38 ratings (3.21 avg)
1 review

Regular Reader

Add friend

https://www.goodreads.com/regularreader

Regular’s Bookshelves

to-read‎ (2)

currently-reading‎ (1)

read‎ (68)

favorites‎ (9)

Stats | More…

Regular is Currently Reading

Regular Reader is currently reading

Hyperion (Hyperion Cantos, #1)

by Dan Simmons

bookshelves: currently-reading

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Regular Reader said: " .
*SPOILER ALERT: MY REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS*

Here are some quick notes of my impressions after having read through pages 1-145:

I am enjoying the book thus far, but I confess that I find the structure of the narrative (which I am told takes after the .
*SPOILER ALERT: MY REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS*

Here are some quick notes of my impressions after having read through pages 1-145:

I am enjoying the book thus far, but I confess that I find the structure of the narrative (which I am told takes after the Canterbury Tales) to be somewhat disappointingly conventional. Still, the first section (which tells the tale of the priest, Lenor Hoyt and his mentor, Paul Dure) does offer a snide interpretation of the passion and resurrection in Christianity and performs the additional tasks of casting an initial glance into the pre-human history of the universe and providing the first clues to the mysteries of the Shrike.

I generally don't enjoy stories that self-consciously adhere to religious narratives because they often display a lack of imagination and insight, preferring instead to appeal to the lowest-common-denominator among culturally despising readers. Ironically, such narratives in my view end up reinforcing the hegemony of Christian literary memes rather than undermining them because the alternative narratives do not offer plausible competing non-fictional accounts of the doctrines under consideration. Still, at least Simmons's narrative is nimble enough to leave open the possibility that Paul Dure's faith is genuine even if his interpretation of historical events is mistaken.

I also am not a huge fan of science fiction narratives that devote considerable attention to real world historical events because the device strikes me as relatively uninventive and it interferes with the suspension of my disbelief. I realize that an author who chose to discuss actual historical events sometimes succeeds in establishing a common ground of reference with readers who are familiar with the history to which the author referred, but it strikes me as unlikely that a far-future society would prioritize our contemporary historical periods over their own more recent pasts. Moreover, I admire an author who can invent a world including its own history more than an author who recycles our historical events to fill in the gaps of the world she or he created for their story.

In sum, the story strikes me thus far as a bit conservative for my tastes.

I have now read an additional 25 pages (through page 145), and already I have comments on two additional topics.

The narrative frames of the book impose a muffling distance between the reader, characters, and story. The narrators of each sub-story tell their tales to the other characters as if remembering events from their pasts .Thus, the reader is thrice-removed from the action: The reader relates to (1) six characters who each (2) tell their life stories to the other characters by (3) remembering events from their pasts. Consequently, the majority of the book’s action occurs in the past and is told in the third person by the character who experienced the events, which alienates even the characters from their own actions.

Now, in some ways, I can imagine some readers who might appreciate the nested structure of these narrative frames, and even I can imagine the technique being used for literary advantage. However, I have not yet recognized any rhetorical advantage of this technique in this particular book insofar as enhancing my appreciation of the characters’ depth or the texture of Hegemony culture. Instead, even though the author’s competent synchronization of these frames is mechanically interesting in the way that a gyroscope is interesting, I get the feeling that the book’s elaborate narrative apparatus is present merely for its own sake – I get the impression that the structure is there because Simmons wanted to write a story with that kind of structure, not because that kind of structure enhances the telling of the story.

My other comment pertains to what I perceive as a sexist portrayal of both men and women in the book. In the chapter I am reading now, for example, which follows the career of a military man named Fedhman Kassad, his mystery woman (Kassad “thought of her as Mystery” on page 135) almost never speaks but frequently comes to him toward the end of major military engagements to thrill him sexually before disappearing again without a trace. Kassad becomes obsessed with her and refuses to pursue all other women in favor of waiting for her to return.

I have not even finished reading this section of the book, and thus it is possible that the author is trying to accomplish something clever with this sexist portrayal of Kassad as emotionally stunted and Mystery as, well, something more than a sex toy. However, even if Simmons’ narrative does attempt some such revelation, it seems to me that the damage of reinforcing the worst of male and female sexual stereotypes cannot easily be undone. I suppose Simmons could have Kassad reveal how much he regrets having wasted his life obsessing over someone who is little more than a porn avatar to him, or that the porn avatar herself is merely stringing Kassad along for her own purposes, but meanwhile I get the impression that the author is expecting emotionally juvenile readers to feed their prurient fantasies of sex without relationships or even minor lifestyle complications. ...more "

progress:

(page 145 of 500)
— Jun 17, 2011 05:15AM

Jun 17, 2011 11:18AM · see review