Banks or Hamilton?

[AndrewT]

I already bought the Night's Dawn trilogy so I feel obligated to read them and I want to after having heard many good things. My question would be how many people feel that they contain "fill" that makes them longer than necessary, or does most of the material contribute to the plot. I now have heard that the Commonwealth books are better by most people so I probably will read those as well. They are also quite long but most readers view it as worth it. I see that Hamilton's books get higher ratings at Goodreads than do Banks. I'm don't necessarily think Goodreads is the end-all arbiter but when comparing similar books in a genre that were written during the same period, it may be a reliable indicator.

GOODREADS Ratings:

Hamilton --- Night's Dawn 4.13, 4.20, 4.15
Commonwealth 4.17, 4.24
Void 4.12, 4.21, 4.20

Banks --- Culture 3.81, 4.19, 4.16, 3.78, 4.08, 3.77, 4.00, 3.86, 4.11, 3.97


Hamilton's works get slightly higher and more consistent average ratings. It appears that people like Culture #2 and #3 on par with Hamilton but the rest are lower although with still very respectable ratings. We should discuss the psychology behind the Goodread's ratings though, noting what things would skew the ratings. For instance I noticed that great classics of literature frequently get less than 4 and Stepanie Meyer was voted the greatest writer of all time (lol). She probably isn't bad but there obviously is a skew in the voting population at the site.

 

[Grunkins]

Most big books could have been made a trilogy of small books. Then would you not have a problem with them anymore? The bottom line for me is the quality of the plot and writing not the size.

I've found that there is a very good 400 page novel sloshing around inside each 1000 page Hamilton book.

 

[AE35Unit]

GOODREADS Ratings:

Hamilton --- Night's Dawn 4.13, 4.20, 4.15
Commonwealth 4.17, 4.24
Void 4.12, 4.21, 4.20

Banks --- Culture 3.81, 4.19, 4.16, 3.78, 4.08, 3.77, 4.00, 3.86, 4.11, 3.97


Hamilton's works get slightly higher and more consistent average ratings. It appears that people like Culture #2 and #3 on par with Hamilton but the rest are lower although with still very respectable ratings. We should discuss the psychology behind the Goodread's ratings though, noting what things would skew the ratings. For instance I noticed that great classics of literature frequently get less than 4 and Stepanie Meyer was voted the greatest writer of all time (lol). She probably isn't bad but there obviously is a skew in the voting population at the site.

I dont use such ratings as a guide to reading. What someone else loves I mght hate etc.
Ratings are pretty much pointless!

 

[Vertigo]

That's the problems, so many 600 page books are little more that 400 pages of padding to reach the audiance expecations of the genre.

That can certainly be true NZ and figuring out which is padded and which is solid can be a problem.

I already bought the Night's Dawn trilogy so I feel obligated to read them and I want to after having heard many good things. My question would be how many people feel that they contain "fill" that makes them longer than necessary, or does most of the material contribute to the plot. I now have heard that the Commonwealth books are better by most people so I probably will read those as well. They are also quite long but most readers view it as worth it. I see that Hamilton's books get higher ratings at Goodreads than do Banks. I'm don't necessarily think Goodreads is the end-all arbiter but when comparing similar books in a genre that were written during the same period, it may be a reliable indicator.

I personally preferred the Commonwealth/Void books; I found the Knights Dawn a bit too dark in places and ultimately the basic premise that all the books are built on I found a bit of a stretch to be plausible (it almost tipped into fantasy in some ways). That said I did enjoy them but I did prefer his Commonwealth/Void books.

OK they are long but I really didn't notice that. I found the depth he goes into simply involved me in the story all the more deeply. Comes down to personal taste in the end; others I've met have preferred the Kights Dawn books.

 

[AndrewT]

I dont use such ratings as a guide to reading. What someone else loves I mght hate etc.
Ratings are pretty much pointless!

If the ratings came from 10,000 people voting and the book got a 4.2 the chances are very high I will like it if it's in a genre I like. And if the book gets less than 3.5 with that many people voting, the chances are very good that there is a reason a lot of people did not like it as much and that you won't either. Depends on who is voting too though, if they are in your age group and sex and are fans of the same genre.

 

[AE35Unit]

But many books have got rated highly and Ive not enjoyed them. Same with music. Its very subjective.

 

[williamjm]

I already bought the Night's Dawn trilogy so I feel obligated to read them and I want to after having heard many good things. My question would be how many people feel that they contain "fill" that makes them longer than necessary, or does most of the material contribute to the plot. I now have heard that the Commonwealth books are better by most people so I probably will read those as well. They are also quite long but most readers view it as worth it.

I like both the Night's Dawn and Commonwealth series a lot but I have to agree that they're longer than they need to be. I think in both series the biggest issue is how long they take for the real plot to start. I think in The Reality Dysfunction there's about 400 pages before the main plot kicks off which is a big ridiculous even if there is a lot of preparation for later plotlines in those early pages. Pandora's Star also takes a few hundred pages to really start properly. Once the main plot starts I didn't mind the length too much, they are mostly fast-paced and I find them easier to read than some other long winded authors like Tad Williams since Hamilton's length is mostly due to the proliferation of subplots rather than the excessive description that some other authors suffer from.