I'm reading The Dark Forest, the second in the Three-Body Problem trilogy. I'm still early in the book, but it feels so different from the first book so far. Not in a bad way, and I'm willing to wait and see where it goes, but between having so few carry-over characters, significant changes in settings and topic, there have literally only been a handful of pages so far that feel like they are of the same series as the first. I'm intrigued . . . .
Also listening to Apples Never Fall, the latest Liane Moriarty. I always read her books even though the last one or two have not been as good - they were still mindlessly engrossing, which is great for audiobooks, since I usually listen while doing errands and chores. So far this one is interesting, but it's 18 hours and I'm only 3 hours in, so reserving judgment.
How convenient! I just started The Dark Forest this past weekend. I have the same challenges with it as you, but I hate to leave a series unfinished. Hopefully it works itself out.
I read the first two of the series last year. The Dark Forest is quite good, IMO. If you enjoyed the first, I think you'll enjoy the second. I haven't really got into the third yet.
They get even more different by the end of the third book, for sure. I think I enjoyed the style of the first one most, but I still am glad I read all of them.
I'm reading Leviathan Falls, the very last book of the Expanse series, FINALLY. It's good so far, but I think I'm enjoying it most because I'll finally get a resolution to the overarching story (hopefully)
Still in the middle of The Dark Forest right now, but something that (finally?) struck me is that apparently in this version of Earth there's no climate change? And based on our collective action (or lack thereof) on climate change so far, I don't know whether to be skeptical that humanity would actually pull together the vast resources and effort that they are in this book for a problem that is even more remote than climate change. . . or if it makes sense because humans are much more reactive to an active malevolent force than a passive one that we caused ourselves?
Definitely enjoying it, but just got a little sidetracked by that thought. Strategizing against an alien invasion is way sexier than climate change.
I just finished The Dark Forest and I was pretty sure there *was* climate change. Specifically desertification around Beijing. But it wasn't really dwelt on.
Unrelated to climate change, but there are other things I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around, the chief one being why off-planet arcs would be banned. If we're to believe that defeating the aliens is impossible (even though they have 400 years to come up with a solution), sending people off-world is a necessary way to extend the human race. Even if they can come up with a way to defeat the tri-solarans, sending some people off-world is a good hedge.
Their reason for outlawing it is that deciding who to put on the ships would create world-wide conflict, and I just don't see that. Deciding who to put on the ships should be painfully obvious. First, you need people who can operate the ships. Then, you need people who can do maintenance on the ships. Next, you need medical personnel, followed by people who can produce food/water (need experts who can do this on the arcs as well as those who can do it if the arc ever reaches another planet. You also need experts in every scientific field, and I'm sure there are others I've missed but would be identified by the people in charge.
Once you have established what you need, you can narrow down your list of qualified people 10 or so years prior to the actual launch and select via a lottery or some other unbiased method, with stipulations that those related to people involved in the selection process can't be selected.
Maybe I'm reading too deep into this, but I'm really struggling with why they outlawed escapism.
