The Algebraist by Iain Banks

[cgw]

The other day I picked up The Algebraist along with Eifelheim by Michael Flynn and Brasyl by Ian McDonald. I wanted to read it because I wanted to try something by Banks and The Algebraist was a good title. I started but could not get into it so I am reading Eifelheim which I got into immediately.The question is - do you think I should give it a good shot expecting to enjoy it more as I get further along? It took me a couple trys with A Fire Upon the Deep and I ended up loving it. On the other hand I have tried to get into Red Mars three times so far and have yet to to get past a few chapters.

[Michigan]

Meh, people who love Banks will tell you to keep going. I'm not a big Banks fan so I say why bother. The Algebraist was the second Banks book I tried, not that I loved the first but everybody seems to rave over Banks so I figured I should give him another try. Gave up maybe a third of the way through. I feel like he takes stories that should be exciting but makes them boring by getting bogged down with characters that aren't very interesting. Does that make sense? Either way I don't like Banks.

I thought A Fire Upon the Deep was pretty good though.

[nquixote]

I liked A Fire Upon the Deep a lot (though the prequel A Deepness in the Sky was far superior, not just to Fire but to nearly every book I've ever read!); I have no problem with slow books, or books set in very strange settings.

But I must say, the one book I've read of Banks, Consider Phlebas, I found totally shallow and pointless, full of meaningless action and unsympathetic characters. I couldn't decide if Banks was trying to write a subtle dark treatise on human futility, cleverly disguised as a totally trashy sci-fi throwaway, or if he really was just spazzing.

[Jeroen]

I agree that Consider Phlebas was shallow with a lot of pointless action, but when I read the second book of the Culture series, Player of Games, I became convinced that Iain M Banks rocks. He is very inventive and I'm sure I will enjoy the next Culture book, Use of Weapons. Those two are said to be the best of his work. I'm not sure about The Algebraist and the later Culture novels. I guess that Banks is not such a genius as lots of people consider him and some of his books can be a bit meh, like Consider Phlebas, but Banks definately has a spark of freshness in his writing and I like it.

[Chuffalump]

Originally Posted by nquixote

But I must say, the one book I've read of Banks, Consider Phlebas, I found totally shallow and pointless, full of meaningless action and unsympathetic characters. I couldn't decide if Banks was trying to write a subtle dark treatise on human futility, cleverly disguised as a totally trashy sci-fi throwaway, or if he really was just spazzing.

Out of interest....what do you consider meaningful action compared to meaningLESS action? As a fan of Banks' SF the only part of Consider Phlebas that I found a drag was the scene with the Eaters just before the destruction of the O. Every other action scene develops naturally and helps roll the story on.

Personally, I prefer The Player of Games though.

[Jeroen]

I felt that the action in Consider Phlebas in the first half of the book was uninteresting because I didn't feel any connection to the characters and I had the idea that the characters didn't had any wishes or weren't working towards anything. They were just doing stuff while the story had no goals to work towards. I didn't know what Banks wanted me to feel about the action and I had no idea what the point of it all was; I thought it was leading to nothing and was just inserted because Banks thought it would be a good place in the tale to put in some action. And at the end of the book I still had the feeling that most of the action in the first half had no point.

but

I must admit that Consider Phlebas has the most awesome prologue ever.

[nquixote]

The action is pointless because:

A) It doesn't really have any "macro significance". Nothing much is at stake.

B) The characters are unsympathetic and shallow and it's impossible to care about any of them.

C) The action scenes seem like they were put in to be "set pieces" - e.g. there's really no reason for them to be randomly nuking a cruise ship, but the author just thought it would be cool to have a scene where they nuke a cruise ship.

D) The physics is TERRIBLE (no recoil from laser cannon that blow open thick metal walls, characters surviving being underneath a building-sized hovercraft, etc.), which makes suspension of disbelief difficult.

E) The scenes relied on unrealistic character stupidity (Horza, apparently a trained commando/spy, lets his two insanely dangerous enemies live, and takes both with him at the same time into incredibly precarious situations, using all his manpower to guard them!). Actually, unrealistic-stupidity-as-a-plot-device is something I notice a lot in British space operas, including Alastair Reynolds and Peter F. Hamilton...maybe they learned it from Banks?

All in all, there was nothing witty or surprising or original in the book. I briefly hoped that the whole story turned out to be some kind of mental exercise of the Culture Mind as it waited to be rescued - that would have been a cool twist - but it didn't materialize. I finished the last page and thought "Wow, I just read a book where nothing happened."

[psikeyhackr]

Originally Posted by nquixote

But I must say, the one book I've read of Banks, Consider Phlebas, I found totally shallow and pointless, full of meaningless action and unsympathetic characters. I couldn't decide if Banks was trying to write a subtle dark treatise on human futility, cleverly disguised as a totally trashy sci-fi throwaway, or if he really was just spazzing.

Yep, I tried it because Banks is mentioned as a good author so often but the story was just lurching around through stupid violent adventures that seemed to have no point. I gave up two thirds of the way through. I only went that far because of all the good PR. I kept thinking, "It must get better, it must get better."

Kansas is too far away Toto. I'm not walking anymore.

psik

[Ropie]

Originally Posted by nquixote

A) It doesn't really have any "macro significance". Nothing much is at stake.

Isn't Consider Phlebas about an intergalactic war?

B) The characters are unsympathetic and shallow and it's impossible to care about any of them.

I haven't read CPh but this is something Banks does better than a great deal of SF writers - setting up and maintaining a good character, be they human, robot or otherwise.

C) The action scenes seem like they were put in to be "set pieces" - e.g. there's really no reason for them to be randomly nuking a cruise ship, but the author just thought it would be cool to have a scene where they nuke a cruise ship.

To Banks, this would be cool and the coolness is an end in itself.

D) The physics is TERRIBLE (no recoil from laser cannon that blow open thick metal walls, characters surviving being underneath a building-sized hovercraft, etc.), which makes suspension of disbelief difficult.

Is he catering to readers or scientific critics?

E) The scenes relied on unrealistic character stupidity (Horza, apparently a trained commando/spy, lets his two insanely dangerous enemies live, and takes both with him at the same time into incredibly precarious situations, using all his manpower to guard them!). Actually, unrealistic-stupidity-as-a-plot-device is something I notice a lot in British space operas, including Alastair Reynolds and Peter F. Hamilton...maybe they learned it from Banks?

And perhaps it's something he learned from Philip K Dick.

All in all, there was nothing witty or surprising or original in the book. I briefly hoped that the whole story turned out to be some kind of mental exercise of the Culture Mind as it waited to be rescued - that would have been a cool twist - but it didn't materialize. I finished the last page and thought "Wow, I just read a book where nothing happened."

I can't comment on this as I haven't read the book but perhaps it makes more sense after reading the other Culture stories. I'm not a huge fan of Iain M Banks either but what he does do he does well. His writing as Iain Banks is better, I find.

[psikeyhackr]

Originally Posted by nquixote

no recoil from laser cannon that blow open thick metal walls

Originally Posted by Ropie

Is he catering to readers or scientific critics?

Now that is hysterical.

1. Would a LASER canon have a recoil? A normal cannon works kind of like a rocket in that a lighter mass hurled very fast pushes a much heavier mass more slowly in the opposite direction. But does light have mass? Expecting a recoil from a laser cannon is incorrect science.

Shouldn't the readers of SCIENCE fiction be "scientific critics". If they are not then they really want fantasy not science fiction.

psik

[Ropie]

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr

Shouldn't the readers of SCIENCE fiction be "scientific critics". If they are not then they really want fantasy not science fiction.

It depends on how seriously you take the name of the genre. I have an interest in science but no real training. For me fantasy is about wizards and dragons. I'm not concerned with how accurate the science is. I actually enjoy the words more than anything!!

[nquixote]

Originally Posted by Ropie

Isn't Consider Phlebas about an intergalactic war?

Which, it is explicitly stated, the outcome of the events in Consider Phlebas will scarcely affect, if at all.

I haven't read CPh but this is something Banks does better than a great deal of SF writers - setting up and maintaining a good character, be they human, robot or otherwise.

Yes, I've heard he gets a lot better at this in Use of Weapons and other books. In Consider Phlebas the characters are paper-thin and startlingly stupid and unlikeable in the extreme.

To Banks, this would be cool and the coolness is an end in itself.

Exactly.

[nquixote]

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr

Now that is hysterical.

1. Would a LASER canon have a recoil? A normal cannon works kind of like a rocket in that a lighter mass hurled very fast pushes a much heavier mass more slowly in the opposite direction. But does light have mass? Expecting a recoil from a laser cannon is incorrect science.

Light has momentum. The momentum of a photon is equal to Planck's constant divided by the wavelength of the light. It is conservation of momentum that causes recoil. A laser cannon has a kick equal to the momentum of the laser bolt.

Now, a laser cannon could conceivably VAPORIZE a section of wall, rather than punch it outward (though Banks explicitly states that the wall was punched outward, but let's ignore this). If the energy required to vaporize the wall requires a momentum much smaller than the momentum required to punch the wall outward (highly unlikely, since vaporizing a wall requires taking it apart molecule by molecule, and that is a LOT of energy, but you could do it if your laser resonated with the molecular or metallic bonds in the wall), then the laser would kick less. BUT, if you fly right at the exploding wall, you would still be hit by the expanding spherical wavefront of the vaporized wall! If the wall is close by, that's one hell of a kick!

So, no, my science is not incorrect... ;-)

P.S. - Here's a calculation of the kick of a laser cannon under various assumptions.

[cgw]

Looks like Banks is going on the back burner.

P.S. If science fiction had to be scientifically acurate, I would not be able to read any of it (in other words I have yet to see it).

[Ropie]

Originally Posted by cgw

Looks like Banks is going on the back burner.

Along with the non-recoiling laser canon theory