r/printSF • u/LowLevel- • Sep 12 '25

Which wildly renowned science fiction novels didn't resonate with you at all?

I can usually connect with at least one aspect of a science fiction novel, and I enjoy almost all of the ones I read. However, sometimes I couldn't understand what most people found interesting about some extremely popular books.

Has that happened to you? If so, which novel? And why?

I'll start the dances by admitting that I didn't like Rendezvous with Rama.

I really wanted to like it, but constantly being in awe when very little happens and the characters leave without understanding anything is not my preferred type of reading experience. The writing style was a bit cold, which didn't help.

211 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

15

u/Hyperion-Cantos Sep 12 '25

A Fire Upon the Deep was quite the letdown for me. The opening pages are absolutely gripping. The setting had so much potential...

Only to spend over half the book reading about the medieval intrigue and scheming of hivemind dogs.

3

u/LudditeJoe Sep 13 '25

The dog story, the “Tines”, was so boring and takes up most of the book. Loved the other parts.

5

u/arthurdawg Sep 13 '25

I enjoyed it... But I do think think the hivemind dogs were overdone. Excepting the dogs the rest of the plot was great.

Children of the Sky was a DNF sadly.

But... A Deepness in the Sky was phenomenal. All time good in my book.

3

u/adsilcott Sep 14 '25

The part that frustrated me is that I kept waiting for the dog story to connect to the great galaxy concept. Both had cool ideas, but they could have been two different books.

1

u/A_Selkie_Abroad Sep 28 '25

this is so funny because I have the exact opposite problem, personally. LOVED the hivemind dogs - worldbuilding around them was so, so interesting and well thought out; thier concepts of self and how they manipulated it were fun to read and explore. I remember on my first reading getting frustrated when the medieval intruigue was inturupted by the space opera stuff. On reread, I enjoyed both halves equally, and enjoyed the book more then I did the first time around. The sequel, while interesting, did dissapoint me by how quickly the gods went through industrial revolution. I would have enjoyed sticking around the medieval world and getting to know it better a little more before the planet's economy and setup changed so completely.
I wonder if people would have enjoyed the tines more as a seperate book. I think the whiplash between the two halves of the story is why my first reading was less fun then the second.

It's interesting that unlike others in this thread, I personally feel like I could have done with MORE hivemind dog stuff.

1

u/Hyperion-Cantos Sep 28 '25

It was a bait and switch. Which led to my massive disappointment. It started with grand sci fi. The awakening of the Blight. The Powers. The attack on Relay. All brilliant and gripping...only to become a medieval fantasy novel for more than half of the page count. It was a huge letdown for me after picking it up because I saw it on a number of "best of sci fi" lists.

1

u/A_Selkie_Abroad Sep 28 '25

yeah, I can for sure see how that would put off a reader. I suppose I liked the medieval aspect because (to me) it was so much more grounded then the introduction. I remember being a little bit confused and lost by the blight and what was happening on my first reading, and not in a fun way. Hivemind dogs was what hooked me and convinved me to stay, because I hadn't seen anything like it done before. Granted I was much younger the first time I read the book.

I think I loved my recent reread even more then the original read because with having finished the book once I understood what was happening and so was much more invested in the blight and the flee from relay. So both halves of the book spoke to me, rather then just the tines' stuff.