This. My impression was that when he set up the final problem, someone told him that the time lag would be an issue, and so he pulled this crap out of his ass to try to patch a fatal plot hole. And failed.
Plus someone should tell him that the difficulty of the three body problem does not mean stars and planets just scurry around like kernels in a popcorn popper. The Solar System includes many bodies, and Mars doesn’t suddenly wind up at the orbit of Saturn.
The early part about the Cultural Revolution was fascinating, though.
BTW, I read a lot of Chinese science fiction in Clarkesworld, and some of it is very good, but a lot of it gives me the impression that basic physics is censored there. Much of it is at the level of 1930s SF.
Did not read the other books in the series.
It took me a few tries to get through it, but I was very glad I did. I didn’t have any problems with the ridiculous “science”. If he wanted to tell me that in his universe protons can unfold into a faster-than-light supercomputer, then fine, I’ll accept that.
I struggled with it at first for two reasons: first, the writing style and characters’ motivations took some getting used to because of cultural differences. It’s not just the (translator’s) words that are different, but sometimes the entire focus of what’s important to describe and what would be inherently obvious to a native reader. It can be tough to relate to the characters.
Second, I’m embarrassed to say that I had difficulty at times keeping track of characters. When all the names are foreign to me and I don’t naturally say them in my head, they tend to blend together. That one’s on me, and once I put the effort into actually reading each name, things flowed much better.
As much as I liked the first book, I really liked the second. The main character was my favorite character of any of the books, and the plot was even more imaginative. Unless you really hated the first, I recommend giving it a try.
Hoo boy, you’re right on this. The main character in the third was frustrating from start to finish. But it was my sister’s favorite of the trilogy by far, so go figure.
I don’t know if it is a lack of physics knowledge, but it does seem like he imitates very old Western SF. I hate to sound condescending, but it comes off as something like a Cargo Cult attempt at SF.
It’s hard to say how much he knows. The problem with the ending wasn’t lack of knowledge, it was the use of bullshit physics to paper over a plot hole. I’m not sure if the magical jumping planet problem was from lack of knowledge or from being willing to ignore physics for a metaphor, and for a plot point.
The writers of the stories I was referring to just seemed ignorant.
I think ignoring physics you know is worse than being ignorant of physics. I would have thrown the book across the room if it wasn’t on my Kindle.
Yes, used that argument before myself–you have to know the rules before you can break the rules and have my respect as a serious writer.
Based on playing around with gravity simulations as a kid, my observations regarding three body problems divides them into two groups.
There are the stable three body problems, that are basically two body problems with a little bit of perturbation. for example (moon orbits earth orbits sun; or earth and jupiter orbit sun; or planet orbits far outside binay star system). These are generally fairly predictable with simulation.
Then there are unstable three body problems, with such things as three stars of equal size orbiting each other or a planet orbiting among a binary star system. These are chaotic systems and so are unpredictable in the long term because even a slight change in the initial state can have a major effect on the eventual result.
Not having read the book but having read the wikipedia plot summary the planet system in question would seem to be of the second type. The problem is that as indicated in my description these configurations are by their nature unstable. Eventually one of the bodies end up getting slingshotted out into space. So there is no way that such a system would stay together long enough for life to evolve.
But if the major focus of the book is the science, and the science is bad, then that makes for a bad book.
Does implausible science equal bad science. Most fiction is implausible. That’s almost the definition of “novel”.
Yes but to my mind in order for it to be good it needs to be consistent in its implausibility. If it glosses over a few implausable areas that is fine, but if its premise is based on certain scientific concepts and it gets those concepts wrong then that is bad science.
Take for example Robert Forward’s Dragon’s egg. There is lots of implausible science. FTL travel, the development intelligent life in an extremely hostile environment, he coincidence that the expedition from earth just happens to arrive at a critical period of the growth of the civilization etc. But that book concentrates on the physics of the neutron star, how life might exist when structured in two dimensions, the effect of biology based on strong force interactions rather than weak force interactions etc. At the end of the book you probably actually learned some science that you didn’t know/think of before. That is good hard science fiction.
But if the science of the three body problem is central to the book to the point that the book is named after it and the book gets it wrong, then that is a problem.
I know nothing of this novel that wasn’t covered in the first six posts of the thread, but how many times can such an outcome occur before, realistically, someone (or everyone) hypothesizes that they’re being fucked with?
IIRC, they know, they just can’t do anything about it.
Any FTL drive is implausible, but if the author gives some kind of explanation for it, then the science isn’t bad. If on the other hand the author has a spaceship go faster than light by just pushing on the accelerator harder, that’s both implausible and bad.
This goes way back. In “Journey to the Center of the Earth” the professor (and Verne) is well aware that standard models of the earth would make the voyage impossible. But he has some alternate theory which allows it and which turns out to be true for the book.
On the other hand Verne isn’t aware (or doesn’t say) that the cannon in “From the Earth to the Moon” would smash the passengers into putty. I suspect he was aware but had no way of making the plot work otherwise. Not much worse than Cavorite, really.
I disagree. The science might be wrong, but it’s awesome. The book is not trying to be a serious contribution to the conversation about the future of molecular engineering or to anti-terrorist stratagems: it employs its science for amazing set-pieces. That worked really well for me. I don’t need the science to be good science.