Sign in with Facebook
Apatt's Reviews > Ringworld
Ringworld (Ringworld #1)
by
by
Ringworld is definitely a sci-fi classic, a monumental achievement in world building. Any sci-fi aficionados who don’t like it should be ashamed of themselves.
Argh! It’s never pleasant to go against the conventional wisdom but over at PrintSF (online SF discussion community) I see a lot of comments along the line of “I really want to like this book because everybody say it’s great, what am I missing?” I think a lot of people try too hard to like certain books and I don’t know why, it does not entail that you are wrong or even that you are right and everybody else is wrong. You like what you like, leave it at that.
OK, enough of the irrelevant opening. There is no denying that Ringworld is a major work in the history of sci-fi. A ginormous artificial ring-shaped planet encircling a star is an amazing concept, especially as Larry Niven is able to back up the concept with real world science. Gravity generated from the centrifugal force of the planet’s programmed rotation speed, an inner ring of shadow squares to create nights, a weird "horizon" due to the shape of the planet etc. These are mind blowing concepts and very influential for later generations of sci-fi authors.
The Ringworld itself is a monumental sci-fi creation.
Where it falls down for me is the story and the characters. Having built this amazing world I don’t think the events that take place on it make for a very compelling narrative. The characters do get into a lot of trouble but their adventures do not read like edge of the seat thrills. I am having a lot of trouble explaining why the plot does not excite me here, there are many wild inventions here which are almost as awesome as the basic premise itself but I just felt detached from the narrative. Certainly part of it is the characterization, characterization is not indispensable for good sci-fi, the likes of Asimov and Clarke were mostly able to get away with quite perfunctory character developments. However, I think they told very riveting stories with the right pacing and at modest page counts. Niven’s characters in Ringworld are quite colorful but I did not care for any of them and did not give a monkey whether any or all of them snuff it through the course of the narrative.
One problem I perceive is that Niven uses the sci-fi trope of each alien species having one type of overriding character trait. The kzinti are all warlike, the puppeteers are all cowards etc. Why then are humans so diverse in personalities? Real aliens may turn out that way I don’t know but it is hard to believe in a species with one personality. Consequently the alien characters come across as a little “one note”, but come to think of it the human characters are kind of “one note” too. They don’t feel like vivid, complex believable characters, they are just there to drive the plot. By the end of the book I was feeling quite impatient to be done with it.
For “Big Dumb Object” books I much prefer Clarke’s Rendezvous with Rama, the characters are equally flat but the book somehow feels alive and the sense of wonder is more palpable. As for Larry Niven I am a big fan of his collaborations with Jerry Pournelle, especially The Mote in God's Eye which is one of my all time favorites.
Ringworld is not “bad” by any stretch of imagination, it’s me, I’m the bad one.
Rating:
5 Stars for the Ringworld planet.
3 Stars for the storyline
2 Stars for the characters
= 3.3333 (etc.) neutron stars
Note:
Another Ringworld art, this depicts a view from the surface of the planet:
Ringworld's "horizon" is interesting to imagine. Given the shape of the planet it does not really have a horizon! The above artwork is probably inaccurate though because the Ringworld is many times the size of Earth (600 million miles in diameter, one million miles wide) so you probably would not be able to seeso much any of the upward curvature. I am not sure what you would see but it would look awesome and weird!
Argh! It’s never pleasant to go against the conventional wisdom but over at PrintSF (online SF discussion community) I see a lot of comments along the line of “I really want to like this book because everybody say it’s great, what am I missing?” I think a lot of people try too hard to like certain books and I don’t know why, it does not entail that you are wrong or even that you are right and everybody else is wrong. You like what you like, leave it at that.
OK, enough of the irrelevant opening. There is no denying that Ringworld is a major work in the history of sci-fi. A ginormous artificial ring-shaped planet encircling a star is an amazing concept, especially as Larry Niven is able to back up the concept with real world science. Gravity generated from the centrifugal force of the planet’s programmed rotation speed, an inner ring of shadow squares to create nights, a weird "horizon" due to the shape of the planet etc. These are mind blowing concepts and very influential for later generations of sci-fi authors.
The Ringworld itself is a monumental sci-fi creation.
Where it falls down for me is the story and the characters. Having built this amazing world I don’t think the events that take place on it make for a very compelling narrative. The characters do get into a lot of trouble but their adventures do not read like edge of the seat thrills. I am having a lot of trouble explaining why the plot does not excite me here, there are many wild inventions here which are almost as awesome as the basic premise itself but I just felt detached from the narrative. Certainly part of it is the characterization, characterization is not indispensable for good sci-fi, the likes of Asimov and Clarke were mostly able to get away with quite perfunctory character developments. However, I think they told very riveting stories with the right pacing and at modest page counts. Niven’s characters in Ringworld are quite colorful but I did not care for any of them and did not give a monkey whether any or all of them snuff it through the course of the narrative.
One problem I perceive is that Niven uses the sci-fi trope of each alien species having one type of overriding character trait. The kzinti are all warlike, the puppeteers are all cowards etc. Why then are humans so diverse in personalities? Real aliens may turn out that way I don’t know but it is hard to believe in a species with one personality. Consequently the alien characters come across as a little “one note”, but come to think of it the human characters are kind of “one note” too. They don’t feel like vivid, complex believable characters, they are just there to drive the plot. By the end of the book I was feeling quite impatient to be done with it.
For “Big Dumb Object” books I much prefer Clarke’s Rendezvous with Rama, the characters are equally flat but the book somehow feels alive and the sense of wonder is more palpable. As for Larry Niven I am a big fan of his collaborations with Jerry Pournelle, especially The Mote in God's Eye which is one of my all time favorites.
Ringworld is not “bad” by any stretch of imagination, it’s me, I’m the bad one.
Rating:
5 Stars for the Ringworld planet.
3 Stars for the storyline
2 Stars for the characters
= 3.3333 (etc.) neutron stars
Note:
Another Ringworld art, this depicts a view from the surface of the planet:
Ringworld's "horizon" is interesting to imagine. Given the shape of the planet it does not really have a horizon! The above artwork is probably inaccurate though because the Ringworld is many times the size of Earth (600 million miles in diameter, one million miles wide) so you probably would not be able to see
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Ringworld.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
August 30, 2011
– Shelved
August 30, 2011
– Shelved as:
sci-fi
May 30, 2015
–
Started Reading
June 6, 2015
– Shelved as:
pre-80s-sf
June 6, 2015
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-13 of 13 (13 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Sue
(new)
Jun 06, 2015 08:23PM
The Mote in God's Eye sounds so familiar. I may have read that...30 or more years ago though, which would be why I can't recall any details.
reply
|
flag
Sci-fi is often weak on characterization, and like you, I can put up with that if the ideas and plot (and writing) are good enough, but a whole species with a single character?! However, now you mention it, this is probably not the only sci-fi tale that does it. I suppose it's a sort of laziness, but it is worryingly similar to the way whole (human) races are sometimes condemned by attributing a single, negative characteristic to them. Colonialists and slave traders did/do it, and something similar happens with the way Muslims (I know that's a religion not a race) are portrayed in the media, scaring people enough to justify (in their minds) hatred, intolerance, immigration restrictions etc.
But then sci-fi has always been a mirror to our views of "aliens", hasn't it?
If y'all are disappointed by this one, do not, I repeat DO NOT, try Bowl of Heaven. It's a rehash of Ringworld, with none of Ringworld's depth of characterization :-)
And I'm a fan of the Mote books, too. I've always enjoyed finding Internet arguments where I can see three viewpoints, so that I can say "On the one hand..., otoh ..., but otgh ..."
You're not wrong. It's not particularly good.
Althea wrote: "You're not wrong. It's not particularly good."Thanks Althea that's reassuring!
@Derek: Have you read the Mote's sequel?
Even when I read Ringworld back in HS, I know the world-building was better than the "one-note" alien characters. You hit the Kzinti on the Puppeteers, Apatt! Hard SF doesn't entirely depend on complex characters, but these days readers expect more of both, which leads to some pretty long books like those of Reynolds, Hamilton, Robinson, Vinge, etc.
Stuart wrote: "Even when I read Ringworld back in HS, I know the world-building was better than the "one-note" alien characters. You hit the Kzinti on the Puppeteers, Apatt! Hard SF doesn't entirely depend on com..."That's an astute observation Stuart, thanks for your input. I wonder if Nivea is capable of writing great characters though. Clarke was not good at it but I think he was a better storyteller.
Fair summary all around. The "wonder" about Ringworld was not that great, though I kind of liked the open vista for exploration and constant problem solving that I envy in engineer types I have known. I followed all but one of the Ringworld sequels and recent Fleet of Worlds revival with good pleasure in most of them. The Puppeteers were filled out with various types of personality. Their "coward" species was made more complex by extending them along different paths in preventing danger, from loyalty to treachery in their puppeteering of human. A parallel is to be seen in the personality of Bernard Schaefer (brought from the "Tales of Known Space" universe for the Fleet series), whose one-note paranoia character leads him paradoxically to all sorts of progressive and brave actions.
I never cared for the Kzinti, and "one-note" captures the reason well.
Mote in God's Eye was my favorite of 30 Nivens I have read over the years because of all the kinds of reactions and impacts of first contact. I was a sucker for the military aspects Pournelle brought to the duo, hitting both my aversion to war and unnecessary military solutions and submission to their need in the face of an alien threat.
Michael wrote: "Fair summary all around. The "wonder" about Ringworld was not that great, though I kind of liked the open vista for exploration and constant problem solving that I envy in engineer types I have kn..."Thanks Michael! Looking at those Ringworld art it really is a wonderful creation. Shame Pournelle wasn't on hand to collaborate!
Good review, thought it was dated and the characters pretty awful but can see how it's been seminal on a lot of modern pop culture- the halo games for example totally 'borrow' the idea of the ring
Mark wrote: "Good review, thought it was dated and the characters pretty awful but can see how it's been seminal on a lot of modern pop culture- the halo games for example totally 'borrow' the idea of the ring"Thank you, Mark. I like the Ringworld more than the story.
