Re: Rhodes, I found it bloated. It took me a year to get through. There were bits that I found really fascinating, but there were many more sections of the book that just dragged. He spent a lot of ink on the characters and their stories, but mostly not in a compelling manner. The ending, though, with the series of first hand accounts from Hiroshima, was horrifyingly riveting.
Since you mentioned recent SF being not-up-your-alley, can I ask if you've read Alastair Reynolds's Revelation Space? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts given it's supposed to be hard(er) SF than the average (I found the description a bit generous but hey)
Re: Rhodes, I found it bloated. It took me a year to get through. There were bits that I found really fascinating, but there were many more sections of the book that just dragged. He spent a lot of ink on the characters and their stories, but mostly not in a compelling manner. The ending, though, with the series of first hand accounts from Hiroshima, was horrifyingly riveting.
Since you mentioned recent SF being not-up-your-alley, can I ask if you've read Alastair Reynolds's Revelation Space? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts given it's supposed to be hard(er) SF than the average (I found the description a bit generous but hey)
Revelation Space is terrific. I’m not extremely well versed in hard sci-fi, but if this isn’t “hard” enough for someone I’d be very surprised.
I am not a scientist but I find Alastair Reynolds’s use of anti matter and mini wormholes in the cojoiners drives to be a bit like magic…
It didn’t detract from my enjoyment of the series because I am not a purist. Good storytelling is good storytelling.