Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.56 AVERAGE
3.56 AVERAGE
You can tell it is an older science fiction because of the attitudes towards women.
The fact that this piece of #$%^ won the Nebula, the Hugo AND the Locus boggles the deepest cockles of my brain. That said, if you like Pohl and his brand of sci-fi (i.e. all sciencey ideas, some deeply suspect philosophical crumbs muddled about and a total lack of a worthwhile story) this...book...will be right up your alley. (Shudders.)
Ringworld an experiment in physics. Nothing like Lem's Solaris - strangely anthropomorphic. But an interesting ride, and great mind bender with Newtonian style physics (?)
I can see why this is considered to be a classic. There was actually more character based content than I was expecting, but some not so subtle sexism, too. I am tempted to read the follow ups, but annoyed at the cliffhanger style “ending.”
2.5, rounded up reluctantly.
I wasn't really sure how to rate this one. Because of its historical significance for the genre and its impact (inspired Halo games, etc.), as well as some of the interesting ideas it contains (the Puppeteers, genetic engineering for luck, etc.), I have bumped it up to a 3. But in terms of enjoyment this was at best a 2-star read for me.
It's just so... dull. The characters, aside from Nessus who is vaguely interesting, are dull caricatures. It's a Big Dumb Object story that reads with less tension than a history book. I champion a good ole boring book if the writing is decent, because at least you can wrap your mind in cunning language. There's none of that, here. Almost nothing happens. The narrator, appropriately sleepy himself, couldn't keep my interest. I would find myself spacing out for full chunks of time, tune back in, and *I hadn't even missed anything.* Usually when I critique books I find myself thinking of ideas for how the story could have been better, tighter, more worthwhile. But I'm stumped on this one, because so little was of interest to me.
Also, reading 1970's science fiction, I am always prepared for the sexism. The female characters didn't bother me at the face level because of that. They had as much depth as any character in this universe, and it was kind of interesting how transparently they were treated worse by everyone else, almost self-aware on Niven's part. But huu boy, were there some one-liners in there that made my skin crawl.
I definitely get it if you liked this series. I am sure it is someone's cup of tea. It's just very far from what I want when I look for good SF, and reminded me why I strayed away from the genre for so long.
I wasn't really sure how to rate this one. Because of its historical significance for the genre and its impact (inspired Halo games, etc.), as well as some of the interesting ideas it contains (the Puppeteers, genetic engineering for luck, etc.), I have bumped it up to a 3. But in terms of enjoyment this was at best a 2-star read for me.
It's just so... dull. The characters, aside from Nessus who is vaguely interesting, are dull caricatures. It's a Big Dumb Object story that reads with less tension than a history book. I champion a good ole boring book if the writing is decent, because at least you can wrap your mind in cunning language. There's none of that, here. Almost nothing happens. The narrator, appropriately sleepy himself, couldn't keep my interest. I would find myself spacing out for full chunks of time, tune back in, and *I hadn't even missed anything.* Usually when I critique books I find myself thinking of ideas for how the story could have been better, tighter, more worthwhile. But I'm stumped on this one, because so little was of interest to me.
Also, reading 1970's science fiction, I am always prepared for the sexism. The female characters didn't bother me at the face level because of that. They had as much depth as any character in this universe, and it was kind of interesting how transparently they were treated worse by everyone else, almost self-aware on Niven's part. But huu boy, were there some one-liners in there that made my skin crawl.
I definitely get it if you liked this series. I am sure it is someone's cup of tea. It's just very far from what I want when I look for good SF, and reminded me why I strayed away from the genre for so long.
adventurous
challenging
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
The good:
This novel explored or touched upon some concepts and seemed to have a few morals/lessons that I found interesting.
- We as humans "play God" with other life forms, both sentient and non-sentient but is it right? How would we react to a more intelligent lifeform doing the same to us? - You can plan just about as thoroughly as possible and sometimes due to just plain bad luck, all your plans will go awry. The same holds in reverse. One can do virtually no planning and due to sheer good luck, everything will work out for you. The role of probability in this world cannot be overlooked.
The concept of "luck" as something more than an abstraction but an actual fundamental universal property that can be studied, measured, quantified, and even selectively bred for. - Making assumptions and drawing conclusions based on what you think you know can be dangerous, even fatal. You often know a lot less than you think you do.
- Technological advancements could take us to a point that we as humans become weak and fragile. Pain (physical/mental) is necessary in life, it simulates growth and can make us strong. Without experiencing pain we don't learn lessons we need to learn or develop resistance to possible greater pain in the future.
- Sexual pleasure as not just a base desire but a useful skill that can be honed, perfected, and wielded to purpose. This reminded me of the Bene Gesserit and Honored Matres of Dune.
Notable Quotes:
1. "Boredom is my worst enemy, It's killed a lot of my friends but it won't get me. When I get bored I go risk my life somewhere."
2. "We need you to be happy so I don't rape Nessus."
3. "I could not trust one who could understand nonsense"
4. "She's watching me like a snake. I don't mean she's intensely interested in me, I mean she's not interested in anything else at all"
5. To be a ship's whore needs knowledge of medicine, of mind, and body. Plus love of many men, plus a rare ability to converse. We must know something of the working of the ship so we do not cause accidents. We must be healthy."
Main characters I enjoyed and why:
1. Louis Wu(Human): His intelligence and clear-headed thinking even during emotionally charged moments. His boredom and slight dislike of humans, and life in general. His cavalier, almost flippant attitude even in the face of death.
2. Nessus (Pierson's puppeteer): Despite his sheer cowardice that often put him in a state of useless catatonic terror, I actually enjoyed him as a character. I like how cautious and calculated he is, always carefully weighing the pros and cons of a decision before acting.
3. Speaker-to-Animals(Kzin): I dislike his species but I like him as an individual, for the most part. I like that he seems to be the best of his race. Aggressive and deadly when he needs to be, but diplomatic and gentle when he doesn't need to be. He is highly intelligent and shows that brain and brawn are not mutually exclusive.
1. Louis Wu(Human): His intelligence and clear-headed thinking even during emotionally charged moments. His boredom and slight dislike of humans, and life in general. His cavalier, almost flippant attitude even in the face of death.
2. Nessus (Pierson's puppeteer): Despite his sheer cowardice that often put him in a state of useless catatonic terror, I actually enjoyed him as a character. I like how cautious and calculated he is, always carefully weighing the pros and cons of a decision before acting.
3. Speaker-to-Animals(Kzin): I dislike his species but I like him as an individual, for the most part. I like that he seems to be the best of his race. Aggressive and deadly when he needs to be, but diplomatic and gentle when he doesn't need to be. He is highly intelligent and shows that brain and brawn are not mutually exclusive.
The bad:
This novel was just decent overall. There were hardly any moments, if any, that I can say I was truly excited to keep reading to see what happens next. I never once felt the "I can't put this book down" feeling. I don't like audiobooks so a very small part of my negative reading experience was due to that, but I will be rating the book on the content, and not the manner in which I consumed it.
There wasn't enough in the way of good dialogue, monologues, tense or exciting plot points, or even wonder. Instead of enjoying the plot as it unfolds, I felt like a 7th grader trying to understand a doctoral thesis on physics. I'm not ashamed to say that a lot of the science, maybe even most of it, flew over my head. I could understand most, if not all of the grander picture, but the details were lost on me. And being that the details were a large portion of this novel, it made for a confusing and not enjoyable experience.
I don't necessarily think that makes this book bad, it's just not for me, I'm not smart enough to keep up with it. It would probably be better suited to someone who is a fan of hard sci-fi.
Also, I'm not very good at spacial visualizations so a lot of the descriptions confused me.
Main characters I disliked and why
1. Teela(human):Despite the fact that she seems to be smart and intelligent, her youth coupled with her lack of painful experiences make her extremely naive and reckless. She does and says things that she shouldn't get away with but does because of her incredible luck. She's also intolerably capricious.
1. Writing Quality (25%)
Sub-metrics:
- Clarity: Was the prose clear and easy to follow? 2.7
- Engagement: Was the writing engaging and well-crafted? 2
- Poetic: Did the writing have a lyrical or artistic quality? 3
- Relevance: Did the writing focus on aspects that moved the plot forward? 3
- Language, Imagery, Dialogue: Did the author use these elements effectively? 3
- Pedantry: Did the writing avoid pretentiousness or unnecessary complexity? 2.5
Total: 16.2/6=2.7
2. Story/Plot (25%)
Sub-metrics:
- Intricacy: Was the plot well-constructed, free of holes, and logically sound? 4.6
- Emotional Impact: Did the story resonate emotionally and invest you in the narrative? 2
- Novelty/Unpredictability: Was the story fresh, unique, and surprising while making sense? 4
- Resolution: Did the story tie up loose ends satisfactorily? 5
- Pacing: Was the story well-paced without dragging or rushing? 5
Total: 20.6/5=4.12
3. Characters (10%)
Sub-metrics:
- Logic: Did the characters act logically and consistently? 4
- Intelligence: Were the characters and their actions thought-provoking? 5
- Depth: Were the characters well-developed and multidimensional? 4
- Relatability: Could you relate to the characters on an emotional or personal level? 3.5
Total: 16/4=4
4. Themes/Impact (10%)
Sub-metrics:
- Conveyance: How effectively were the book's themes or messages delivered? 4
- Challenge: Did the book challenge your thinking, perspectives, or beliefs? 3
- Profound: Did the themes provoke deep thought or inspire awe? 3.75
- Significance: Did the book feel impactful or important within its genre? 2.5
Total: 11.25/4=2.8125
5. Personal Enjoyment (30%)
Sub-metrics:
- Engagement: Did the book keep your interest throughout? 2.5
- Re-read Value: Would you revisit this book? 2.5
- Recommendability: Would you recommend this book to others? 2
- Relatability: Did you relate to the themes, topics, characters, and story overall? 3
Total: 10/4=2.5
Writing Quality: 2.7x0.25=0.675
Story/Plot: 4.12x0.25=1.0
Characters: 4x0.10=0.4
Themes/Impact: 2.8125x0.10=0.28125
Personal Enjoyment: 2.5x0.30=0.75
Total Weighted Score: 0.75+0.28125+0.4+1.03+0.675
Final Rating: 3.13625
My verdict:
There wasn't enough in the way of good dialogue, monologues, tense or exciting plot points, or even wonder. Instead of enjoying the plot as it unfolds, I felt like a 7th grader trying to understand a doctoral thesis on physics. I'm not ashamed to say that a lot of the science, maybe even most of it, flew over my head. I could understand most, if not all of the grander picture, but the details were lost on me. And being that the details were a large portion of this novel, it made for a confusing and not enjoyable experience.
I don't necessarily think that makes this book bad, it's just not for me, I'm not smart enough to keep up with it. It would probably be better suited to someone who is a fan of hard sci-fi.
Also, I'm not very good at spacial visualizations so a lot of the descriptions confused me.
Main characters I disliked and why
1. Teela(human):
1. Writing Quality (25%)
Sub-metrics:
- Clarity: Was the prose clear and easy to follow? 2.7
- Engagement: Was the writing engaging and well-crafted? 2
- Poetic: Did the writing have a lyrical or artistic quality? 3
- Relevance: Did the writing focus on aspects that moved the plot forward? 3
- Language, Imagery, Dialogue: Did the author use these elements effectively? 3
- Pedantry: Did the writing avoid pretentiousness or unnecessary complexity? 2.5
Total: 16.2/6=2.7
2. Story/Plot (25%)
Sub-metrics:
- Intricacy: Was the plot well-constructed, free of holes, and logically sound? 4.6
- Emotional Impact: Did the story resonate emotionally and invest you in the narrative? 2
- Novelty/Unpredictability: Was the story fresh, unique, and surprising while making sense? 4
- Resolution: Did the story tie up loose ends satisfactorily? 5
- Pacing: Was the story well-paced without dragging or rushing? 5
Total: 20.6/5=4.12
3. Characters (10%)
Sub-metrics:
- Logic: Did the characters act logically and consistently? 4
- Intelligence: Were the characters and their actions thought-provoking? 5
- Depth: Were the characters well-developed and multidimensional? 4
- Relatability: Could you relate to the characters on an emotional or personal level? 3.5
Total: 16/4=4
4. Themes/Impact (10%)
Sub-metrics:
- Conveyance: How effectively were the book's themes or messages delivered? 4
- Challenge: Did the book challenge your thinking, perspectives, or beliefs? 3
- Profound: Did the themes provoke deep thought or inspire awe? 3.75
- Significance: Did the book feel impactful or important within its genre? 2.5
Total: 11.25/4=2.8125
5. Personal Enjoyment (30%)
Sub-metrics:
- Engagement: Did the book keep your interest throughout? 2.5
- Re-read Value: Would you revisit this book? 2.5
- Recommendability: Would you recommend this book to others? 2
- Relatability: Did you relate to the themes, topics, characters, and story overall? 3
Total: 10/4=2.5
Writing Quality: 2.7x0.25=0.675
Story/Plot: 4.12x0.25=1.0
Characters: 4x0.10=0.4
Themes/Impact: 2.8125x0.10=0.28125
Personal Enjoyment: 2.5x0.30=0.75
Total Weighted Score: 0.75+0.28125+0.4+1.03+0.675
Final Rating: 3.13625
My verdict:
If I hadn't already known that this novel won the Hugo, Nebula, and Locus awards, I would've never guessed. I'm pretty underwhelmed. I may be in the small minority or maybe nothing better truly came out that year, I'll have to check the nominations one day and see.
I really enjoy all the concepts. I think the plot is a little on the light side.
Larry Niven can imagine entirely new worlds and alien species, but he can't imagine a woman with a rich inner life.
200-year-old Louis Wu and his girlfriend-of-the-moment Teela Brown are invited to join an expedition to a far-distant world. With their companions (a large, ferocious cat-like warrior Kzin and a superintelligent three-legged, two-headed Pierson's Puppeteer, they head off beyond the limits of Known Space to explore the Ringworld--a mind-bogglingly enormous, artificial ring-shaped world built around a sun-like star. Unfortunately, they arrive via a near-fatal crash landing on the seemingly abandoned world, and the rest of the journey is plagued by similar mischances, as they try to learn about the Ringworld and repair the damaged spacecraft so they can return home. Who built the Ring? Is it inhabited? What happened to the inhabitants? And will they ever get back home again?
This is what is usually classified as a 'hard' science fiction novel--which is to say, it features a lot of scientific detail. Which makes sense, since Niven has training in mathematics and what-have-you. The details and descriptions get a bit hard to follow (especially in the audiobook version), but fortunately you can get the gist of it even if the details are hazy.
There's not a ton of plot here. The adventurers head off to the Ringworld and . . . stuff happens. And they try to get home. So plot-wise, it's a bit of a nonstarter. Somehow, though, the writing is good enough that I didn't really mind it. I wasn't desperate to know what happens next, but I still enjoyed the book and wasn't ever tempted to quit reading (unlike some other hard sci-fi novels, cough*RedMars*cough).
Plot aside, some of the ideas Niven explores are downright riveting--especially his treatment of 'luck'. Essentially, it comes to light that humankind has been the unwitting victim of a genetic experiment designed to breed for 'luck'--that is, to yield increasingly 'lucky' human beings, which can then be used as 'good luck charms' by other races. The idea of luck as an inheritable characteristic seems laughable, but Niven does an excellent job of teasing out the idea. Ultimately, most humans believe in some sort of luck or good fortune, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support the idea, though of course that hardly establishes anything. Niven has very definite ideas about what inheritable luck (what he calls 'psychic' luck--luck that manipulates the circumstances in favor of the 'lucky' one) is and what it is not, as well as how it affects bystanders--for good or ill. The intersection of his godless psychic luck and a Christian's view of the sovereignty of God at work in the lives of men is fascinating, especially as he concludes that sometimes perpetual stereotypical 'good fortune' is not actually beneficial to a person. I don't want to go into too much detail here, because, you know, spoilers, but it's good stuff--very creative and fun to mull over.
Bottom line: I don't know that it quite deserved all the accolades it received (this one earned a Nebula and a Hugo, which is usually a guaranteed one-two punch of awesomeness). The first half of the book was interesting and well-written, but heavy on technical details and low on plot--so, not brilliant. However, once Niven really delved into issues of inheritable psychic luck and destiny and personal development and all that jazz, it was pretty darn impressive. I look forward to seeing where Niven takes the rest of the series.
This is what is usually classified as a 'hard' science fiction novel--which is to say, it features a lot of scientific detail. Which makes sense, since Niven has training in mathematics and what-have-you. The details and descriptions get a bit hard to follow (especially in the audiobook version), but fortunately you can get the gist of it even if the details are hazy.
There's not a ton of plot here. The adventurers head off to the Ringworld and . . . stuff happens. And they try to get home. So plot-wise, it's a bit of a nonstarter. Somehow, though, the writing is good enough that I didn't really mind it. I wasn't desperate to know what happens next, but I still enjoyed the book and wasn't ever tempted to quit reading (unlike some other hard sci-fi novels, cough*RedMars*cough).
Plot aside, some of the ideas Niven explores are downright riveting--especially his treatment of 'luck'. Essentially, it comes to light that humankind has been the unwitting victim of a genetic experiment designed to breed for 'luck'--that is, to yield increasingly 'lucky' human beings, which can then be used as 'good luck charms' by other races. The idea of luck as an inheritable characteristic seems laughable, but Niven does an excellent job of teasing out the idea. Ultimately, most humans believe in some sort of luck or good fortune, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support the idea, though of course that hardly establishes anything. Niven has very definite ideas about what inheritable luck (what he calls 'psychic' luck--luck that manipulates the circumstances in favor of the 'lucky' one) is and what it is not, as well as how it affects bystanders--for good or ill. The intersection of his godless psychic luck and a Christian's view of the sovereignty of God at work in the lives of men is fascinating, especially as he concludes that sometimes perpetual stereotypical 'good fortune' is not actually beneficial to a person. I don't want to go into too much detail here, because, you know, spoilers, but it's good stuff--very creative and fun to mull over.
Bottom line: I don't know that it quite deserved all the accolades it received (this one earned a Nebula and a Hugo, which is usually a guaranteed one-two punch of awesomeness). The first half of the book was interesting and well-written, but heavy on technical details and low on plot--so, not brilliant. However, once Niven really delved into issues of inheritable psychic luck and destiny and personal development and all that jazz, it was pretty darn impressive. I look forward to seeing where Niven takes the rest of the series.