My longest and by far best read was the Three-Body trilogy by Liu Cixin, weighing in at a combined 1400 pages. It is hard science-fiction and may require a bit of physical-mathematical background to appreciate how it makes esoteric scientific concepts into driving plot points, but if you have that, it is an absolutely stellar experience from the tons of creative worldbuilding to the inventive storytelling to even the minutest technical details. One thing of note is that the Dark Forest hypothesis, today one of the most well-known solutions to the Fermi paradox, was invented by the author and had its first-ever appearance in the second book of the series.
Correction: Upon further looking into it, the Dark Forest hypothesis apparently predates the book, which then axiomatised and coined the term for it
Read the first two. Some guy once pointed out that the Dark Forest hypothesis rests on the assumption that communication is slower and more expensive than instantaneous destruction, which is false.
I wish i only read the first two, they were great, but third is absolute garbage, guy ran out of ideas for plot and instead presented one of two nead ideas he had left along some really weird shit mixed with wide plethora of apocalyptic scenarios broken by some really tedious nothing parts. There’s also 4th book written by other author and accepted by original one which straightens out the ending dud, but i would still rather not read it at all.
My longest and by far best read was the Three-Body trilogy by Liu Cixin, weighing in at a combined 1400 pages. It is hard science-fiction and may require a bit of physical-mathematical background to appreciate how it makes esoteric scientific concepts into driving plot points, but if you have that, it is an absolutely stellar experience from the tons of creative worldbuilding to the inventive storytelling to even the minutest technical details.
One thing of note is that the Dark Forest hypothesis, today one of the most well-known solutions to the Fermi paradox, was invented by the author and had its first-ever appearance in the second book of the series.Correction: Upon further looking into it, the Dark Forest hypothesis apparently predates the book, which then axiomatised and coined the term for it
Read the first two. Some guy once pointed out that the Dark Forest hypothesis rests on the assumption that communication is slower and more expensive than instantaneous destruction, which is false.
I wish i only read the first two, they were great, but third is absolute garbage, guy ran out of ideas for plot and instead presented one of two nead ideas he had left along some really weird shit mixed with wide plethora of apocalyptic scenarios broken by some really tedious nothing parts. There’s also 4th book written by other author and accepted by original one which straightens out the ending dud, but i would still rather not read it at all.