The Fall of Hyperion discussion

What did you like about it?

I just had a terrible time reading this book. I read the first one and found it enjoyable and decided to continue the series. The Fall of Hyperion just killed it for me. It took me months to read (I think I read about 3 other books while I was reading this one because I was bored) and I never really felt grounded. Everything was so completely alien to me I couldn't sympathize with any of the characters.

I was able to read the first book because I found the style very interesting - the whole Canterbury Tales style of writing was intriguing, but that was the device keeping me interested in the book. It was gone in this book and I just wasn't interested any more.

Most frustratingly of all, I was reading to find some answers. I'm not sure exactly what I wanted to know, but I left the book feeling very unsatisfied like my questions weren't answered at all.

wow - your reaction surprised me at first, but upon further reflection, I can see where you're coming from.

Now, obviously Hyperion and Fall are vastly different stylistically. Hyperion is far more literate and probably the best part of that first book is the way Simmons really demonstrates his chops by writing each pilgrim story in basically different literary styles. That was the most fun part for me at least. I personally loved the overt Noir sections of Brawne and I feel like his Gibsonian storytelling is often better than Gibson himself.

That being said, I think I ENJOYED Fall of Hyperion more. I totally agree about not really connecting to any of the characters, but it was the unfolding story that I was most interested. I ravaged this book trying to get to the bottom of what was the Strike and who sent him, the obviously looming downfall of the Hegemony (how would it happen - what would it look like), and frankly when it came to the battle of ultimate intelligences it blew my ever loving mind.

I didnt connect with the characters either - and yes, everything was alien, but that's exactly what got me into it - I was wrapped up in the intrigue of the complex storyline and the epic scope of it all. I just loved every minute of it. Even if the identity of Moneta was the single most obvious 'surprise' in recent literary memory.

I've made it through Endymion, which I also enjoyed but is my least favorite of the three so far. Absolutely though - it was The Fall that I enjoyed best due almost entirely on the scope of the story itself which just sucked me in.

I read Fall just recently, and enjoyed it almost as much as Hyperion. I read so many reviews of the series that say not to bother with the last two, but I think even a mediocre book by Simmons is better than a lot of the tripe one has to wade through in the SF genre to find good writing.

I was going to reply, but then I read Zac's reply, and he mirrors my thoughts as close as damn it. Even down to having just read Endymion and finding it the weakest, although it was still enjoyable.

The Hyperion cycle are two of the best SF books I've read in years; I think I liked the first more, but they each have their strengths.

Zenaphobe67 wrote: "I read Fall just recently, and enjoyed it almost as much as Hyperion. I read so many reviews of the series that say not to bother with the last two, but I think even a mediocre book by Simmons is b..."

That's so incredibly true. Dan Simmons is easily one of my favorites, probably a top three at least. I even enjoyed Fires of Eden!

I actually found the two Endymion books to be more enjoyable. It was nice to read about a female "chosen one" for once, and I liked the way Simmons made fun of the macho hero in Raul Endymion. I also like his use of Catholicism and Judaism, though he wasn't as strong with Islam. My main criticism of the last two books is that he went into far too much detail about things like starships, etc. I think those books needed more editing.

In the first Hyperion book, as Zac said, it was fun to watch Simmons play with different styles. It was also fun to try to ferret out connections between the books and the poems by Keats and to discover Simmons's playful literary references: Brawne Lamia, for example. Brawne is the last name of Keats's beloved, Fanny Brawne, and Lamia means "vampire."

Beth wrote: "I actually found the two Endymion books to be more enjoyable. It was nice to read about a female "chosen one" for once, and I liked the way Simmons made fun of the macho hero in Raul Endymion. I al..."

In fairness, I should point out that I was not dismissing the Endymion books; I enjoyed Endymion but I'm only JUST NOW reading The Rise of Endymion since this thread reminded me I needed to get back into it to cap off an incredible series. I'm not quite 200 pages in yet but I'm enjoying it immensely...

ok - so, based on being reminded from this string, I went and finished off this series; just finished The Rise of Endymion a few minutes ago.

I've got to say - I totally loved it and it only reinforced my earlier sentiments. Namely: Dan Simmons is king and the guy is so incredible of a writer and storyteller that despite the fact that both major outstanding 'surprises' being supremely and utterly predictable, they remained vastly fullfilling and just an incredible read.

I truly mean it - I'm usually immediately turned off by predictability, but Simmons managed to be just terribly predictable in The Fall of Hyperion with the Moneta 'shocker' and again in The Rise of Endymion on a couple of major 'in-your-face' topics, and yet I loved every minute of them and found them to be totally satisfying. Strange but awesome.

Not sure where I go next, but thought I'd share that.

To all those who thought the series was awesome, I tip my hat! to those who didn't get it...the whole point of sci-fi is to take you to places, times, and spaces that don't exist and from your perspective never will! so, the stranger, the better, in my opinion.

I am a true sci-fi afficionado... Simmons went to the bottom of the ocean in this series! He got me interested in Teilhard De Chardin's theories of Omega point with the concept of the Machine God and the Human God at the end of time battling backwards via the time-tombs, the shrikes...and then the way he wove the story lines of his characters into one epic drama. This is a series I love to read again and again.

Re-readability is very important to me. There are many good stories but few Great ones. This is such.

thats all I have to say.

It's been a long time since I read the two Hyperion books, but I was really sorry I did. The first book is entirely about strange, possibly interesting things happening but you never get any explanation so you are just left with the strangeness. The second book is just the same until near the end. To spend more than a book and a half not understanding anything is just wayyyyyy too much. A huge exercise in frustration. And frankly it's not possible to have a big enough payoff at the end for all that.

Tim wrote: "It's been a long time since I read the two Hyperion books, but I was really sorry I did. The first book is entirely about strange, possibly interesting things happening but you never get any expla..."

That's what I loved. There's so much we DON'T understand; the nature of faith and the shrike, the power of the time tombs, the power of the core and their awareness. Simmons was writing about "big ideas" and we, humans, don't and can't understand those. Having his characters come in contact with them, and try and wrap their minds around the inconcevable, mirrored our--the readers--inability to understand God and time and the universe, and I was with them all the way while they tried to put together an equasion far beyond human reckoning and managed little pieces of it.

I found it thrilling. And fascinating. Although I totally get where your frustration comes from, don't get me wrong.

-Elizabeth Reuter
Author, Demon of Renaissance Drive

I absolutely adored both Hyperion and Fall. I read the second one in two days because it was exciting exhilarating and extremely suspenseful. It's truly epic space opera in that its scale is absolutely massive. The time travel elements were well-done and the Shrike will always be one of the memorable creatures in sci-fi's history. The Endymion books were okay; I enjoyed them at the time, but as the years have gone by, my opinion of them has slowly decreased, but not enough for me to dismiss them.

Ilium and Olympos are also very good: complex, galaxy spanning, and extremely literary. Fans of Hyperion should definitely read those.

Beth wrote: "I actually found the two Endymion books to be more enjoyable. It was nice to read about a female "chosen one" for once, and I liked the way Simmons made fun of the macho hero in Raul Endymion. I al..."

I totally agree with you about needing an editor! The time in the kayak was way way way too long and detailed as were several other passages. It's a good story that gets bogged down in his psychedelic dreams..

macgregor wrote: "Ilium and Olympos are also very good: complex, galaxy spanning, and extremely literary. Fans of Hyperion should definitely read those..."

Thanks, Macgregor. I'm currently about halfway through the Rise of Endymion and finding it the better of the two. I shall put Ilium higher up the 'to read' list.

I enjoyed Fall more than Hyperion. It answered many of the plot holes from the first book, mostly in regards to the cryptic religious referencing but also the technological elements. Hyperion seems like it was merely setting for the epic space drama that was about to play out in Fall. At it's core, Simmons used science fiction to explore human theology, psychology, philosophy, physics and computer science on the grandest scale I've read thus far in two books. Usually when attempting to tackle so many fields, it's easy for an author to under develop each concept, which results in the overall flow of the narrative feeling convoluted. Some have been mentioning the need for more editing, and I don't think I can completely agree. If you were to edit out much of the exposition and dialog of many of the main characters, concepts that might have seemed long winded while reading, would have instead ended up feeling obfuscated at the end of the book. Other elements some might say could have easily been edited out were the wonderfully poetic touches that Simmons added to this space opera. Once again I disagree and feel that the elimination of these elements would rob the book of it's soul. I am probably overstating, but certain theological elements that Simmons expanded on were very illuminative. He seems to grasp theology on an adept enough level that I'm not surprised that many might find his books frustrating. Personally I found his views on spirituality enlightening at times. He seems to have a very evolved sense of spirituality.

Alfred wrote: Teilhard De Chardin's theories of Omega point.
I'm new to this author so thanks for mentioning him. I've come across the idea before in different books, but have not read any of Teilhard's work. Any particular works you'd recommend to start with?