Sequel to Hyperion.

  • So far it seems to be a linear structure (not a collection of short stories), following a second Keats cybrid.
  • I didn’t realize how fast part 1 was, I’m already in part but there’s still 15 hours left in the audiobook, perhaps part 1 is just really short. The story picks up a lot after part 1 and feels more exciting, although I do feel like I missed a lot of important bits in part 1 as I was too tired while listening.
  • I also wish it was multicast, the first book felt a lot more alive by having different voices for each character.
  • I feel like I don’t really have many notes, I’m just experiencing this book, but perhaps I’ve just been too tired lately.
  • There was a passage (this is pretty far in, like near chapter 29 or 30, near the end of Part 2) where Father Duré and Saul were talking about God and pain. That religion said that pain was for a purpose, but Duré had experienced firsthand in his crucifixion that the pain was meaningless, that no heavenly father came to him during that time. Yet despite this, faith is important, faith that humanity can evolve into a higher form of consciousness, one where such pain isn’t necessary anymore. It was interesting, as Saul was expecting Duré to have lost his faith after such a harrowing experience, however it just refocused his faith onto a different source.
  • Reading this book makes me want to look into the source material, like reading Keats and Teilhard, etc.
  • I feel like this book has a lot more religious themes in it, although I think I’m not critically listening to and therefore don’t have much to say. Which isn’t bad in and of itself, it’s fine to listen just for enjoyment. But perhaps I should do a critical reading of my next book, perhaps reading vs. audiobook.
  • I feel like the Ousters represent diversity and progressivism, whereas the Hegemony is conformity and conservatism. The Hegemony wants to force their environment to suit them, killing off the native flora and fauna, terraforming worlds to make them hospitable, while the Ousters genetically modify themselves to suit their environments.
  • I really like the religious themes and the interplay/juxtaposition with science and technology. Duré in particular is a very interesting character, and the whole idea of man and machine gods/Ultimate Intelligences is very interesting to me. Reminder that the machine UI’s ability to predict everything is related to my ideas of Causal Determinism and How To Measure Utility (a UI would be able to measure utility objectively).
  • I think the storyline about the TechnoCore wanting to destroy humanity and enslaving them through the farcasters and dataspheres is a warning about too much reliance on technology, or perhaps a warning on blind faith in technology? The humans just took it as is without really understanding it, and through that they were duped by the AI.
  • The destruction of the farcaster system and the Hegemony was sad to me, that so many people were lost in that moment, and many more would be lost in the coming months as the worlds found their new way of life, and it was sad too because this was necessary for the survival of humanity.
    • It felt like the idea of a wolf gnawing off it’s leg in order to escape the trap. The Hegemony can’t be homogenous and stagnant anymore, they’ll have to adapt and evolve in order to survive, like the Ousters.
  • At the end of Hyperion the Consul says “an ancient Chinese curse”, “May you live in interesting times.” I told this to Carey and she said this isn’t a real thing, and the internet confirms it’s a misattribution. The closest real Chinese saying is “It’s better to be a dog in peaceful times than a human in chaotic times.”
  • Near the end, Saul/the book starts mentioning stuff about love and to be honest I don’t really remember much of this part, I guess I must’ve tuned it out. It felt like the end of Interstellar where they shoehorned the love thing into the story and it just felt unrealistic/unscientific. But I wonder, is it because I’m not a parent that I don’t get this passage? If I had a child would I agree? I guess I can revisit this in the future.
    • I will say that the love thing felt very anthropocentric, like how the book was saying love was the underlying force of the universe. What about an alien species that doesn’t feel love the way humans do? Like the species that were wiped out by the Hegemony, would they be less important if they didn’t have the human concept of love? I guess this idea is why I didn’t really like the love part.
  • Also at the end, Saul had a revelation when he offered Rachel up to the Shrike, in that the Binding of Isaac wasn’t a test of Abraham by God, but a test of God by Abraham. The gist being that a god would only be worthy of worship if it could empathize with the people who worshipped it. Abraham resolved to kill Isaac, and if God let him go through with it then God would be unworthy of his worship. I think this is the relation to the human UI’s empathy part, who was being lured by the machine UI with the Shrike’s Tree of Pain, as the machines thought the pain would be enough to make empathy come help them. But I think Saul was saying that there had to be love in the equation? I’m not quite sure honestly, I might need to re-read this passage/read an analysis.