That's a more detailed way of putting what you're looking for. And I enjoy books like that as well (e.g. A Song of Ice of Fire). Incidentally, how'd you feel about KSR's Mars books, if you've read them?
But I guess I forced myself to read enough Golden Age sci-fi that I developed a neurotic category for lazy... "deep worlds"? I'm looking at you and Foundation, Asimov.
So much of that stuff is a splash of human-esque characters and plot on an otherwise naked thought puzzle that I feel like it deserves its own category. I suppose it irks me less when I feel like the author did that not because they couldn't do otherwise, but because they intentionally didn't care to. Which is to say, the thought puzzle interested them more than the characters.
I feel the same about Lost. JJ Abrams doesn't give a damn about solving mysteries. He just likes creating them. Not liking him for not solving them is like not liking a dog because it wags its tail. That's a valid preference against tail wagging... but maybe not dogs for such a person?
And I really wouldn't chance a reread. I started reading it because I'd heard good things about the tech. Let good memories lie.
The lines that did me in were something to the effect of: "{Someone does a thing that makes Honor happy}. Honor felt happy because someone did a thing." (!!!)
Mars was alright. I had a lot of trouble with one of the books. Took almost a year to read because it felt like there was nothing but political infighting in it.
Foundation was actually what got me started on the "future histories" kick. The civilization is a more fleshed-out character than any human in the story. But I was eleven and didn't read any further than the original trilogy.
My favorite golden-age sci-fi would probably be Heinlein's "The Past Through Tomorrow" collection. The parallels between Elon Musk and D. D. Harriman are amusing.
But I guess I forced myself to read enough Golden Age sci-fi that I developed a neurotic category for lazy... "deep worlds"? I'm looking at you and Foundation, Asimov.
So much of that stuff is a splash of human-esque characters and plot on an otherwise naked thought puzzle that I feel like it deserves its own category. I suppose it irks me less when I feel like the author did that not because they couldn't do otherwise, but because they intentionally didn't care to. Which is to say, the thought puzzle interested them more than the characters.
I feel the same about Lost. JJ Abrams doesn't give a damn about solving mysteries. He just likes creating them. Not liking him for not solving them is like not liking a dog because it wags its tail. That's a valid preference against tail wagging... but maybe not dogs for such a person?
And I really wouldn't chance a reread. I started reading it because I'd heard good things about the tech. Let good memories lie.
The lines that did me in were something to the effect of: "{Someone does a thing that makes Honor happy}. Honor felt happy because someone did a thing." (!!!)