Public reader discussion about Empire in the WeRead Catalog by Clifford D. Simak.
By moose_frog
Have you read much from this Grand Master of Science Fiction? I’m putting up my thoughts on the first of the fourteen-volume set that gathers Clifford D. Simak’s short stories.
By epiloguenarrow3048
I’ve been getting through a bunch of stuff from the 1700s lately, and yeah, there are definitely some wild/fantastical books, but the vibe and what people seem to like is totally different. Like, France in the 1700s—when Louis XV and Louis XVI are ruling—just feels like it had a different attitude toward literature. And you can kind of hear Voltaire and Rousseau griping about it in their own writing. The whole thing isn’t just “fantasy for fantasy’s sake” as much as it is more about domestic tragedies, romance type stuff, and polished works that feel closer to real life and social/moral issues. Less giant chaotic epic energy. Then if you look at Italy and Spain in that earlier period, you’ve got all these books set in “mystical” places, bigger-than-life Christian heroes, all that imagination mixed with religious stuff. They really loved those grand fantasy worlds. But I don’t think the people who liked that would’ve been into Goethe’s *Sorrows of Young Werther* or a bunch of the romantic/tear-jerker stuff from Rousseau, Johnson, or even Sheridan’s plays. That’s what it seems like to me, anyway. And then later—US and UK by Huxley and Orwell—you start seeing more and more experimentation with science fiction. By the 60s, it’s like everyone already loves sci-fi characters from comics, so sci-fi writing just explodes. You get *Dune*, *2001*, *I, Robot*, all that. And then it kind of takes over so hard that Hollywood pays attention and suddenly everything becomes Star Wars/future dystopia/superhero movie territory like it’s the default option at the box office. Still, it’s not like everything is sci-fi—there are plenty of good books from that time that aren’t. But it’s like sci-fi (or at least that imaginative spark) is what people really latch onto. Even if something like *Infinite Jest* is super philosophical, it still has that sci-fi-ish edge in there somehow. I guess what gets me is: why did “we” lose that older kind of imaginative taste? And why are we so into it now in this different form? Also, John Green being so popular surprised me a bit. I was expecting a generation that loves Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games, Game of Thrones (not sci-fi, technically) would be less into his style—but his books still fit that same “big imagination” thing, so I’m not sure what I thought I’d see.
By NinaInTucson95
I’m going back to Turkey early next year, and I’d really like to read something by a Turkish author before then. I’m not sure exactly how to describe it, but I want a book that kind of “gets” Turkey the way East of Eden feels like it captures the US, or Don Quixote does for Spain. If anyone knows Turkish literature well, what should I try?
By hillred7771
As a Japanese person, I’ve always been curious what it is about our Japanese novels that people overseas actually like so much. I’d love to know the real reasons they click with international readers. But I’m also wondering—what’s genuinely different for non-Japanese readers compared to “classic” Japanese novels? Is there really a kind of boom out there? Does it feel like a new wave of Japanese stories, or is it more just people being into the old vibes like wabi-sabi or samurai? (I’m kind of not into samurai for some reason—maybe because of the word itself lol.) Also, my recent favorite is Sayaka Murata’s 世界99 (World 99), but it still hasn’t been translated, which is a bummer. Still, that book feels like this super realistic dream. And the other reason I got into viral JP novels was when I lived in Germany for almost a year—I went into tons of bookstores and noticed there were modern Japanese novels everywhere, not just Haruki Murakami or Mishima, but also people like Asako Sodegi, Sayaka Murata, or Uketsu. I honestly barely knew about them before, so when I came across them I was like, “am I really that illiterate?” After I came back to Japan, I started reading them, and yeah… it totally blew my mind. They’re seriously unbelievable.
By QuillIvy1976
I don’t always agree with her choices, but she does seem to have a knack for picking shorter books that are actually manageable. I was pretty impressed with how she picked Starling House in October too—it felt like a smart Halloween pick that wasn’t super scary.
By Summer_Ivy28
Finally got around to reading *Blood Meridian*—it’s been on my list forever. It was my first Cormac McCarthy book and I honestly thought it was incredible. Now though I’m kind of hesitant to jump into another one, because I can’t tell if my expectations are way too high and I’m just going to end up disappointed. I know that’s probably irrational, and I’ve definitely felt this way with other writers before. Like I’ve read a bunch of Steinbeck after *The Grapes of Wrath* and every Murakami book after *Wind-Up Bird* too. I’ll probably read McCarthy again, just not sure when—maybe I’ll give it a little time. Has anyone else had that happen?
By SpringOtter61
I’m thinking of finally trying it, but I’ve been on the fence for a while. Is this a good move or should I skip it? The length kinda worries me—feels like it might be pretty dense and not the easiest read, especially if you’re not already really comfortable with Roman history.
By inkstarlight1716
Got into it with a Ukrainian person today after I shared some Russian classics (Bulgakov, Turgenev, Lermontov). They basically said it’s not right to promote Russian literature when Russia is actively destroying their country. And honestly, it kind of hit me that I hadn’t really thought that through. I’m not sure I totally agree, but I also don’t know how to argue back. Part of me feels like these are huge world literature books, and a lot of them even criticize the government/society stuff in their own way, so they shouldn’t get completely drowned out by what’s happening right now. So yeah—how do you even balance appreciating important cultural works with the current situation? How do people navigate that? Curious what everyone thinks.
By threadSleepy
I’m still pretty new to SF, so I’ve mostly been sampling a bunch of bigger names rather than really committing to any one author. After I read City and really enjoyed that cozy, Wyndham-ish vibe, I ended up picking up some of those lovely Methuen editions of Simak. Naturally (and because I’m weak to collecting), I grabbed The Way Station almost at random. And wow, this book throws a ton of stuff at you. I didn’t even start putting it together until about the last third. Earlier than that I mostly just went along for the ride—nice peaceful farm life, alien run-ins, and that quietly unsettling feeling from the very beginning that someone (or something) is watching. It’s got the whole empire spreading around the galaxy, Enoch’s weird “imaginary friends,” this higher-plane/extra sense thing where the empire seems to react, plus the whole pitchfork-and-torch mob energy. I can’t deny it’s imaginative. I liked it for some of the same reasons as City, but I do think the execution is shakier. Enoch’s “imaginary friends” felt like they appeared with no real setup and then didn’t do much beyond being there. And Lucy’s plot connection felt a bit sudden too—one minute she’s just… there, and then suddenly we’re dealing with this renegade traveler and a stolen talisman that feels like it was introduced on the spot. That said, I really loved the way station idea. The whole “other races just pass through like tourists” mindset is very Roadside Picnic-ish in feel, and it was interesting seeing Enoch as more of a host to visitors who mostly sound like they’re on holiday or enjoying retirement rather than anything dramatic. I also liked the whole time/balance angle. Even though Enoch doesn’t age in the station, the book still makes you feel how limited time is for him—like even getting to actually enjoy a sunset for a few minutes is a big ask. His duty to record everything kind of eats up the rest of his life. Was it better than City? Not for me, no. But it was still a fun ride. I spotted Special Deliverance out in the wild yesterday, so I might go for that next. Curious what everyone else thinks about The Way Station—and Simak overall.
By gardenLucky
One nonfiction I can actually recommend is “In the Wake of the Plague” by Norman Cantor. I’ve gone back to it a few times. I don’t really mind that some people on Amazon say it’s historically off—I still like it. And honestly, the complaints have led me to another book, “A Distant Mirror,” so something good came out of it. Edit: Thanks a ton for all the suggestions!
By rhyme_baylet22
I’m about 200 pages into Mistborn: The Final Empire by Brandon Sanderson, and I’ve gotta be honest—I’m not really feeling it. :( The writing style seems kind of plain and gets repetitive, and it doesn’t feel very deep to me. It kinda reminds me of the Shannara books by Terry Brooks, which I used to love when I was younger, but I doubt I’d enjoy them as much now. So I’m wondering, if I’m not enjoying it so far, should I just drop it? Or is there a payoff later that makes it worth pushing through?
By QuietLibrary19
Just wrapped this huge memoir and, yeah, there’s a lot in it that I genuinely liked. You can definitely see why people admire Obama’s whole path. But a few parts really stuck with me: First, his rundown of world events—sorry if I’m coming off clueless, but I didn’t realize how much of a diplomatic mess it is trying to push legislation through the UN. The way he talks about how those permanent seat countries basically call the shots, and how what leaders say face-to-face is mostly for show while the actual negotiations happen behind the scenes by diplomats… that was eye-opening. Also, he lays out the whole political landscape pretty well—USSR, China, the Middle East, the Israel-Palestine situation, India, even Deepwater Horizon. Second thing: it bothered me how often leaders just don’t seem capable of doing what’s actually “right,” even when public sentiment is screaming for it. It’s like none of that matters if it doesn’t line up with someone’s personal agenda. And that Palestine example, with how Netanyahu wouldn’t show up unless he felt certain Israel’s position would be backed as self-defense, and how PTO gets blamed for everything—that part felt especially grim. Another moment that got to me: even knowing about mass atrocities and serious human rights abuses (and at times outright genocides), Obama still had to deal with certain world leaders—basically the whole welcome, cajole, appease, invite-them-to-dinner-with-family routine—to keep up the diplomatic “relationship.” And the bit about the US getting involved in Middle East politics—Libya, Egypt, Iran, Iraq—always leading to the opposite of what you’d expect. Iran and Iraq especially felt like some major, avoidable blunders. I’ll also say I’m into economics, so I really appreciated his explanation of how the 2008 financial crisis was handled. It reads like he’s making the case for the bank bailouts, why nobody important from Wall Street got arrested, how the banks still managed to pay big bonuses, and how the Greece debt crisis played into the mess. I didn’t love the outcomes, but I understood the logic, and I respected that he did what he thought was right even when the public was clearly against it. That felt like real leadership to me. There’s probably more I want to say, but I’ll leave it there for now. Did anyone else feel pretty strongly while reading it?
By SleepyShelf2
I just need to ramble about this book/lit stuff for a sec. I’m studying literature, and honestly, nothing in my classes has hit me the way this one has—19th century American lit. We started with Whitman and I was instantly obsessed. I kept reading his poems after class, and some of the ones we covered there I’d already read at home 😅. He really makes me want to write poetry myself and just live more honestly, like actually enjoy the world. Love him so much. Then we moved to Dickinson and now I’m even more excited to read her work. I’m basically waiting on the professor to upload the poems to the university page because I went to the library and they don’t have the 1950 or 1998 editions the professor suggested. I also read a 19th century American book before—Little Women—like two years ago, and it’s still my all-time favorite. It’s SO good. I’m really pumped to get to Edgar Allan Poe and all the other writers we’re going to cover. I literally find myself counting down to class days. I love answering questions in class, but we only meet twice a week and it always feels like it ends way too fast 😅. Also, my professor is amazing. Her teaching is genuinely so good, like every class is actually enjoyable. Anyway, that’s my rant over 🧍. Not sure what tag to use either since I’m just here yapping.
By Calm-Minnow
I just started reading *The Years of Rice and Salt* by Kim Stanley Robinson, and it’s set in this version of history where the Black Plague basically wipes out almost everyone in Europe in the 1300s. It made me curious what alternate history settings people have come up with, and how “original” they really get. It feels like a huge chunk of it is stuff like WWII (or after) where the Nazis/Japanese come out on top—Hitler surviving and all that. You see it in things like *The Man in the High Castle*, *Fatherland*, *SS-GB*, *In the Presence of Mine Enemies*, *Farthing*, *The Plot Against America*, and I’m sure there are more I’m forgetting. I could probably list a lot of WWII-related ones pretty easily. That said, I do really like Naomi Novik’s *Temeraire* series, where the Napoleonic wars are fought with dragons, which is a fun change of pace. So I guess I’m wondering: what alternate history setting have you seen that felt the most original? And what about it clicked for you? Also, any thoughts on why the Nazi-related stuff shows up so often?
By SamReads4
This really could’ve been so much better. The sets looked great, the acting was solid, but the story was just all over the place and never really felt like an Agatha Christie mystery to me. Netflix seems more interested in churning out stuff than making it good. Pretty disappointing.
By ella_miami21
I’ve gotten some really solid recommendations for short stories from this place, so I’m hoping to see some more for micro and flash fiction. Who have been your favorite writers in those genres, and what stories are you most into? Also, do you feel like they actually did something different with the whole style/form/approach, or was it mostly the same thing but shorter? I’m looking for anything in that 150–750 word range, but honestly I’d also love some super short six-word stories too—especially the ones that don’t feel cheesy. Thanks!
By Reed_Shadow
Curious if anyone else has read *Gilgamesh* and had it hit you in a way that actually stuck. Also, how much do you think it shaped other big epics that came after it—like the *Iliad*, *Odyssey*, *Mahabharata*, *Ramayana*, and so on? Were any of those kind of direct “next step” kind of things from its era, or is that too much of a stretch? And did it end up influencing stuff like the Bible, the *Bhagavad Gita*, or the Quran—at least indirectly? I’m not really sure where that line would even be. I also keep getting stuck on the characters: Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Their whole friendship, the kinds of adventures they go through, the other characters, the incidents, and even the overall mood/tone of *Gilgamesh* in general. What do you all think of it as “epic” writing? I’ve got a copy of the *Iliad*, *Gilgamesh*, Shakespeare’s sonnets, *Macbeth*, Sophocles, *1984*, Aristotle, and Shelley with me a lot, so yeah, I might be biased. So I’ve been holding back on my own take for now. Feel free to share your thoughts anyway—on *Gilgamesh* or anything else mentioned. Any little trivia, questions you’ve got, or opinions you’re willing to toss out are welcome. I’m trying to soak up as much as I can from everyone. And yeah, fate fans—I guess I’m one of you.
By key_fast2005
I’m trying to find some SF that’s actually well written and doesn’t lean too hard on the usual clichés. I do like hard SF, but it doesn’t have to be only that. Books I really liked, roughly in order: - The Forever War - Joe Haldeman (loved basically all of it, hard SF, war stuff, the ending was romantic) - Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? - Philip K. Dick (religion, philosophy, probably my favorite Dick) - Ender’s Game - Orson Scott Card (war and kids, love it, the game stuff, ending was great) - The Giver - Lois Lowry (totally gripping) - Rendezvous with Rama - Arthur C. Clarke (the ending wasn’t super satisfying, but everything else felt perfect) - The Martian Chronicles - Ray Bradbury (what can I say, it’s Bradbury, all heart) - Contact - Carl Sagan (good hard SF, and honestly I’m fine with the wild ending) - Starship Troopers - Robert A. Heinlein (I kind of see this and Forever War as paired up, one pro-war and one anti-war) - All of Asimov’s short stories (seriously, he’s brilliant, and I like him way more in this format) Books I didn’t like: - Way Station - Clifford D. Simak (the only one I literally threw on the floor when I finished it. Hated it. Don’t really want to get into it) - Dune - Frank Herbert (the worldbuilding is decent I guess, but I could never really care about the characters, and the writing and all the “I know that you know that I know” stuff was awful to me) - Speaker for the Dead - Orson Scott Card (like, what happened to you Ender? go kill something and stop with the religious preaching) - Foundation trilogy - Isaac Asimov (not saying I dislike it exactly, I just found it really boring. Maybe I’m just not into politics in SF) I’ve heard The Martian and The Handmaid’s Tale are good — what do you think? Also I watched some of The Three-Body Problem show and thought it was really flat and cliché. Is the book actually better?
By RapidCrown91
Just finished this book and I’m kind of at a loss for words. It really doesn’t pull any punches about how racist and imperial the US government has been, and how a lot of it seems like it got shoved out of sight. It starts with the early, clearly racist stuff, then gets into what happened with overseas territories in the 1800s, and later on the post–WWII moves where territory gets “replaced” with military bases instead. Altogether it comes off like a pretty straight-up picture of expansionism that people conveniently sweep under the rug. Edit (because I forgot how messy comment sections can get): 1) This isn’t one of those “America bad” takes. It’s basically just laying out facts—both what the US did and what the people it colonized did too. The facts are what they are, and yeah, they’re pretty damning. 2) I know some folks are saying they learned a lot of this already or were taught it in school. If that’s true, great—that’s stuff that should be taught if we’re serious about fighting imperialism. But I’m honestly not sure I ever got the kind of nuanced history this book talks about, and I doubt I’m the only one. It definitely opened my eyes to things that should be standard knowledge. 3) The “what about other countries” arguments feel pointless to me. Sure, other empires did awful things too, but that doesn’t erase what these governments did. They should still be called out. And I get the whole “human nature” angle, like if the strong always end up dominating the weak—but that doesn’t mean we should just shrug and excuse the stuff in our own past.
By CrimsonPencil
I know I’m about to say this about a Hugo winner, but this one just didn’t work for me. Mahit keeps going on about how “political” she is, and it didn’t feel like that was doing anything for the story. I kept waiting for actual interesting political stuff to play out, but the real conflict doesn’t show up until the last quarter of the book. After that, I also never felt like the setting and characters were grabbing me enough on their own to carry me through the slower parts. The whole imago idea is genuinely cool—basically a device that lets a dead person stay in your head and talk to you. But Mahit’s imago is broken, so it kind of kills the chance to see what the concept could really do. And one of the biggest questions the book keeps circling—why her imago is broken—doesn’t really get answered in any satisfying way. Worse, it ends up not mattering much to what drives the plot or the characters, even though the book spends a lot of time with long explanations about everyone’s motivations, and those people don’t always feel that present or fleshed out when you’re actually reading about them. The heavy reliance on exposition for motivations instead of showing us who they are reminded me of Ancillary Sword and Ancillary Mercy, which I didn’t love after how amazing Ancillary Justice was. I will say the last part of the novel gets pretty interesting once things finally start happening, but I’m still not sure it’s worth slogging through most of Memory Called Empire just to reach that.