May '05 Book 2: 'The Fall of Hyperion'

Please post your thoughts and questions regarding The Fall of Hyperion here.



Book Club Procedures

It's been a while since I've read these two books so I can only offer the most base of impressions as well as proclaim that the Hyperion duology is one of the finest sci-fi epics I've stumbled across. Readers who've finished Hyperion may be slightly jarred that The Fall of Hyperion fails to maintain the structural integrity of its prequel in that it relegates to a more conventional reading style. Whereas the structural style of Hyperion was novel in the sense that closely mirrored that of the classic The Canterbury Tales in its foretelling of a group of people whose own sets of issues have each brought them towards a single pilgrimage that offers promising resolution to their misfortunes and downfalls, The Fall of Hyperion reads more like novels found on most shelves with a main goal that clearly comes into fruition and a structure that presents itself in a more linear fashion. Despite such differences, this concluding book is deeply gratifying and sustains itself through an intricately woven multifaceted plot coupled with harrowing situations as well as tragic characters, all leading towards to a conclusion that I've found ultimately satisfying (so much that I've found the Endymion sequels to be completely unnecessary). If you're looking for thought-provoking sci-fi that doesn't rely too heavily on spewing forth a myriad of technical jargon, then The Hyperion Cantos is one you shouldn't miss.

Just started reading this one. Read only two chapters so far but it seems good. One question though: Josephy Severn is the hybrid who used to be Keats? A little confused since he died in Hyperion and Lamia is supposed to be his implant? Who is exactly Joseph Severn?

Was the name of the man who was with the real keats when he died he took care of him. He was an artist who painted some pictures for more info see the shelly-keats museum web page.

I can't remember which chapter, but there are some lines of a keats poem that don't make any sense to me. He talks about a cold hand (I think). huh? What does it mean? Is he haunting somebody?

I havent really started reading it yet put cold hands in keats are usually death. He was sort of obsessive about pain and death.

Im going to start reading this tonight dont know if Ill finish it though got my A leves starting june the 9th and I really ought to start looking studying.

This is the chapter I like most so far in this book. Finally some witty, meaningful writing. Any thoughts on this passage?

Quote:

---

The point is...that warfare, like religion and or any other human endeavor that taps and organizes human energies on such a scale, must abandon its infantile preoccupation with Ding an sich literalism - usually expressed through a slavish fascination with "goals" - and revel in the artistic dimension of its own oeuvre...

---

According to http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/d9.htm, Ding an sich is

Quote:

---

German phrase for thing in itself

---

.

I've decided that I dont like mina Gladstone the CEO Mind you Ive only just started reading today and am only upto part 2

I finished it yeterday! I didnt like it as much as Hyperion must say. It was sort of more scatty and jumpy . Then again I already knew the story line which could have spoilt it for me some.

I'm about 3/4 done. I'm hoping for one big show down in the end where the pilgrims get together and use their super powers to defeat the Shrike, so far it doesn't look like that's gonna happen.. Maybe I've seen to many superfirends cartoons..

what super powers did I miss somthing here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

what super powers did I miss somthing here?

---

see, I said I may have watched too many superfirends cartoons. I just met that they would use the resources or knowledge that each pilgrim had, they were all picked for a reason.

actually what I was going to say is a spoilers so anyways just wait and see you may be surprised! Must say though my fav. line is 'Our UI could beat your UI any day of the week!'

I am getting really bored with the second half of this book:
"What are you going to do, do it already!"

Trying to resist the temptation to cast it aside and start another book...

read the last 2 chapters it may make you want to go back or do as I did and skim the boring bits! oh but dont skim the bits with the massive computer they were funny!

Finally finished the book. I give it 8/10. So were the pilgrims picked because they were able to give insights into the possible futures and not because they could defeat the Shrike? and where exactly did sol and rachel go?

Rachel and sol went to a future where the human UI defeatd the AI UI so that rachel could grow up to be Moneta and be the chosen companion through time of the shrike which also originated in the distant future.
I suppose Endimyon and the rise of E wuld explain it better :cool:

First sci-fi books I have read in a long while
I liked the first one much better
how about you?

i am not very certain
i first read them a long time ago
but well, the first one seemed a bit better

it is original;the idea and draws you nicely in revealing the stories slowly

pilgrimage?

or canterburysm

ah, yes

pilgrims telling their stories

at first you understand what century it is
it was in the begnning of the priests story

yes
and then facts start appearing

btw, did you understand what hedgra was?

and consul turning out to be the spy is a great surprise

I dont remember what hedgra is :S

the emigration from the dying earth

and i liked the shrike of the first part more than the one of the second part

in what way?

but which shrike did you like more?
the dark and ambigious dark monster of pain
or a tool of a future god

I dont think I liked shrike as such
I think I liked the first one better than the second one as well...
it gave an 'enemy'
something to fight against

an irrational, surreal enemy
yeah
something over what there can be no vvictory

it gave focal point

deus ex machina

later on it got too complicated
too many details

where?

in the Fall

perhaps
i actually liked some details

and I am still not sure how Rachel/moneta thing works

like the names of the planets or a map called computereschering

Have to admit, I got quite bored towards the end...
I felt those were too much effort
remembering all those
like learning a new language to read a book

which tale did you like most?

I liked them all for different reasons
but probably Consul's because I thought his is the one which gave most away

i liked the poet's one most
although it is a hard decision

why did you like the poet's?

I didnt care much about him or his tale

making poetry some dark god with sacrifices
and sacrifying to him
humans

oh, and he is quite charismatic

poet is your favorite character?

no
sad king billy

any particular reasons?
he doesnt appear much in the stories

his sadness
a sort of a inner tragedy
loving culture, but himself unable to create anything
and in the end, coming to put an end to it
to Martin's poem
and also it was a nice turn where martin declared that he wanted to be in billys place

I liked his character too
because he seemed to be more down to earth than the poet
and reasonable

would he fit the categor of a tragic hero?

but I cant say he is my favorite character... dont think I have seen enough of him for that

the poet was slightly mad IMO

probably he would, actually
but interestingly mad

the poet was spoilt rotten

well, yeah
but he had one thing to do in his life
which he believed that was the most important thing at all
his "Cantos"

funny.. that reminded me of orlando
who kept struggling to finish his poem

though, it seemed to me, that it actually was an extremely important thing
in my experience, usually you don't have to sacrifice somebody to write something

thank god for that

usually

who was your leat favorite character>?

that artist who claimed war to be an art

joseph severn?

no
in the beginning of the second book
I know who you mean I think

a minor character
cant remember his name

actually, funny how similar he and martin are
death and art in one
but martin seems a lot better
despite his spoiltrottenness

yeah, he was annoying

I dont like cold, detached attitude

perhaps that was the major difference between him and martin

but do you think it is OK to sacrifice people?
for sake of one's art?

of course it is all very theoritical but...

first, martin put his soul in that poem and said that he wnated to swap places with his king

no
i said that he was not quite sane

and it was hypnotising
and it was subtle

he didn't kill them and swim in their blood
shrike killed them

but he knew that his poetry was causing it all sort of?

yes
but he was addicted
it was actually quite uncertain if he weren't accidentally a god

based on the fact that he was 'creating' it?

no
or perhaps a bit yes

there was something about bearing the cross of Son of Man
to be a poet is to be a god

but in the end
he thought differently

I see your point
but he was an accidental hero if anything in my opinion

he is one of my least favorite characters in the book

the poet had his ability to write poetry
his inspiration
and well, he was old too, he probably became cynical

i think that his view on life could be very well described with the end of his shortstory
in the beginning there was the word
and in the end
despite of life, honour or anything
in the end there shall be the word

do you think what 'the word' is matter?

no

the word literally
language
a connection to poetry

yes
poetry = the Word
which is why i asked if it matters

he created the kind of word which sort of served shrike

no
he didn't serve shrike
shrike was his muse
a sort of a midwife
between him and WORD

but how did it happen?

did the shrike act because of his poetry or did he write because of shrike?

both

he said so
that it was a closed cicrcle
but he did not mean to serve the Shrike but the Word
but he still didnt stop
he considered the word/idea thing the only original idea of humankind

when he realised how his 'word' was helping shrike

well, how do you get out of a closed circle

who is your favorite character?

I liked the poet better in the first book

I just couldnt like him

not really sure
I liked alot of characters

found him too selfish

i liked severn and lamia best i think

But thats what made him so funny

Ummon was great but not really a charcter was he??

Rachel/Moneta was nice

Ummon appeared for a short time

i did not like lamia

can someone please explain to me the whole rachel/moneta story

ummon was a neutral character to me

I am still not sure how that happened

Yeah I like lamia

why didnt you like lamia?she was the one with some guts

well, in the end i liked her

rachel went in as a 24 year old and as a baby

but threatening to kill one of your favourite characters is a flaw imo

Rachel at the end goes into the future as a bay and grows up there to become moneta who travels backward and meets the K man whose name i cant rember at the beginig of the first book

but you cant say that the poet didnt deserve that

yes i can

deserve what??

to be threatened by Lamia

he was so annoyingly selfish

didnt care much about anything except for his drink
and poem

it seemed more cynical to me

yes but It was nice i think not annoying and the conflict between him and lamia made it funny

drink was eskapism

it was funny

whatever it was it was annoying considering how much people sacrificed to be there

yes

yes but he was sort of romanticcy almost like he was the authour

it seemed to me that it was difficult for him to grasp the meaning of all those deaths

you know how sometimes you can tell the charcter that is the authours faviorate or the one they identify with most??

they were strangers

sometimes

well considering that the humanity was coming to an end

Yes maybe it was a defense mechnisism

You think he was the author's favorite?

yup
he has got the best lines
in the short story a character that is sort of like him comes in too

yes
maybe the author fancied himself to be a cynical, wisecrack as well

what is your take on religion in the books?

well in the first book it was sort of more important i think seeing how it was like the pilgrams progress or canterbury tales or whatever

and Kassad was a Palestinin Muslim and Sol was a Jew
and catholics

yeah

and athiests

different religious elements were brought in

i thought it was a nice touch to bring all of them together against one common enemy
seemed like neither of the faiths had the answer

they didnt know how to deal with it

yes but they all have a common God
or UI in this case
and he could have being saying that it really is one UI
fighting a common enemy

or that no matter what we would like to think there are no divine answers to our problems?

actually you know the forked tree of pain could that be like a pitch fork??

yes

ha common enemy = what was thought to be the Devil

but dont you think it is ironic that this 'devil' was human created?

just that the greatest evils that what is it endager humans is created by humans

didnt the tree peple have proved that there religon was based on lies?

and the crusifix people?

by the way I didnt understantd that why did the yooung priest end up with 2? and how did that crusifix get there??

I am not sure about that one either
but I think when he went there in search of the old priest, he got one himself
then when he found the old priest, he got his too... maybe to end his suffering?

but i dont know how that was possible

maybe its explain in Endiyon because i know lamias daughter gets crusified

then is resurrected freeing all humans from some sort of enslavery caused by those things

it talks about it in the Orphans of the helix

I havent read those books

she does the same thing as the poet and sleeps for a couple of hundred years

Sci fi is not really my cup of tea

no neither have I just the short story that comes after the whole set

but wasnt severn like some kind of prophet?? he was the one that came before?

that would be if the baby girl (which is ironic?)

at the end the hope for human UI to survive is for a bond to be created
and lamias baby is that hope because she is born from a human and a computer create thing

they shrike whowhatsists say somthing about that and thats why lamia was treated with such respect

yeah only he is really a new cybred keats to replace lamias Johnny

yes
I think so too that he was some kind of prophet

he was offered god ship but refused it because the baby is to become the

with his ability to have visions sort of

like what I think is the belief in Christ?
which makes John keats John the baptist

anyway thats another question I had why the Keats links?

No idea
thought simmons had a crush on him or something

Hyperion and the fall of both failed poems about the rise and fall and struglle between the new and old Gods

if johnny = john the baptist

who is christ?

the baby hope of humanity would be equivelant to Jesus

To be honest i didnt think of it this way

as leader and helper and all the stuff the Shrike cult go on about

I didnt think these books have such deep meanings/symbols hidden behind them

Im only thinking about it really as I go along

Maybe but it could also be a spoof on all religons

I am more inclined towards the latter

thought that was the reason he brought all those different faiths together
islam, judaism, christianity

yes I thought so too when I read the book

then say that 'hey, guess what? you are all useless'

and atheisim contated to the obvious lie based religon of the tree people

of course that is a hard decision...

still thats pretty deep isnt it?

without knowing anything about the author

true

not one expects from a sci-fi book
maybe i should give more credit to sci-fi books

oh Im not so sure its only easier to ignore in sci fi books

there might be more than the eye can see

I think ther usually is
but that is probably because its my fav. genre

like for instance Utopiais basicly a fantasy sci fi isnt it
as are all thse fables

in a way

animals dont talk

but they dont rely heavily on science and technology to make their points?
therefore it is fantay

animals talking is more shows imagination
I think

no but nowadays scifi and fantasy have combined dramaticlly

true

have you read Philip Pullmans dark materials?
that was very very deep and contreviersial

nope