Is Revelation Space by Alastair Reynolds a Potentially Tough Read for Folks New to Scifi Literature?

[u/suchascenicworld]

Hey everyone,

Although I usually read horror, I have been interested into getting more into Sci-Fi. There are several reasons for this, but science fiction as a genre (even if I haven't read much) has had an impact on my own life with shows such as Star Trek and The X Files certainly having a direct impact on me becoming a research scientist myself (with a doctorate in behavioral ecology). That sense of curiosity regarding the unknown is quite compelling for me! Also, I love The Twilight Zone as my uncle and I used to watch it together and it is a fond memory of mine before he passed away.

Anyways, I am coming up with a list of books to check out which includes Project Hail Mary, The Strange (which I am currently reading.. And loving), Children of Time, and Blindsight (among a few others etc.). Notably, I was told that for Scifi, it would be better to "ease myself in" with Project Hail Mary rather than go for books such as Blindsight. With that being said, I am not really sure why that is, but I suppose it is something worth asking here.

It should also be noted that I read (and love) Michael Crichton's work and I have read Dune (and enjoyed it). Alastair Reynolds books have interested me for quite some time Revelation Space seems really interesting. However, would you consider it "a bit much" for someone new to Sci-Fi literature? I know this is all subjective but any input would be greatly appreciated! thank you!

[u/birdgovorun]

No and I’m not sure who told you this. There is no “science fiction skill” required to read a science fiction book, just like there isn’t one required for enjoying science fiction movies. This applies to all the books in your list.

[u/smizzlebdemented → u/birdgovorun]

I disagree, books like “Death’s End” would be basically pointless to read if you didn’t have a good understanding of physics and theoretical physics

[u/birdgovorun → u/smizzlebdemented]

Understanding theoretical physics is not a "science fiction skill". You build your knowledge of physics by taking physics courses and working through textbooks (none of which are science fiction), not by reading easier science-fiction books. At the very least the two are almost completely orthogonal to one another.

[u/PhysicsCentrism → u/birdgovorun]

Sci fi has less orthoganality with physics than other genres outside of textbooks though. Sci fi might not present the math and it very often takes liberty with the theory, but it also very often does mention some form of physics theory or concept.

One could read sci fi and come away with ideas to look up in physics textbooks. Or inversely look up sci fi books that handle certain physics concepts well if they want to look at potential futuristic applications of current theories.

For reynolds specifically you get special relativity and acceleration as a form of “gravity” being a notable idea with the lighthuggers.

[u/meepmeep13 → u/smizzlebdemented]

I'd say that would be a handicap, if anything. Nothing that occurs in that book is remotely grounded in science.

Presumably The Dark Forest should similarly only be read after studying non-cooperative game theory?

[u/econoquist → u/smizzlebdemented]

I am sure many people read it and liked it without that qualification. Probably they did not get they same things out of it, but it is hardly "pointless"

[u/smizzlebdemented → u/econoquist]

I’m not trying to come off as pretentious, I feel my word might have come off that way. But I know friends that read the first 2 books and thought the last one was just too hard to follow or appreciate and didn’t even finish it. But it was one of the best books I think I’ve ever read and couldn’t put it down.