A thought

I was checking out the blurbs for the new Peter F. Hamilton book, Pandora's Star, a few moments ago. I've been fascinated by Hamilton because he writes books that are so long that you can print the full cover art on the spine of the book and it's still legible, but I've never finished one of his books (I threw the first of his big fat books across the room when I realised it started with 300 pages of backstory). Anyhow, I was struck by the fact that the blurbers cited Asimov's "Foundation" and Niven's "Known Space" as comparison points. Both works are essentially short story cycles, while this is a stronking great big hunk of wood pulp. A question: is anyone else ever struck by the disparity between description and actuality in this commentary gig that we're playing with?

discuss this post at our messageboard