Then again one of my favorites hard SF authors is Greg Egan, and I've heard many times that people find his work dull (which blows my mind - Egan writes some of the most thought provoking, interesting SF by FAR).
I don't know what ideas or expansiveness you're talking about?
> Then again one of my favorites hard SF authors is Greg Egan, and I've heard many times that people find his work dull (which blows my mind - Egan writes some of the most thought provoking, interesting SF by FAR).
I found the metaphysical stuff in e.g. Permutation City slow and boring - it felt like he'd had a clever idea but wasn't pushing it as hard or as fast as it could go. Had the same experience with a couple of others of his (Distress and Schild's Ladder are the ones I read). To the point where I stopped reading him for a while.
I found the Orthogonal trilogy a lot better; the physics of that is a lot more interesting than metaphysics. Though as a confounding factor I do think the characters in that were much better - still broad-strokes archetypes, but not total nonentities like in his earlier work.
Permutation City is one of my favorites. When you say "slow and boring", I say "subtle build" to the final realization of what Paul has done and how his realization has proved the "dust" theory.
Really like Schild's Ladder too, and Distress is pretty good but not my favorite.
I agree with you on Orthogonal for the most part. Although I was very disappointed in the ending - it seemed too abrupt and predictable given the rest of the story.
I'm talking solely about the first one, I only read that (and probably wouldn't have bothered finishing it if it hadn't been for the Hugo). There's no large time range that I remember, very little happening anywhere other than Earth, and nothing of philosophical interest that I saw.
> When you say "slow and boring", I say "subtle build" to the final realization of what Paul has done and how his realization has proved the "dust" theory.
I found it just took too long to get around to a "reveal" that was already obvious. And the conclusion of part 2 doesn't really engage properly with the dust theory; if anything the humans' inability to modify the machines the ants' universe is running on undermines it, because under their physics that action would make perfect sense. The ants' reality "wins" by pure authorial fiat; you could - and should, it would be interesting - make an argument for why it should based on kolgomorov complexity or some such, but Egan neglects to.
If you want a denser read (less setup, etc.) that also has a lot of really thought-provoking concepts, I highly recommend also "Blindsight" by Peter Watts. Blindsight is probably my all time favorite scifi novel, actually.
"Imagine you are Siri Keeton..."
Can't wait for the 3rd book (Omniscience I think?) to come out.
I also really enjoyed the commentary on solipsism in the context of transhumanism via the 'Peer' character.
Although part 2 doesn't explicitly explain why the universe of PC has the "complexity momentum" property, it does suggest the universe with the lowest Kolmogorov complexity is preferred (via some undescribed physical law). That is why the "ant's" universe wins; it's relative complexity is simpler than the world which Paul had created. I agree that it could have been fleshed out more fully.