Hyp: Chapter One: Very intense!

[AnnaBanana]

I still haven't finished chapter one. I just do not like this book, I totally can't get into it.

[Jules]

If you don't like chapter I, I can't see you like the rest of the book - but it does take a while to get going.

[Leesa]

I was warned by friends of mine who love this book immensely that the first book could be slow and confusing at times, but that it gets better. I just tell myself that I was able to get through the first incarnation of the Gunslinger before I could move on to the next two books in the Dark Tower series (only ones out at the time for like nearly a decade), then I can get through this.

[Jessica]

I just finished the first chapter (yes I know I'm behind) and like others I was so happy when the priest's story started and the sci-fi spaceship was alleviated. I'm more of a fantasy (sword) person usually and it was a little hard for me to get into it at first. However the priest's story was awesome and by the end I was completely sucked in. I can't get the image of him on that tree out of my head or the image of the nemotodes going through his body. I'm sure that this book is a really smart allegory for something but, I'm going to take it at face value and just enjoy it for now...because I'm tired

[Ed]

A few thoughts:

ON LINGUISTICS
I have a minor in Linguistics, so I'm clearly an authority on everything I'm about to say (read with sarcasm). I personally don't think it's right to judge other people for the way they speak/write because what they're writing is somehow "wrong." This makes no sense from a linguistic perspective because then technically every language that exists is basically the "wrong" version of the single ancestral language from which all languages have evolved (see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto_in...). Linguists call this linguistic prescriptivism, and this also explains why Noah Webster was a douche.

Sociolinguistics would even take this a step further and say that critiquing someone for the "quality" of their language is essentially a way for one group to identify themselves as "different from" (read "better than") another. There's a whole world of debate that could open up here with extremely sensitive issues getting involved (ie teaching inner city kids "proper" English).

Anyway, personally I think all language is good language if it conveys the meaning the author intended it to convey. I think authors that pay too much attention to HOW they're writing probably aren't nearly as good writers as those that are more concerned with WHAT they're saying.

On another note- I have read the prologue through chapter 2 and I have to say that I love the way that Dan Simmons writes. It's perfect for me. I'm a slow reader and I like books that you can take your time with- which means I like the language to be dense and technical and I want it to require a lot of thought. Hyperion seems to be a book that wants me to think a good deal- compare this to, say, the Da Vinci code which does most of your thinking for you (the chapters are like 4 paragraphs long for the love of fudge).

Anyway, those are just a pile of random thoughts to add to the heap. On to chapter three!