes over their heads but otherwise I tend to agree.

[–] Smokeydope@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Chinese people presumably know what the cultural revolution was about and the subtext is ingrained in social memory. To an English reader with no knowledge of what the cultural revolution was about the books opening has zero context. It begins with a revolutionary girl getting killed and some people lining up to denounce math and science like a public humiliation court but more violent. Theres no subtext as to why these things are happening or what its about. A quick Wikipedia article fixes that context up of it being about the current regime believing academic knowledge would undermine political power and economic worker capability, but thats never explained in the book its expected implicit knowledge your expected to know going in.

Western atrocities and cultural revolutions usually aren't over literal knowledge. For English speakering countries all revolutions and dictatorship genocides are usually about persecution of nationality, race, or religion. Take the american civil war and the Holocaust to example. revolution and state sanctioned violence aren't usually directly over nerd shit like knowledge, theyre fought over ideaology, race, resources. Instead of directly spilling blood and literally burning libraries governments prefer to play the long game of defunding public education and quietly banning controversial books to make the populace stupid and submissive, not literally book burning. 1984 is supposed to be metaphorical extremist dystopian satire warning us about PRISM, five eyes and the survailance state, not a literal instruction manual.

The idea of a book burning society with extreme censorship in such an in-your-face way is presented as fictional because the concept is so ridiculous. No half-stable government in their right mind would be so violently audacious over something so trivial, not even the run of the mill dictatorships. Asian culture is just very different.

Personally I don't think books should be held accountable for the possibility of their reader being both ignorant and too lazy to look up common knowledge historical events.

Out of curiosity, have you read Stranger in a Strange Land? I won't say the character work is amazing, and it does feel a bit dated, but I find it to stand out in the genre.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 50 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›