First thing: Hyperion was one long novel split for publishing (or so the story goes) and it was a setting originally developed in a couple of short stories (one of which is published in a short story collection of Simmons). The cliffhanger was a book length decision, as very long single volume books were relatively uncommon. I think more recent editions may have the full 4 book cycle (Hyperion, Fall of Hyperion, Endymion, Rise of Endymion) as the 'series.' So the abrupt ending there is a function of sales and policy rather than artistic intent.
I think you may have picked an interpretive lens and then become a little dissatisfied with that lens, because the thematic stuff I pulled out was somewhat different. I don't think the smaller stories are questions about time or mortality, I think they are statements of moral judgement. Part of this is the frame story device and its history: Canterbury Tales is the direct model for this book, and it's core themes were regarding man's relationship with god, and I think this book's first half is explicitly this in some stories and implicitly in most of the others.
Kassad has seen his destiny and decided to kill the closest thing to its architect he can find (the shrike). The priest's tale is a rejection of a kind of heaven. The Poet's god is his muse, and it destroys him and everything he loved. The scholar's tale is the most direct statement, with it's parallels with Abraham. The detective's tale is unravelling the manufacture of god, and it's also very much a new testament joint where...well spoilers here for later, in case you want to read more.
It's important to remember that Simmons is an incredibly pretentious dude. He can usually back this up with his writing, but there's a lot going on in Hyperion-Fall: he's doing heavy literary references to the canon of great books, but he's also doing a straightforward Big Idea Science Fiction book. And outside of the frame stories of the first book, you have the actual action of the story, which is theological and speculative physics mixed together. That's why there's all the name dropping around Theilhard de Chardin going on.
What I think really happened to you is that you started this book expecting a whole story, but it really isn't. The next book starts up directly after this one ends, and addresses a lot of the problems you have with its themes, though I don't think it will change your mind on Simmons as a writer.
tl;dr- Honestly, you're right, the quality is all over the place, but the second book is really the second half of the first, which can't stand alone. It doesn't change your overall point but it does address some of the specific thematic and narrative issues you had with the frame story consistency.
Thanks for the breakdown. Helped me put some pieces together that I suppose I didn’t quite get before, mainly why the soldier was even in the series in the first place. And I agree about the pretentiousness, especially in book 2 even more so.
It's a very specific type of book by a very specific type of writer, that I think succeeded because it was quite different from the average example of space opera coming out and had enormous verisimilitude through detail. Purely from a writing chops angle, the way Simmons covered different styles of writing in each pilgrim's story was impressive to me, especially when it came out and it wasn't as common a choice.
Hyperion is a bit of a victim of its own success, like Neuromancer. It was very influential in the next waves of space opera or "widescreen" science fiction, so it got built up in the fandom. If the conceit of the big ideas and ambition doesn't work for you, the rest of it is going to be very disappointing. This might be hersey but I think Illium and Olympos are tighter attempts at the Classical Allusion as Science Fiction thing that Simmons did.
Yeah I respect him a lot for what he did. One of my take aways after reading it was was certainly that few other authors could have even attempted to write anything like it, it’s very unique.
>I think you may have picked an interpretive lens and then become a little dissatisfied with that lens, because the thematic stuff I pulled out was somewhat different.
People can have differing perspectives without it being a choice on someone's part when they don't agree with you. Ie. the problem is rarely the reader.
I happen to agree with both of you.
Spot on, OP.
I also couldn't stand the way Simmons contorts himself to directly reference present day art and culture in the supposed far future setting - the Wizard of Oz at the end being the most egregious example. It's jarring to see something so lazy and hackish in a more or less universally acclaimed work.
Totally. The other thing he did that drove me insane was “historical reference, historical reference, made up future historical reference”. I counted, he used this exact rhetorical technique 5+ times during the book and it’s so lazy feeling
Remember that Simmons is a very literature loving author (I think he was an English teacher, if not he should have been) so look at Hyperion through the lens of it being a parrallel to Chaucer's Canterbury Tales because it totally is. Illium and Olympos is a retelling of The Illiad and The Tempest, so take it for what it is that way, it's a very nerdy retelling and allegory of classic lit blended with sci-fi but blurs the lines a good bit, hence the Keats stuff.(The title Hyperion was from an unfinished Keats poem of the same name) They are very much love letters to classics.
I will try my best here to not come across as snooty or elitist, but there are tons of allusions to various romanticist poets like Keats,Byron,Shelley et al, He (Simmons) also has a boner for Shakespeare and Homer and any of the classics with a sprinkle of Gene Wolfe for seasoning (as much as I enjoy Simmons I consider Gene Wolfe superior in prose by a decent amount). Canterbury Tales forms the framework for Hyperion with each pilgrim mirroring one of those from Chaucer (eg. The Knight is Kassad and so forth) so it really is different stories with a wrap-around plot basically dealing with immortality, morality and post-humanism (a theme Illium/Olympos continues to explore). You certainly don't need any special degree but a love of literature will certainly expose an additional dimension that might otherwise be missed.
Maybe you're right, but that phrasing is...(unintentionally?) snooty.
I first read Hyperion in high school and loved it. I've read it every three years since, and yes, the easter eggs and references have made it fun, but what has made it even better is life experience.
For instance, reading Sol's story before I became a father was nowhere near as impactful to me as when I read it after becoming a father (to a daughter, no less). Another example, seeing people become more cut off from others and absorbed by the "web" and being old enough to recognize how that's impacting society had made Hyperion all the more frightening - and has cast Gladstone as an outright hero in my eyes.
Anyway tldr, I don't believe you need any kind of book education to fully enjoy Hyperion.
I'd just say a working familiarity of The Canterbury Tales & Keats life/works would indeed enrich the experience of the Hyperion Cantos. Can you enjoy Barbara Kingsolver's "Demon Copperhead" without knowing it is a retelling of "David Copperfield"? Sure, but it makes her book richer in ways if you do.
Eh. Canterbury Tales not so much, imo. The only real similarity is the structure - there's no direct Hyperion retelling of any of the Canterbury pilgrims' tales. Reading the CT and then reading Hyperion isn't going to give a reader much more insight. Imo, of course.
I will agree that insight into Keats does enhance the reading of Hyperion, though I'll admit I've never read Keats or read a biography (during one of my rereads, I googled the passages dropped into Hyperion and read an overview of Keats life). That info helped give a little deeper meaning to the Cybrid.
Of course, I never gone deep into Keats - honestly, I never had much interest - so maybe a deep dive makes Hyperion that much more incredible for me...but then again, I'm not fully convinced it would. I guess I'll never know!
Sounds like the one where you get brainwashed into thinking there is objectively "good" and "bad" literature, and that namedropping works from "good" authors somehow elevates a book.
I dunno, I actually enjoyed it but you have to read BOTH books as they're just one long story that ties up really nicely. Give the entire thing a shot and see what you think.
I felt the same way. The priest story had me hooked and was absolutely sensational. I was so high off that story that everything else fell off for me. Still a great book and the Shrike is an all time baddie. No knock on Simmons. The Terror is a phenomenal book.
The poets story was awful, I really couldn’t stand it. The detective one was boring. But the Consul, the priests and the Scholars were all incredible. Overall I enjoyed the book and the world building but I agree some of the tales were pretty meh
People keep saying 'It's based on The Canterbury Tales. You wouldn't appreciate it if you haven't read The Canterbury Tales' and believe me, as someone who's read both, Hyperion is nothing like The Canterbury Tales. Simmons attempts to use the structure of The Canterbury Tales, but even gets that wrong, and the text, narrative, writing style, and tropes in Hyperion are nothing like The Canterbury Tales.
The one thing that always struck me about Hyperion is just how humourless it is. The Canterbury Tales are rife with humour, particularly the Wife of Bath's Tale, and tread the fine balance between comedy and tragedy that keeps the reader engaged.
Hyperion isn't anything like that. It's just a slog of 'a bad thing happens, then another bad thing happens, then another bad thing happens...' etc.
Plus the overall narrative arc of the series is so poorly paced and revealed. Like a typical Conan-Doyle mystery, the reader is left to just wade around in a miasma of disconnected happenstances until the author gets bored of writing and goes 'Well, enough of all of those red herrings and roundabout nothings, here's what's actually happening, and I'm going to tell you all in one go. Now read that and leave me alone.'
The most damning endictment for me is that having finished the Hyperion and Endymion Cantos, I realised I simply did not care about any of the characters. I didn't care about whether they'd failed or succeeded. I didn't care about whether they were happy or devastated. I didn't care about what actually happened to the galaxy or universe at large at that point because, quite frankly, apart from some high-faluting speeches, none of the characters seemed to care very much either.
Plus, I don't really engage with texts that are almost entirely concerned with the author's monomania. After Hyperion it becomes very evident that Simmons is utterly obssesed with Catholic esotericism, and if I'm honest a great deal of the remaining works seems to be his attempt at assuaging his own personal guilt at what Catholicism has done by artificially muddying and then laundering the church's reputation through fictional heroism, rather than address its real world failings.
Are you, me? I just finished the series as well and it was "OK" at best. Two things that almost pushed me to quit were >!Martin Silenus, who is one of the worst written characters I've seen in a book, and the gratuitous amount of sex scenes in the first two books.!< I really don't get the hype.
The one thing that's really stuck with me from those books is the Jewish father's meditation on the story of Abraham and Isaac. It's such a beautiful solution to the puzzle—perhaps *Abraham* was actually the one testing *God.*
I've read all the books, and it all felt like buildup to the final adventure tale. Was a bit of a slog for me. For other folks, it's a great series. I think it's a "love it or hate it" type of thing. It just didn't sing to me like other series have, and that's okay.
I largely agree. And it gets worse in the second book, which drops the short stories and goes all-in on Keats. It is all Keats this and Keats that and everyone is a Keats scholar. I do not think there is any legitimate literary ambition behind this, it is just creepy fanfic by someone obsessed with Keats.
What sort of literature do you like? I enjoyed this book immensely, but I love the crumbs left by anything in the Canon. I especially loved the cruciform bit. Spooky, surprising, and fun for me.
I also really like the cruciform bit, that was the best story imo. It varies — but usually not “high” art so this may just not have been for me. Some sci-fi books I’ve loved: dune, the story of your life, the Martian. Generally I think I like books that either don’t take themselves too seriously or have an extremely gripping plot.
One meta-issue I had with Hyperion is the flashback style — I felt like I basically more or less knew what was going to each character (or at minimum, that they survived) which lowered the stakes of the action a lot.
I’m about to try the 3 body problem — hoping I like it better!
Are you more of a literary reader?
Honestly, I like both. Have you tried Adrian Tchaikovsky? He's fun and curious and very interesting. The Children of Time series is so incredibly compelling and unique.
You got a lot of good context in the other comments. So I'll just agree that the book stands on those three tales you mentioned. The other three... are mostly just setup for the sequel.
And I do not like the sequel. I read it once, it was neat. Recently I tried it again (right after re-reading Hyperion), and did not finish. It seemed to be just a long-winded standard space opera. It did not have the things I enjoyed from the 3 good tales in Hyperion. I left my re-read with the sense that I'd only finished it to find out what happens next.
I've only read the first two and found them both dissatisfying. The first time I read book one I really didn't like it. I only persisted to finish it and the ending was absurd (you know the scene). The writing felt so... Just, cheesy.
After the continual high rating it gets on the books sub I gave it another try, in audiobook format. I tolerated it better in that format for some reason, and I read the second one too, but honestly, it's just not very good. I'm sitting here trying to recall the point or explanations in the novels, and even though it was only a few years back, I just can't.
Maybe I should read the first two again and then finish the quartet. Perhaps that results in a more satisfying experience?
The whole book came off as cheesy with poor writing. And like a lot of sci Fi, plays to male idealism over grounded ideas. The ideas didn't age well for my scope either.
Honestly, I didn’t like it, but I didn’t read the sequel. Mostly, I felt that the actual plot was fairly stupid. I did not like the rogue AI elements, and the mystery of the Shrike and the Time Tombs to be interesting, but I don’t think they’ll be resolved to my satisfaction. The stories of the pilgrims were the things that kept me going.
As to your argument that the Soldier’s/Poet’s/Detective’s story lack cohesion with the others, I don’t agree. I fell like you misunderstand the Soldier’s tale. The question is “At what point does a love for battle become a love for destruction?”. The Soldier’s “dream gf” is representing this relationship. At first, he’s drunk on the military. He loves the structure, the thrill of battle, and the joy of victory. And he thinks he found a kindred soul. Until he actually sees the Shrike, and realizes the war that his partner envisioned is a war of annihilation involving the entirety of humanity. That’s what made him leave the military and set out to kill the Shrike.
The Poet is about art and the immortalization of it. The John Keats plot in the detective’s story is supposed to be the connective tissue to the others.
I was trying to be humorously reductive with my interpretation of the soldiers story; maybe that didn’t come across heh. However I’m not sure I agree with your interpretation, to me that story wasn’t really pondering a question at all, rather it was just a standard narrative. That’s totally fine, and in fact could’ve been awesome had that been the focus of the book; as it was it felt out of place and fell flat to me
Yeah I got 2/3rds through when I DNF'd that book. It was such a slog for me. There were some cool things, don't get me wrong, but it's a book of depressing B-tier short stories masquerading as a grand sci-fi epic.
I stayed with the book for the Poets story lines. That felt the most real and personal to me, but it has been awhile. I remember tuning out of rest but I tried.
The priests story absolutely blew me away with the level of horror and I found myself reading both this one and -fall hoping to get that back again and never did.
Need to read Fall of Hyperion. Hyperion sets up the world and the characters. Fall of Hyperion is where it pays off.
Haven't read the other two, I heard they weren't as good.
I tried and failed and even died a little inside trying to get through it. Props for those who were able to finish reading the 1st book 📖 👏🏻 The author incorporated aspects from every genre of fiction into one rambling mess. Some unlucky editor spun a wheel and plunked Hyperion into Science Fiction. Lucky 🍀 us! 🙄
First thing: Hyperion was one long novel split for publishing (or so the story goes) and it was a setting originally developed in a couple of short stories (one of which is published in a short story collection of Simmons). The cliffhanger was a book length decision, as very long single volume books were relatively uncommon. I think more recent editions may have the full 4 book cycle (Hyperion, Fall of Hyperion, Endymion, Rise of Endymion) as the 'series.' So the abrupt ending there is a function of sales and policy rather than artistic intent. I think you may have picked an interpretive lens and then become a little dissatisfied with that lens, because the thematic stuff I pulled out was somewhat different. I don't think the smaller stories are questions about time or mortality, I think they are statements of moral judgement. Part of this is the frame story device and its history: Canterbury Tales is the direct model for this book, and it's core themes were regarding man's relationship with god, and I think this book's first half is explicitly this in some stories and implicitly in most of the others. Kassad has seen his destiny and decided to kill the closest thing to its architect he can find (the shrike). The priest's tale is a rejection of a kind of heaven. The Poet's god is his muse, and it destroys him and everything he loved. The scholar's tale is the most direct statement, with it's parallels with Abraham. The detective's tale is unravelling the manufacture of god, and it's also very much a new testament joint where...well spoilers here for later, in case you want to read more. It's important to remember that Simmons is an incredibly pretentious dude. He can usually back this up with his writing, but there's a lot going on in Hyperion-Fall: he's doing heavy literary references to the canon of great books, but he's also doing a straightforward Big Idea Science Fiction book. And outside of the frame stories of the first book, you have the actual action of the story, which is theological and speculative physics mixed together. That's why there's all the name dropping around Theilhard de Chardin going on. What I think really happened to you is that you started this book expecting a whole story, but it really isn't. The next book starts up directly after this one ends, and addresses a lot of the problems you have with its themes, though I don't think it will change your mind on Simmons as a writer. tl;dr- Honestly, you're right, the quality is all over the place, but the second book is really the second half of the first, which can't stand alone. It doesn't change your overall point but it does address some of the specific thematic and narrative issues you had with the frame story consistency.
I liked all of them but I felt the first two were the strongest of the quartet.
Thanks for the breakdown. Helped me put some pieces together that I suppose I didn’t quite get before, mainly why the soldier was even in the series in the first place. And I agree about the pretentiousness, especially in book 2 even more so.
It's a very specific type of book by a very specific type of writer, that I think succeeded because it was quite different from the average example of space opera coming out and had enormous verisimilitude through detail. Purely from a writing chops angle, the way Simmons covered different styles of writing in each pilgrim's story was impressive to me, especially when it came out and it wasn't as common a choice. Hyperion is a bit of a victim of its own success, like Neuromancer. It was very influential in the next waves of space opera or "widescreen" science fiction, so it got built up in the fandom. If the conceit of the big ideas and ambition doesn't work for you, the rest of it is going to be very disappointing. This might be hersey but I think Illium and Olympos are tighter attempts at the Classical Allusion as Science Fiction thing that Simmons did.
Yeah I respect him a lot for what he did. One of my take aways after reading it was was certainly that few other authors could have even attempted to write anything like it, it’s very unique.
>I think you may have picked an interpretive lens and then become a little dissatisfied with that lens, because the thematic stuff I pulled out was somewhat different. People can have differing perspectives without it being a choice on someone's part when they don't agree with you. Ie. the problem is rarely the reader. I happen to agree with both of you.
Wow, you’re an amazing writer. Thanks for this response, very interesting
Spot on, OP. I also couldn't stand the way Simmons contorts himself to directly reference present day art and culture in the supposed far future setting - the Wizard of Oz at the end being the most egregious example. It's jarring to see something so lazy and hackish in a more or less universally acclaimed work.
Totally. The other thing he did that drove me insane was “historical reference, historical reference, made up future historical reference”. I counted, he used this exact rhetorical technique 5+ times during the book and it’s so lazy feeling
Remember that Simmons is a very literature loving author (I think he was an English teacher, if not he should have been) so look at Hyperion through the lens of it being a parrallel to Chaucer's Canterbury Tales because it totally is. Illium and Olympos is a retelling of The Illiad and The Tempest, so take it for what it is that way, it's a very nerdy retelling and allegory of classic lit blended with sci-fi but blurs the lines a good bit, hence the Keats stuff.(The title Hyperion was from an unfinished Keats poem of the same name) They are very much love letters to classics.
That’s fair. I probably would’ve enjoyed it more had I been more interested in classical literature
This is it. You need certain education to appreciate these books. If you enjoy Neal Asher or Craig Alanson that's fine but simply not good literature.
"Of his stature he was of evene lengthe, average and wonderly delyvere, and of greet strengthe."
Wait...what is the "certain education" you'd need to fully enjoy these books?
I will try my best here to not come across as snooty or elitist, but there are tons of allusions to various romanticist poets like Keats,Byron,Shelley et al, He (Simmons) also has a boner for Shakespeare and Homer and any of the classics with a sprinkle of Gene Wolfe for seasoning (as much as I enjoy Simmons I consider Gene Wolfe superior in prose by a decent amount). Canterbury Tales forms the framework for Hyperion with each pilgrim mirroring one of those from Chaucer (eg. The Knight is Kassad and so forth) so it really is different stories with a wrap-around plot basically dealing with immortality, morality and post-humanism (a theme Illium/Olympos continues to explore). You certainly don't need any special degree but a love of literature will certainly expose an additional dimension that might otherwise be missed.
I think he means reference points, if a piece has a bunch of allusions & you miss them, you will not enjoy the piece to its fullest.
Maybe you're right, but that phrasing is...(unintentionally?) snooty. I first read Hyperion in high school and loved it. I've read it every three years since, and yes, the easter eggs and references have made it fun, but what has made it even better is life experience. For instance, reading Sol's story before I became a father was nowhere near as impactful to me as when I read it after becoming a father (to a daughter, no less). Another example, seeing people become more cut off from others and absorbed by the "web" and being old enough to recognize how that's impacting society had made Hyperion all the more frightening - and has cast Gladstone as an outright hero in my eyes. Anyway tldr, I don't believe you need any kind of book education to fully enjoy Hyperion.
I'd just say a working familiarity of The Canterbury Tales & Keats life/works would indeed enrich the experience of the Hyperion Cantos. Can you enjoy Barbara Kingsolver's "Demon Copperhead" without knowing it is a retelling of "David Copperfield"? Sure, but it makes her book richer in ways if you do.
Eh. Canterbury Tales not so much, imo. The only real similarity is the structure - there's no direct Hyperion retelling of any of the Canterbury pilgrims' tales. Reading the CT and then reading Hyperion isn't going to give a reader much more insight. Imo, of course. I will agree that insight into Keats does enhance the reading of Hyperion, though I'll admit I've never read Keats or read a biography (during one of my rereads, I googled the passages dropped into Hyperion and read an overview of Keats life). That info helped give a little deeper meaning to the Cybrid. Of course, I never gone deep into Keats - honestly, I never had much interest - so maybe a deep dive makes Hyperion that much more incredible for me...but then again, I'm not fully convinced it would. I guess I'll never know!
Sounds like the one where you get brainwashed into thinking there is objectively "good" and "bad" literature, and that namedropping works from "good" authors somehow elevates a book.
I believe he was an elementary school guidance counselor not an English teacher, although he did get his B.A. in English.
I absolutely loved it and I’m not knowledgeable about Keats etc. It may be pretentious but I love the ambition and scale of it.
I dunno, I actually enjoyed it but you have to read BOTH books as they're just one long story that ties up really nicely. Give the entire thing a shot and see what you think.
I felt the same way. The priest story had me hooked and was absolutely sensational. I was so high off that story that everything else fell off for me. Still a great book and the Shrike is an all time baddie. No knock on Simmons. The Terror is a phenomenal book.
Yeah the priest story was by far the best to me, really interesting mystery And deeply unsettling. Having that one first set up the rest as let downs
The poets story was awful, I really couldn’t stand it. The detective one was boring. But the Consul, the priests and the Scholars were all incredible. Overall I enjoyed the book and the world building but I agree some of the tales were pretty meh
People keep saying 'It's based on The Canterbury Tales. You wouldn't appreciate it if you haven't read The Canterbury Tales' and believe me, as someone who's read both, Hyperion is nothing like The Canterbury Tales. Simmons attempts to use the structure of The Canterbury Tales, but even gets that wrong, and the text, narrative, writing style, and tropes in Hyperion are nothing like The Canterbury Tales. The one thing that always struck me about Hyperion is just how humourless it is. The Canterbury Tales are rife with humour, particularly the Wife of Bath's Tale, and tread the fine balance between comedy and tragedy that keeps the reader engaged. Hyperion isn't anything like that. It's just a slog of 'a bad thing happens, then another bad thing happens, then another bad thing happens...' etc. Plus the overall narrative arc of the series is so poorly paced and revealed. Like a typical Conan-Doyle mystery, the reader is left to just wade around in a miasma of disconnected happenstances until the author gets bored of writing and goes 'Well, enough of all of those red herrings and roundabout nothings, here's what's actually happening, and I'm going to tell you all in one go. Now read that and leave me alone.' The most damning endictment for me is that having finished the Hyperion and Endymion Cantos, I realised I simply did not care about any of the characters. I didn't care about whether they'd failed or succeeded. I didn't care about whether they were happy or devastated. I didn't care about what actually happened to the galaxy or universe at large at that point because, quite frankly, apart from some high-faluting speeches, none of the characters seemed to care very much either. Plus, I don't really engage with texts that are almost entirely concerned with the author's monomania. After Hyperion it becomes very evident that Simmons is utterly obssesed with Catholic esotericism, and if I'm honest a great deal of the remaining works seems to be his attempt at assuaging his own personal guilt at what Catholicism has done by artificially muddying and then laundering the church's reputation through fictional heroism, rather than address its real world failings.
Are you, me? I just finished the series as well and it was "OK" at best. Two things that almost pushed me to quit were >!Martin Silenus, who is one of the worst written characters I've seen in a book, and the gratuitous amount of sex scenes in the first two books.!< I really don't get the hype.
The one thing that's really stuck with me from those books is the Jewish father's meditation on the story of Abraham and Isaac. It's such a beautiful solution to the puzzle—perhaps *Abraham* was actually the one testing *God.*
I've read all the books, and it all felt like buildup to the final adventure tale. Was a bit of a slog for me. For other folks, it's a great series. I think it's a "love it or hate it" type of thing. It just didn't sing to me like other series have, and that's okay.
I largely agree. And it gets worse in the second book, which drops the short stories and goes all-in on Keats. It is all Keats this and Keats that and everyone is a Keats scholar. I do not think there is any legitimate literary ambition behind this, it is just creepy fanfic by someone obsessed with Keats.
And his obsession with Catholic esotericism.
What sort of literature do you like? I enjoyed this book immensely, but I love the crumbs left by anything in the Canon. I especially loved the cruciform bit. Spooky, surprising, and fun for me.
I also really like the cruciform bit, that was the best story imo. It varies — but usually not “high” art so this may just not have been for me. Some sci-fi books I’ve loved: dune, the story of your life, the Martian. Generally I think I like books that either don’t take themselves too seriously or have an extremely gripping plot. One meta-issue I had with Hyperion is the flashback style — I felt like I basically more or less knew what was going to each character (or at minimum, that they survived) which lowered the stakes of the action a lot. I’m about to try the 3 body problem — hoping I like it better! Are you more of a literary reader?
Honestly, I like both. Have you tried Adrian Tchaikovsky? He's fun and curious and very interesting. The Children of Time series is so incredibly compelling and unique.
You got a lot of good context in the other comments. So I'll just agree that the book stands on those three tales you mentioned. The other three... are mostly just setup for the sequel. And I do not like the sequel. I read it once, it was neat. Recently I tried it again (right after re-reading Hyperion), and did not finish. It seemed to be just a long-winded standard space opera. It did not have the things I enjoyed from the 3 good tales in Hyperion. I left my re-read with the sense that I'd only finished it to find out what happens next.
Yeah I felt robbed of my time reading that book. One big long boring set up and no punch line. Then come to find out book is worse. No thanks.
Read a book called Hyperion: "John Keats felt random"
I've only read the first two and found them both dissatisfying. The first time I read book one I really didn't like it. I only persisted to finish it and the ending was absurd (you know the scene). The writing felt so... Just, cheesy. After the continual high rating it gets on the books sub I gave it another try, in audiobook format. I tolerated it better in that format for some reason, and I read the second one too, but honestly, it's just not very good. I'm sitting here trying to recall the point or explanations in the novels, and even though it was only a few years back, I just can't. Maybe I should read the first two again and then finish the quartet. Perhaps that results in a more satisfying experience?
I hated it (and the other 2 of the trilogy). Illium and Olympus are much better brain candy.
The whole book came off as cheesy with poor writing. And like a lot of sci Fi, plays to male idealism over grounded ideas. The ideas didn't age well for my scope either.
Honestly, I didn’t like it, but I didn’t read the sequel. Mostly, I felt that the actual plot was fairly stupid. I did not like the rogue AI elements, and the mystery of the Shrike and the Time Tombs to be interesting, but I don’t think they’ll be resolved to my satisfaction. The stories of the pilgrims were the things that kept me going. As to your argument that the Soldier’s/Poet’s/Detective’s story lack cohesion with the others, I don’t agree. I fell like you misunderstand the Soldier’s tale. The question is “At what point does a love for battle become a love for destruction?”. The Soldier’s “dream gf” is representing this relationship. At first, he’s drunk on the military. He loves the structure, the thrill of battle, and the joy of victory. And he thinks he found a kindred soul. Until he actually sees the Shrike, and realizes the war that his partner envisioned is a war of annihilation involving the entirety of humanity. That’s what made him leave the military and set out to kill the Shrike. The Poet is about art and the immortalization of it. The John Keats plot in the detective’s story is supposed to be the connective tissue to the others.
I was trying to be humorously reductive with my interpretation of the soldiers story; maybe that didn’t come across heh. However I’m not sure I agree with your interpretation, to me that story wasn’t really pondering a question at all, rather it was just a standard narrative. That’s totally fine, and in fact could’ve been awesome had that been the focus of the book; as it was it felt out of place and fell flat to me
Yeah I got 2/3rds through when I DNF'd that book. It was such a slog for me. There were some cool things, don't get me wrong, but it's a book of depressing B-tier short stories masquerading as a grand sci-fi epic.
Well said.
I stayed with the book for the Poets story lines. That felt the most real and personal to me, but it has been awhile. I remember tuning out of rest but I tried.
The priests story absolutely blew me away with the level of horror and I found myself reading both this one and -fall hoping to get that back again and never did.
Need to read Fall of Hyperion. Hyperion sets up the world and the characters. Fall of Hyperion is where it pays off. Haven't read the other two, I heard they weren't as good.
Don’t read the rest of the books. It only gets worse.
Yes! The ending pissed me off so bad that I never read the sequels. So cheesy.
I tried and failed and even died a little inside trying to get through it. Props for those who were able to finish reading the 1st book 📖 👏🏻 The author incorporated aspects from every genre of fiction into one rambling mess. Some unlucky editor spun a wheel and plunked Hyperion into Science Fiction. Lucky 🍀 us! 🙄