I didn’t enjoy Fall of Hyperion quite as much as Hyperion, but it was still a good read.  When I read Hyperion, everything was fresh and new, possibilities were opening up on every page, and I had no idea where everything was going.  Maybe Dan Simmons didn’t either – who knows?  But there was a sense of freedom about Hyperion, which wasn’t so much in evidence in Fall of Hyperion.  Partly this is because much of the groundwork, the scene-setting, the basic world-view, had already been set up in Hyperion, so some of that sense of freshness was lost.  Partly it is because Fall of Hyperion is quite fragmented and I thought it perhaps tried to tackle too much.  But mainly it is because I felt that Simmons was forcing the actions of his characters down certain paths so as to reach a certain conclusion at the end of the book.  And when that happens, I always feel that things tie up too easily.  Everything felt real in Hyperion.  It wasn’t quite the same in Fall of Hyperion; everything dovetailed just too well.  Life always leaves loose ends.  I would have been a bit harsher with the outcomes of the main characters, as well.
   All that said, I sat up for an hour and a half, long past my bedtime, wanting to get to the end to find out what happened.  I confess I skip-read some of the philosophical bits.  When I got to the end, I wasn’t dissatisfied exactly, but nor was I wholly satisfied.  Read it by all means, but I think you’ll find it not up to the high standards of Hyperion.
add comment | read comments (0) 2010-11-02