God knows I’ve tried. His stuff looks good. Authors and long time readers of SF recommend his stuff to me all the time. There are certainly people here who think highly of him.
I love me some science fiction. Rockets and Ray Guns. Not fantasy. No wizards and horses. RAH, Beam Piper, Asimov, Brin, and so forth are all top notch page turners for me. Solar system stuff, revolution, and so forth are in my soul.
But not KSR. For whatever reason it’s a prescription for falling asleep for me. It’s a puzzlement.
I haven’t read a ton of his stuff, so I have to base my opinion on the one book of his that I’ve read and remember quite well, which is Antarctica. I loved this book, but it was almost not even sci-fi. It was a study in character and place more than anything else. The continent of Antarctica was practically one of the main characters. I barely remember the plot of the book, but I remember with vivid detail every single one of the characters in the book, and many of the descriptions of the environment.
I don’t know if that’s typical of his writing style, but if so, it might be one reason that you might find it off-putting, if you’re looking for a more action-filled sci-fi story.
That’s absolutely typical of his style. His Mars and Science in the Capital trilogies are definitely like that. I’ve remarked before that Kim Stanley Robinson doesn’t write plots, he writes characters. Which is not to say that his plots are bad, just that they’re not the center of his novels. It’s a very stark contrast to most other science fiction writers.
I love his books!
Not that I’ve actually made the time to read the Mars trilogy sitting forlornly on the shelves at home… Maybe once I finish his new 2312! (Which, so far, is full of big sf; terraforming Venus, hollowed out asteroids, colonies on various moons, etc.)
But if you don’t like his novels, he’s also written some great short stories. The only collection easily available seems to be The Best of KSR but I don’t remember just what’s in it - probably not many rocket ships!
Or Escape from Kathmandu is great fun, if you want something light - it’s not sf but four linked stories about climbing in Nepal and weird stuff happening!
I also had to force my way though it. For me the book went off the rails when it introduced the concept of a stowaway, which struck me as blatantly ridiculous and cartoonishly out of place in what was otherwise a fairly hard piece of sci-fi.
I’ll second this. The Mars trilogy doesn’t really have a central story, it just sort of traces out a fake history of Mars, that, like real history, doesn’t necessarily have a central narrative.
Their different in a lot of other ways, but I compare him to GRR Martin, who does sort of the same thing in GoIaF.
I really like that aspect of both series. But I can see why it doesn’t appeal to a lot of readers.
I have tried three times to get through Red Mars. I love the concept of terraforming and I was excited when I first heard about this trilogy. But there wasn’t enough story there. Same thing with another of his books, the characters were fascinating, but the story just didn’t make much sense.
No author will please everyone, even those readers who like the particular genre.
And to the OP: go forth and read some John Scalzi. That’ll fix you up.
Here’s what I say when people ask me about the Mars series: “It’s great if you enjoy reading all about regolith on Mars, on Mars, on Mars, on Mars, on Mars.”
I enjoy about half of Robinson’s novels. I really liked Kathmandu and Rice&Salt. The Mars books on the other hand, I could not get through Red Mars and never began the others. I loved Anno Dracula. Wild Shore and Gold Coast were two of my favorites at the time they came out. I haven’t made it past the fifth chapter of Forty Words for Rain (or whatever that title actually is).
He does not write “rocket and ray gun” type fiction. It’s more character and setting driven: it’s historical fiction set in the future or an alternate history. Plots are loose formations and, while engaging, don’t make up the primary focus of the storytelling. Closer to Arthur C. Clarke than Robert A. Heinlein for comparison purposes.
I never read Antarctica, but the above posts make it sound like James Michener’s work. And @Ken001 above, how can there be “too much” characterization? I can see bad characterization, or not enough, but not too much… it’s like saying his writing is too believable, or has too much correct spelling.
Anno Dracula was Kim Newman… Antarctica was pretty good and a couple of characters in it appear in the Science and the Capitol trilogy, which I thought got better as it went along. Initially I was quite disappointed when the 1st one came out.
Popping in here to say - did I miss the point of “Glacier” or is it just a thoroughly underwhelming short story?
I mean, the concept was somewhat interesting - glaciers close to major North American cities like Boston, (although I was confused by the hints that EVERY major North American city had glaciers, and yet none of the northern ones were buried.)
But we’ve got a family - father, mother, teenage son. They get a dog when one of their neighbors moves away and can’t take the dog. Father gets a crappy deal at the university and asks the son to sell his books. Son sneaks off with a few of the books, doesn’t sell them until he’s finished reading them - he hangs out on the glacier while he reads. Gets in trouble with a gang that wanders the glacier too. In the end, they have to move away and give the dog to another neighbor family.
I found this in a ‘Best of Asimov’s Magazine’ anthology, and couldn’t think how it qualified.
Sorry Meurglys, I got two authors named Kim mixed up
There’s a review of a new Robinson book on Slate from last week, where the reviewer is pleased that nothing much happens and that it’s like historical fiction about the future…
