Liu Cixin's work often has the flavor, if not necessarily the depth, of Latin American magical realism. Take this story for instance; it's designed to have a particularly surreal or folklorish quality to it, wherein the aliens / dinosaurs are deliberately absurd--the "God" decides to casually take on a human body, the dinosaurs seem almost comic, and the hero of the tale is a fool.
You can almost imagine this story with the identities of the characters swapped to a more fantasy and thus folklorish character; the dinosaur is a Mongol or Manchu (some conquering barbarian), the "god-type intelligence" is an immortal or nature spirit, and it'd still cohere to a large extent.
Love it as always! And you made me notice that without really thinking about it I've been recommending "This is How You Lose the Time War" by prefacing it with: "I don't usually seek out science fiction, but this..." It's too bad so many shy away from it, and especially disheartening, now that I think of it, since I'm trying to get people to read my science nonfiction. Imagine trying to recommend that!
I've meant to read that! And somehow I feel like science-non-fiction is maybe an easier sell? People think it might be hard or dry, but at least they'll learn something; with sci-fi i think people imagine will be hard or dry AND will be made up, so they won't even have anything to show for it. But I could well be wrong!
That's such a great point! I've never thought of it that way but I think you're right. Siddhartha Mukherjee can write bestselling books about the history of the gene or cell biology. It helps that he grew an audience with his Pulitzer Prize-winning book on the biography of cancer, but still! It's interesting that a topic (science) full of wonder and beauty is off-putting, but so many people were traumatized by it in school that there must be a visceral response. When I tell people I studied chemistry, the #1 response is, "Oh I hated chemistry in high school."
Liu Cixin's work often has the flavor, if not necessarily the depth, of Latin American magical realism. Take this story for instance; it's designed to have a particularly surreal or folklorish quality to it, wherein the aliens / dinosaurs are deliberately absurd--the "God" decides to casually take on a human body, the dinosaurs seem almost comic, and the hero of the tale is a fool.
You can almost imagine this story with the identities of the characters swapped to a more fantasy and thus folklorish character; the dinosaur is a Mongol or Manchu (some conquering barbarian), the "god-type intelligence" is an immortal or nature spirit, and it'd still cohere to a large extent.
That, I think, is the charm of the story.
That's very perceptive!
Love it as always! And you made me notice that without really thinking about it I've been recommending "This is How You Lose the Time War" by prefacing it with: "I don't usually seek out science fiction, but this..." It's too bad so many shy away from it, and especially disheartening, now that I think of it, since I'm trying to get people to read my science nonfiction. Imagine trying to recommend that!
I've meant to read that! And somehow I feel like science-non-fiction is maybe an easier sell? People think it might be hard or dry, but at least they'll learn something; with sci-fi i think people imagine will be hard or dry AND will be made up, so they won't even have anything to show for it. But I could well be wrong!
That's such a great point! I've never thought of it that way but I think you're right. Siddhartha Mukherjee can write bestselling books about the history of the gene or cell biology. It helps that he grew an audience with his Pulitzer Prize-winning book on the biography of cancer, but still! It's interesting that a topic (science) full of wonder and beauty is off-putting, but so many people were traumatized by it in school that there must be a visceral response. When I tell people I studied chemistry, the #1 response is, "Oh I hated chemistry in high school."