Greg Bear's later stuff

[Ubik]

So, just so you know where I'm coming from, as far as I'm concerned, Greg Bear is one of the greats. In a quick succession, he wrote some of the best science fiction I've ever read, including Blood Music, Eon, Eternity, Forge of God, and Anvil of Stars. I am currently a third of the way through Moving Mars, and I'm loving it. Earlier, I also read Darwin's Children, a much later book of his, and I found it not-quite-as-good as those earlier masterpieces I mentioned. So far, it's the only book post-2000 of his that I've read.

But then, I was looking through his bibliography, and I noticed that he has indeed continued writing into the 21st century. He's got a couple of what I believe are "technothrillers" (Quantico, Mariposa), and at least two bonafide sf books, City at the End of Time and Hull Zero Three. But I have never really heard anything about those. The Nebula and Hugo award nominations have dried up, and I really have no idea if those more recent books are supposed to be anywhere near as good as his earlier novels.

Does anyone have any experience with these books? Are they worth checking out? Do they stand up? Or will I leave disappointed, with the understanding that Bear, great as he was, is simply past his prime? Any opinions?

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Last thing I heard, he was writing books based on Halo. Seems a bit of a comedown, but everyone's got to eat I suppose.

 

[Set Harth]

He wrote a Star Wars book.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Blood Music is one of my favorite SF novels I've ever read. I would totally love it if they managed to translate it to the screen.

 

[Starbreaker]

I was about to mention 'technothriller' before reading your post. I tried to read Hull Zero Three, but I just found that it was outright terrible.

 

[stj]

City at the End of Time is a far-future tale, which is modern jargon for anything goes. My interest went with it, couldn't finish it. Never found Hull Zero Three in any cheap format (aka library or mass market paperback on discount) but it was fairly well reviewed, apparently because it had an unreliable narrator and ambiguity? I've read Blithedale Romance and The Marble Faun and The House of Seven Gables. Frankly I've been pretty convinced for some time that Nathaniel Hawthorne conclusively proved that the New Weird etc. is not just unoriginal but a dead end.

Darwin's Children and Darwin's Radio I disliked for the bad evolutionary biology, bad as pulp fiction "science," except buried in a drab story.

His elf novels were OK.

 

[Set Harth]

it was fairly well reviewed, apparently because it had an unreliable narrator and ambiguity?

Sigh.

 

[Ubik]

it was fairly well reviewed, apparently because it had an unreliable narrator and ambiguity?

Sigh.

Not that this is really relevant (and not that I've even read the book), but is your eye-rolling icon supposed to imply that ambiguity and unreliable narration can never be assets to a piece of literature? As a literature professor myself, I'm just asking what you think.....

 

[stj]

^^^I think it's just supposed to be a cheap shot in favor of unreliable narrators and ambiguity, but it's not clear because it cut out the sentences about Hawthorne to make the citation sound worse.

As to Hull, every review I remember talked extensively about the possible manipulation of the narrator's (narrators') memories. Unreliable narrators have been used sometimes to good effect. Ambiguity as to character motivations are more common and commonly effective. It may be unpopular to say so, but ambiguity in the plot is rarely effective. Also, "ambiguity" in the sense of multiple meanings is one thing, while "ambiguity" in the sense of self-contradiction is another.

 

[Drago-Kazov]

Did he ever write a Trek book? Will he?

 

[Scout101]

http://www.amazon.com/Corona-Star-Trek-Greg-Bear/dp/074340372X

 

[Set Harth]

it was fairly well reviewed, apparently because it had an unreliable narrator and ambiguity?

Sigh.

Not that this is really relevant (and not that I've even read the book), but is your eye-rolling icon supposed to imply that ambiguity and unreliable narration can never be assets to a piece of literature? As a literature professor myself, I'm just asking what you think.....

Never? No. It's the extreme popularity of those things that I'm getting sick of.

 

[stj]

^^^Sorry to misunderstand. There's no trick too old for someone to have a bright idea to make it new. The odds have gotten a little long. But of course someone who really liked The Marble Faun will think differently.

 

[Kegg]

I've got copies of uh, Eon and Blood Music that I really should get around to (perhaps the former after I finish Jon Haldeman's Forever Peace).

Did he ever write a Trek book?

Yup. Star Wars too, apparently... Foundation, Known Space... he gets around, clearly.

 

[Candlelight]

I loved Eon but I've never read any of his other work.

 

[Ubik]

I loved Eon but I've never read any of his other work.

Well, then allow me to highly recommend these other books of his. He's very good. I mean, Asimov / Clarke / Heinlein good. Anyone who wants to read the best hard science fiction to come out of the 80's, then read Blood Music, Forge of God, Anvil of Stars, Eternity, and Queen of Angels. I'm just finishing off Moving Mars, and it's also exceptional.

But so far, there seems to be little or no knowledge or enthusiasm for Bear's post-2000 stuff.....?