Archibald - I guess my problem with Alistair Reynolds is this:
1. He tries to hard to create a world, a universe within which he is the god. It's almost like he is trying to be Tolkien (or more likely Banks and the Culture) It seems a little forced. I wish he would get on with the narrative and let the world become, rather than explain how it is so vast and complex.
2. His obsession with science for science's sake. Ok, I get it, you have read a lot of Physics but please don't show off. I've read various sections which were just physics wank fests and did not move the narrative on, or actually were relevant to the storyline.
3. His heroes are clunky. The Men are troubled and the women are "spunky" or waiting for something. The women in particular are falsely strong. There is no need to make them pretend men, just make them strong women if you must. Ursula Le Guin has nothing to worry about. Now there was someone who could write easily from both sexes POV.
4. I end up not caring. This is surely the cardinal sin, especially as we have a lot of hard space to get through. Lots die in his books and I really struggle to give a shit.
Reading that back it sounds a little harsh, but maybe it's the hardness of his Space Opera that doesn't do it for me. Some like the steel, brittle nature - but if I want that I read Cyberpunk or maybe Greg Bear. I dunno, some Poul Anderson or I would even reread some Banks.
On Vonnegut - I have only read Slaughterhouse and Breakfast of Champions - Slaughterhouse blew me away and I can't wait for Sirens. Cats Cradle is on the list now. (thanks for recommend)
