• kat_angstrom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It’s like, the opposite of “fun”. Especially as the series continues, it just gets more and more bleak. 2 out of 10, I’ll certainly never read them again.

      • ikidd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        If it had been written in the last 3 years, I’d have been utterly convinced it was written by a bad AI.

        I lost my last shred of respect for the Hugos when that won for its year. Execrable trash.

        • nik9000@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          19 hours ago

          I put it in the “fun concepts boring characters” bucket with most Clarke.

          I really liked the next Hugo winner. And 2020. And 2023. Honestly I think about half of the Hugo winners are amazing. 2007. 2002. 2000. Oh 1993. That’s a vintage. 1990. 87, 86, 85, 84 is ok. Oh. They get more consistent as they go back in time. Still pretty good.

          • ikidd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            16 hours ago

            The thing is the concepts were nothing new, the “science” was handwaving bullshit that didn’t pass the sniff test, and the character development was so incredibly bad it beggars the imagination that it was written by a literature prof. Everything was a slap in the face that kept you from engaging in what little there was to recommend the story. And the deus ex machina plot device at the end that obviated everything else that proceeded it was the icing on the cake.

            I wanted my money back at the end.