Play Book Tag discussion

I was a little annoyed for the first hundred or so pages because there is something big that the reader doesn’t know (and neither does the main character). However, it’s all a set up to the rest of the book (for me everything clicked around page 120) and is actually quite clever.

The main subject is very thought provoking and an interesting topic of conversation even outside the story of this book.(view spoiler)[The end of the book is where it really gets trippy because of the numerous possibilities of timelines that have sprouted because of this “box.” Because of this book, I did some research into Coherent quantum, and let me tell you that is quite the rabbit hole to go down. It is still worth looking up. (hide spoiler)]

To get to more of the topic of the actual book, I enjoyed the author’s writing style and he kept the plot moving fast. You might not feel this way as you’re reading the book but when you look back on these parts you can see why they were there. I feel like all of the characters are really well developed and they even have flaws that complement what is going on in the book. I feel bad that I don't have more good things to say about this book, but I also don't have much to complain about.


What my brain can't seem to wrap around is (view spoiler)[that when all the Jasons are in Chicago (and different timelines split off with every decision that is made) how do the timelines split? Because they are no longer in their own timeline, does the timeline they are all in split? Does this also or only split their original timeline? That would mean there’s an exponential growth of Jasons that will overpopulate regardless of where he goes. Depending on the answer to this, is there even enough timelines for each Jason to hypothetically have (including the ones that died at some point)?

How did multiple Jasons make it back to that one singular timeline? Especially since they are all thinking of their own timeline. Shouldn’t they’ve been taken back to their own? Are they thinking of a “slightly better” timeline? Is it statistics that there’s so many Jasons at that point that the hundreds of Jasons that are in that specific timeline only holds 0.01% of them, and there's other Chicagos that have a couple thousand or just three?

How does he even know he's in the right timeline? In the bar, he talks to a Jason that their timeline split while in the multiverse so everything is the same in each timeline (as much as they are aware) including what Daniela and Jason2 have done (and Jason isn’t the only person who decisions in the world, so there would be many Jasons EXACTLY like him because for example, Daniela could’ve decided to stay mad at Jason2 and BOOM another timeline). Even if he can say this is most likely his, he can't say for sure because there's probably a bunch of Jason's that their timeline also looks identical to this one with just a little bit of variation that can’t be distinguished from a handful of other timelines. (hide spoiler)]

If that blurb doesn’t tell you how much I’ve thought of this book, I don’t know what will.

I really enjoyed this one too (and I can't answer your spoiler questions since I felt the same way when I finished!)

I enjoyed this book too.

I will try to answer some of your questions, though I have no idea if my answers will be satisfactory or not. The main idea is that there are an infinite number of universes (or timelines) and that they are continuously growing. For every decision of ours, timelines split. There are the big, life-changing events (being nearly hit by a car for example - that would generate a universe where one is dead and one where the person is alive), but also small decisions (do I add more salt to the food? do I put my coffee cup to my left or to my right?). For this reason, there would be many universes that are very similar to our own reality. Right now I chose to drink water. If I were to jump into the timeline where I chose not to drink water and wait until I finish this answer instead, the two would be almost impossible to distinguish from one another. However, if years from now I would jump into the universe where I did not drink water, I might find it unrecognizable because of the butterfly effect. Or it might still be very similar. But, of course, by that time, there would already be an infinite number of universes where I did not drink water with infinite different outcomes. (view spoiler)[For this reason, the character in this book could never be sure that he returned to the right timeline. Not to mention that the timeline he had left had already split into infinite different timelines based on the decisions those he would've interacted with in the time he was absent took. So if we are to think this through, there are a lot of things that are impossible or do not work. (hide spoiler)] But I think as a book, it is fun. It does not have to provide an answer that would work scientifically, just one that would be satisfying enough. Playing with the theory of multiverses is always fun in my opinion.

Blake Crouch is on my reading list for ages. But I am flummoxed. I really like the idea of multiverse. On the other hand, a lot of new authors lately leave me disappointed. Good ideas and very poor execution.

The Expanse is a good case in point. Some people who adore The Expanse series also love Blake Crouch. In my opinion, though, The Expanse is really elementary attempt to write a sci-fi series.

So I wonder whether to read some of Blake Crouch's books or not. The multiverse theory has not proven yet, but if it's a feeble attempt at science fiction it'll be really disappointing.

A good example in science fiction for me is "Blindsight" by Peter Watts. In my opinion, this is how it should be written science fiction.

To read Blake Crouch or not, this is the question...

Kristian, I think, and welcome to the group, that what to read is going to be the eternal question. Most of us find our books and authors, expanding like multi-verses. And the changes are so much fun and help you get to some of these things that looked interesting but really just close up the TBR unquantifiably. I think it’s a fascinating question how we choose what course on and off the TBR. Case in point, I was at a bookstore yesterday, and I saw a paperback copy of Dear Mrs. Bird. Which three or four of my friends are reading right now. I was tempted I almost bought the thing. And then I got smarter and said to myself if this is something you really decide you want to read you’ll come back to it. Most of us are ever working on that discernment, sometimes with success, and sometimes not. When I offered to you is welcome and good luck.

Hi Kristian, welcome to PBT! I think the only way to know is to just dive in. I too rated Dark Matter 5 stars. Just try it! You can always DNF if it's not to your taste, but I'm betting you'll enjoy it too.

Kristian wrote: "Blake Crouch is on my reading list for ages. But I am flummoxed. I really like the idea of multiverse. On the other hand, a lot of new authors lately leave me disappointed. Good ideas and very poor..."

I haven't read The Expanse or Blindsight, so I can't really tell if Dark Matter compares to any of them. However, from the blurb and info on Goodreads, both those books seem to be hard science fiction (or at least space science fiction). Dark Matter is rather soft science fiction. The science fiction element, although important and what actually propels the story forward, is more background. The main story is a love story (not a romance): a man separated from his wife is willing to do anything to get back to her, The science fiction element is well executed, in my opinion, but I wouldn't recommend this book to fans of hard science fiction. I would recommend it to those who love thrillers, however.
In the end, it's only up to you if you give it a try or not.

I love Blake Crouch's books, and I also loved The Expanse - watched the TV series first and I'm slowly making my way through the books.

I think of Crouch's novels as being more similar to "thrillers". The Expanse feels more like "space opera" to me.

From a broader perspective, since I started getting most of my e-books and audio books for free from the library, I feel more freedom to try new authors and genres. If I don't like a book I can return it and try something else without feeling like I've wasted money.

Teodora wrote: "but I wouldn't recommend this book to fans of hard science fiction."

The die was cast. I won't risk it. There is one strict rule towards reading. I've never had an unfinished book. This option is off the table. You helped me a lot. I made my choice. I'll leave Blake Crouch for souls in love. :)

"Blindsight" is really hard science fiction (I adore Peter Watts), but The Expanse was somewhat, how to say it :), very soft and shallow? It was more fiction than science and the language - atrocious.

Kristian wrote: "Teodora wrote: "but I wouldn't recommend this book to fans of hard science fiction."

The die was cast. I won't risk it. There is one strict rule towards reading. I've never had an unfinished book...."

I think you made the right decision, Kristian! I found Dark Matter to be very light sci-fi, especially if you're at all familiar with multiverse plot lines.

The first two-thirds was multiverse for beginners, which would be ok except in order to keep the reader guessing, the main character is also kept confused, and since he's supposed to be a physics genius that decision just did not work for me.

On the plus side, it's a very quick read :)

Kristian wrote: "Blake Crouch is on my reading list for ages. But I am flummoxed. I really like the idea of multiverse. On the other hand, a lot of new authors lately leave me disappointed. Good ideas and very poor..."

Blake Crouch is excellent. He sticks just close enough to correct science to make the sci-fi enjoyable for those of us who actually do sciences. He also writes thrillers as well as Sci-fi, and thriller sci-fi. IMHO his "Pines" series and Recursion are better than Dark Matter. Abandon, Upgrade, the Desert Places series and Snowbound are also very good. His characters are very believable which makes the books infinitely better.

If you like Andy Weir you will probably like Crouch. Originally I read mostly Stephen King, but he always kills the dog so I moved on to Koontz because he doesn't kill the dog (I like dogs more than people) and is faster paced but I do now probably like Weir and Crouch a bit more for pure entertainment reading.

Teodora wrote: "Kristian wrote: "Blake Crouch is on my reading list for ages. But I am flummoxed. I really like the idea of multiverse. On the other hand, a lot of new authors lately leave me disappointed. Good id..."

Agreed the Sci-fi element is secondary to the character's stories always with Crouch. But the Science element is always simple and correct enough not to upset those who science for a job. I really hate "hard sci-fi" where the author hasn't done enough research tries to sound smart and contradicts science. Crouch is more of a "so this is a thing, what if such and such happened? Or what if an evil genius used it to his/her advantage? How would it affect the people?" type writer. Still always character centred.

Jen wrote: "hard sci-fi" where the author hasn't done enough research tries to sound smart and contradicts science."

I am utterly in a agreement with you Jen. The way I see things, seldom you can see this if you read writers like : Isaac Asimov or Frank Herbert, let us say. I have this problem only with contemporary writers. They just want to sound pretentious. But that's why is called science fiction, not fiction science. When I read science fiction, I prefer more science and less fiction. Otherwise everything is somewhat topsy-turvy. Of course, this is my opinion, but as I mentioned earlier "The Expanse" is spiffing case in point of what I am trying to say here. Pomposity and pretension, as if I am watching some "Rambo" movies. And when I began reading this series, I was rather intrigued by the idea, but after the third book I just realized that there are six books more and the whole series is just one huge malarkey. One or two books, but nine - thank you very much. No science, abysmal language and clichés every second. Marvelous atrocity.

Some people juxtapose Blake Crouch with Michael Crichton. If this is the case, I am rather inclined to give him a chance, but now I am not quite sure.

Tender adieu,

Kris :)

Kristian wrote: "Jen wrote: "hard sci-fi" where the author hasn't done enough research tries to sound smart and contradicts science."

I am utterly in a agreement with you Jen. The way I see things, seldom you can ..."

Now you say that then yes there are some similarities with Chrichton and Crouch but Crouch is much more varied in what he produces. They do research well. I have given both 4 or 5 stars for most of what I've read (Eerie and Famous by Crouch are the only exceptions so far with 3 stars.....both thrillers rather than Sci-fi and with unpleasant lead characters). Crouch is faster moving in plot. I hate love stories or romance and didn't see Dark Matter that way at all, but we all have our own interpretations right? Frank Herbert I don't rate as highly because I don't tend to like his characters enough to care what happens to them. Yeah he has a good imagination but I still want to care what happens to the characters or why bother reading it?

We are a weird bunch of people on here and all have very different opinions but the different opinions often provide a new perspective I haven't thought of, which I really like.

Jen wrote: "but I still want to care what happens to the characters. We are a weird bunch of people on here and all have very different opinions but the different opinions often provide a new perspective I haven't thought of, which I really like. "

You read my mind. "We're all mad here," - As the Cheshire Cat says. Which reminds me this is another book that is fairly underrated in some ways, but for me is one of the best reads ever written. Along these lines, truth be told, I do not demand to care about characters, but I require them to cogitate about the universe, life, the meaning of life. Shooting the breeze is easy, but I want more than that. That's why I terribly want to read something from Crouch, but I want to be sure I am on the right path. Briefly, I don't want to be disappointed. :)

If Crouch is philosophicaly oriented, as Douglas Adams is, for I can hardly think of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as science fiction. But it's real - deep philosophy expressed in the most normal language. It is not what you read, it is what you understand. In this case, even without too much science, the message is so profound. What they were saying : "If you have rich inner world, you will understand." Otherwise.... Otherwise... Take the red pill Neo, and follow the white rabbit. :)

With utmost respect,

Kris :)

I decided. I will begin with "Upgrade". And because the topic is highly attractive to me, if it's good, I will try with "Dark Matter". :) :) :)

Kristian wrote: "I decided. I will begin with "Upgrade". And because the topic is highly attractive to me, if it's good, I will try with "Dark Matter". :) :) :)"

Good luck. I didn't rate Upgrade as one of his best, only 4 stars, but still good. Hope you have some background in biology as there is a fair bit of assumed knowledge (not difficult but definitely modern developments relatively newly added to curriculum).