I just happened upon your website from the Gamer Webring, it is a very well done and decidedly unique page (not that I'm in much of a position to analyze; mine is only made to function as I need, and as such is very bare-bones).
I'm curious as to your opinion of the latter 2 Hyperion books, as my rating of the series would be approximately inverse to yours.
Tysm!! I would say my main issue with the last two books was Raul. I did and do not like him. Neither as a person or how he developed. I maybe would have felt differently if everything wasnโt told directly from his POV. I found him insufferable. And I did not like his relationship with Aenea. No one in the later books besides De Soya felt as compelling as the main cast from the first books.
I loved all the parts with De Soya!! I love the crucifix stuff. It has been a minute, but I remember feeling like everything was slogged down with too much description. The part on the mountain world sticks out in my memory for being like pages on pages of detail and nothing really happening. Another big problem for me was all the retcons. I found them to be unnecessary and ultimately unsatisfying.
And I did not like the demystifying of the Shrike. I would have been ok with never knowing some things. I still would say the series as a whole is some of my favorite scifi. It was worth reading all of it to the end and I would read them all again. Nothing for me beats Fall of Hyperion though. Oh how I love Martin Silenus!!!! Sorry for the paragraphs XD!!!
I wish Neocities comment system were moderately more robust, since I see no way to reply to a reply โ so instead I must reply to myself. I get that about Raul, he's very much just an observer, actually most of the characters don't feel to be moving but instead being pushed by outside forces. And the relationship between Raul and Aenea was rocky at best, but I felt that the author managed to tell it just well enough -
that it avoided the ruin (of the story) it was prone to cause. I quite liked the Catholic church myself, how it was corrupted so readily, my only complaint is that Lenar Hoyt's character didn't make much sense. I think I prefer the second 2 because it explains -almost- all the elements set up by the first 2. I thought the first 2 kind of failed to set up the setting in a meaningful way, and I'm not a huge fan of -
detective or military stories, whereas most of the first 2 are primarily focused on Bawne Lamia's detective work and Colonel Kassad's military tendencies. To be honest, I found those parts to be a trudge to traverse โ especially Kassad's. But, they held my interest with the AI mysteries and setting intrigue, which is where I feel the latter books strived.
Tysm!! I would say my main issue with the last two books was Raul. I did and do not like him. Neither as a person or how he developed. I maybe would have felt differently if everything wasnโt told directly from his POV. I found him insufferable. And I did not like his relationship with Aenea. No one in the later books besides De Soya felt as compelling as the main cast from the first books.
I loved all the parts with De Soya!! I love the crucifix stuff. It has been a minute, but I remember feeling like everything was slogged down with too much description. The part on the mountain world sticks out in my memory for being like pages on pages of detail and nothing really happening. Another big problem for me was all the retcons. I found them to be unnecessary and ultimately unsatisfying.
And I did not like the demystifying of the Shrike. I would have been ok with never knowing some things. I still would say the series as a whole is some of my favorite scifi. It was worth reading all of it to the end and I would read them all again. Nothing for me beats Fall of Hyperion though. Oh how I love Martin Silenus!!!! Sorry for the paragraphs XD!!!
I wish Neocities comment system were moderately more robust, since I see no way to reply to a reply โ so instead I must reply to myself. I get that about Raul, he's very much just an observer, actually most of the characters don't feel to be moving but instead being pushed by outside forces. And the relationship between Raul and Aenea was rocky at best, but I felt that the author managed to tell it just well enough -
that it avoided the ruin (of the story) it was prone to cause. I quite liked the Catholic church myself, how it was corrupted so readily, my only complaint is that Lenar Hoyt's character didn't make much sense. I think I prefer the second 2 because it explains -almost- all the elements set up by the first 2. I thought the first 2 kind of failed to set up the setting in a meaningful way, and I'm not a huge fan of -
detective or military stories, whereas most of the first 2 are primarily focused on Bawne Lamia's detective work and Colonel Kassad's military tendencies. To be honest, I found those parts to be a trudge to traverse โ especially Kassad's. But, they held my interest with the AI mysteries and setting intrigue, which is where I feel the latter books strived.