Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Ready Player One is for newbies. From the simplistic structure, writing and diction to the easy, facile, and overexplained 80's cultural and nerd references to the adolescent tone, storyline, and characters, the required player level is decidedly low-tier and the loot from the quest, white to green.

From the very first, the intrepid quester is greeted with 3 to 4 chapters of exposition that, while explaining the world, offer little narrative impetus. Like an endless scrolling log of NPC quest text, the reader is met here and elsewhere with what would seem to be unnecessary and unwanted explanations of MMOs, video games, virtual reality and its tropes.

Where and when the author finally diverges from this exposition, the language, ideas, and plot devices are novice. To be told repeatably and ad nauseum that the character watched this list of shows or played this list of games for "so many hours" or "so many times" is not character development and is unnecessary once he has been established as an afficiando. To have numerous chapters end with "and then I knew exactly what I had to" is not compelling or imaginative writing. The writing is so ordinary, so uninteresting, so anti-nerdy, that one wonders for whom this book is intended. At base, it would seem the lowest common denominator. In essence, the literary newb.

Though the novel pretends to be aimed at the 1337 of 80's pop cultural and geek cultural readers, this PUG of cultural touchstones is the most facile and pandering references one can imagine. Back to the Future, Knight Rider, War Games, and mother-have-mercy Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Where the references do become the slightest bit non-pervasive in our current cultural knowledge, the player is met with explanations as to what Joust is (frigging Joust), or what Zork is. Is this 1337?

Again this raises the question as to the intended audience for this material. If aimed at the generation that lived through it, why would one need a laundry list of series, movies, and ideas from that era and exhaustive explanations as if one had no knowledge of that time? To inspire nostalgia? And is a laundry list effective in that respect? Similarly, if aimed at the modern day 80's retro afficiando, would he or she need similar prompting or data dumps to become engaged or informed by such material? The answer to these questions is No. This stuff is for newbies who know little or value little of this time and its music, movies, and games.

With respect to the novel's science fiction roots, where is the deep, convoluted text that we come expect from a tale in this genre? Where is the language of the future? Where is the slang? Where is joy of decoding a text and the immersion in an alternate world that we might expect from an early William Gibson or a modern day Neal Stephenson or even from the trashiest genre fiction? It's nowhere to be seen. The text is so "approachable" as to be barely credible as science fiction or even some kind of gamer/MMO oriented fiction. The structure, the language, the word choices are bland, ordinary, and definitely not geeky. For newbs!

The story is that of the adolescent: adolescent emotions, adolescent relationships, adolescent goals, and adolescent sensibilities. Characters with unearned, irrational fears and complexes about appearance, identity, and the opposite sex. Boys and girls unable, unwilling, inexperienced, and ill-equipped to engage in opposite sex relationships to any meaningful degree. The accumulation of gear, seeking after high scores, online achievements, and general oneupsmanship. After-school Specials' sentiments and lessons about friendship, sex, gender, and sexual-orientation. The narrative is virtually dripping with well-intentioned Young Adult genre appeal, who cannot be considered anything other than a newbie where life is concerned.

The stereotypes, the stockcard villains, the bland writing, the cookie cutter MMO quest narrative, and the ever-present first person narrator who is always willing to explain to the reader something he has intimate knowledge of for other apparent reason than convenient exposition and low expectations placed on the reader by the author lead me to believe Ready Player One is for newbs.

That said, I didn't hate the book, but it definitely did not rise to my expectations or, dare I say, my "level" or the level of the informed science fiction reader/gamer/child of the 80's.

After listening to the interview posted by Nick here:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/6...

I am inclined to think that Ready Player One is for Ernest Cline. Apparently, it is somehow a deeply personal book for him being based on his own obsessions, likes, and dislikes.

However, the comparison that interviewer makes between this book and Snow Crash are for me unfounded. Stephenson created a dense, complicated, and nearly alien world in Snow Crash. Highly original in almost every regard and I don't even like Snow Crash. Cline, however, instead of creating something new, mashed up what he knew and what you know and handed it back to you. Instead of creating a new Monty Python, he gives you the reference. Instead of creating a new game, a different game, he gives you the reference. Instead creating a new idea of virtual reality, he gives you back the convenient tropes and references.

To my mind, the nerd, the geek wants that something new, that flight of imagination, the convoluted complexities. In Ready Player One, and this is bolstered by the reaction of the BoingBoing interviewer, I see a recapitulation of what has come before and a kind of reassurance to those people that what they did back then was meaningful and great in some way. It is the nostalgia of an age gone by for people barely out of their thirties who like the author may have actual adult responsibilities now. They are hearkening back to an age of carefree days and mythologizing those pursuits into something grander than they ever were.

This book makes it safe to like what you liked as a child or a teen and perhaps even now as an adult by seeing it laid out in print in a commercial form. To my mind, it is a validation where none is needed.

The book is fun. Its popcorn. Over analyzing or putting it up on a pedestal as saying its something great is unnecessary. Its a guilty pleasure for those who liked it. If you didn't like it that's fine. You probably were not its intended audience. To me this was a geekier version of the movie "The Wedding Singer". Its simply nostalgia for nostalgia's sake but that is fine. Not all science fiction has to be high art. Sometimes you need a little escapism and light fun.

I think some of the things you listed as not liking about the book were done on purpose. The over explanation and blatant wink-wink nod-nods are part of reliving some of those things he was explaining.

Put me in the 'not as great as it was hyped to be' category. I saw some people referring to this as nostalgia-porn, which I can grok.

Two specific complaints. One, the main character seems a total Mary Sue. I really didn't like spending that much time in the headspace of a adolescent lovesick boy without no social life.

Two, for all the namechecking of sf authors, I don't believe any written sf was used in the actual game. Funny, because who's more likely to read this book, the ones fixated on games, movies, or books?

Lepton wrote: "With respect to the novel's science fiction roots, where is the deep, convoluted text that we come expect from a tale in this genre? Where is the language of the future? Where is the slang? Where is joy of decoding a text and the immersion in an alternate world that we might expect from an early William Gibson or a modern day Neal Stephenson or even from the trashiest genre fiction? It's nowhere to be seen."

Except, not all sci-fi fits your limited definition of sci-fi. I enjoy stories where there is only one sci-fi element introduced and the story centers around the characters affected by that element.

The Time Traveler's Wife is a good example, or the movie TiMER. H.G. Wells' sci-fi don't fit this strict definition of sci-fi because the Time Machine and War of the Worlds have one sci-fi element which the stories revolved around, but was used as social commentary of the time. Frankenstein would also not fit that definition for the same reasons.

No world-building or immersion in a fictional world or slang or hard-science or in-depth explanation of fancy technology, and yet they are still powerful stories with a basis on very few, if not precisely one, science fictional elements.

Well, it is sold in the mainstream fiction section.

As someone who enjoys literary sci-fi, not everything has to be literary to be enjoyed.

Jenny wrote: "As someone who enjoys literary sci-fi, not everything has to be literary to be enjoyed."

Agreed.

This book is cleverer than you think. Stay with me hear. This book maybe seen as a work of post modernism. In which, Literary, science fiction authors, celebrate the kitsch, popular and shiny. Pulp fiction may be seen as a example of this. Most eighties art had a post modern edge. So you could say that this is a post modern take on post modernism. Of course, It may just be a fun read.

And, underneath the shiny, it looks at some series issues. The future of the web and the future of the planet. If you had the money, and the planet was dying, which would you choose- a ship off world or to stay around and try to fix it.

Vikz wrote: "This book is cleverer than you think. Stay with me hear. This book maybe seen as a work of post modernism. In which, Literary, science fiction authors, celebrate the kitsch, popular and shiny. ..."

Not to mention the cross-section of networking technology and identity.

xenphi wrote: "Vikz wrote: "This book is cleverer than you think. Stay with me hear. This book maybe seen as a work of post modernism. In which, Literary, science fiction authors, celebrate the kitsch, popula..."

true

Sometimes a book can simply be a book for entertainment. It doesn't have to make any kind of profound social statement. Sometimes it can be just fun to read, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book.

I like scrolling NPC text.

I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "... I drank what?"

Nick wrote: "I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "... I drank what?""

For me, as popcorn it was stale.

I didn't find it particularly enjoyable as I was often shouting at Wil Wheaton to get on with it already and for the other reasons I stated. I wasn't expecting a treatise, but I was expecting it to be competent. Compared with almost all the other books we have read in this group, it is the lowest in literary value or in simple diversity and complexity of language.

With respect to postmodernism, I think you can take almost any contemporary cultural artifact or product and analyze it through a postmodern lens. That doesn't make it particular good or special.

Tom wrote: "I like scrolling NPC text."

This place needs a +1 button.

Lepton wrote: "For me, as popcorn it was stale.

I didn't find it particularly enjoyable as I was often shouting at Wil Wheaton to get on with it already and for the other reasons I stated. I wasn't expecting a ..."


Maybe you are reading it wrong. :-)

Nick wrote: "Maybe you are reading it wrong. :-) "

It's reading right, man, look.

As i mentioned in another post, the book works for me - but maybe not for everyone. It is a teenage adventure, a treasure hunting story. It is not deep, it was not designed to make you think.
It works for me because I was a teenager in the 80's - it works because of the nostalgia. I agree with Nick, it is fun, it is popcorn. It should not be taken (or analysed) too seriously, or else you risk missing the fun within it.

Sean wrote: "Nick wrote: "Maybe you are reading it wrong. :-) "

It's reading right, man, look.

"

That's it man, game over man, game over!

Lepton wrote: "I didn't find it particularly enjoyable as I was often shouting at Wil Wheaton to get on with it already"

Aha! Well Lepton, I highly recommend listening at 2x speed. Wheaton is draggy at regular speed but the book is pretty exciting when you cut his pauses to a minimum.

I knew what I was in for after I read the Kindle sample and I bought it anyway ($13!). I knew it wasn't going to get any better after the first 20%(!) was basically world exposition...and I kept reading anyway...

There's a lot wrong with this book and I think the only reason I kept reading was just to check out what reference he'd throw in next. Which I think says it all...

If you didn't spend any of your formative years in the 80's there is NOTHING for you in this book.

This book actually reminds me a bit of books I read when I was a kid in the late 80s. I read a lot of fantasy quest-based stories then. I loved them then, I love them now. I've got no problem with the plot, simplistic as it is. (I'm about 25% of the way through right now.)

Okay, I'm a child of the 80s (born 81 - great year for nerd culture...look it up). I'm finding Ready Player One a fun and enjoyable book, which I'm very much enjoying.

(view spoiler)[I could tell I was really into the story and making a connection when I was yelling "It means THE TOMB OF HORRORS!!!!" at my car's speakers. (hide spoiler)]

I'm just confused about why you'd put so much time into something you DON'T enjoy. Typing that up was a LOT of life spent to say "I didn't enjoy it, and was confused about the target audience"

David wrote: "Sometimes a book can simply be a book for entertainment. It doesn't have to make any kind of profound social statement. Sometimes it can be just fun to read, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading this..."

My sentiments exactly

Jenny wrote: "Lepton wrote: "I didn't find it particularly enjoyable as I was often shouting at Wil Wheaton to get on with it already"

Aha! Well Lepton, I highly recommend listening at 2x speed. Wheaton is dr..."

I found 1 1/2 times worked good for me, LOL

I watched alot of movies as a kid in the 80's but I got to really know the movies as a poor college student in the 90's watching while in the dorm. As far as arcade games of that time. I wasted entire allowances in the arcade.

I am about half way through the book and I have to say I am enjoying it. As a child of the 80's, I love the references to my favorite movies, music, games and culture (such that it was.)

I am not ashamed to say that when they came out, I loved Ladyhawke and Legend, so you may dismiss my intellectual level just from that statement.

I can very easily see how someone not steeped in 80's culture would look at this book in a less favorable light.

I agree with the OP in a huge way. You can call it over analysing but i was reading and getting more and more annoyed that this book that had been promised to be a geek nostalgia extravaganza was in fact just a lightly fleshed out young adult novel that is conicidentally set in an unrealistic dystopian day dream, not nightmare, just a day dream.

Basically I could see the promise of this book and that only made it more annoying that all the promises went ultimately unfulfilled.

I don't tend to be overly harsh on books because i usually get some intrinsic value just because i enjoy the act of reading but this time I was incredibly let down because how hyped this book has been in the geek community.

All in all, this is a book for people whose main obsession is 80s trivia, not people whose main obsession is quality prose.

Patrick wrote: "Okay, I'm a child of the 80s (born 81 - great year for nerd culture...look it up). I'm finding Ready Player One a fun and enjoyable book, which I'm very much enjoying.

[spoilers re..."

Probably just to give an opinion, thats what I like about goodreads, plenty of opinions.

David wrote: "Sometimes a book can simply be a book for entertainment. It doesn't have to make any kind of profound social statement. Sometimes it can be just fun to read, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading this..."

The problem is that this book tried to make some profound social judgements but lacked the dedication to world building and character development to make anyone care about the social side of the equation. And before anyone says anything, no, describing 80s nostalgia virtual worlds does not count as world building. Show, Not tell please.

Vikz wrote: "This book is cleverer than you think. Stay with me hear. This book maybe seen as a work of post modernism. In which, Literary, science fiction authors, celebrate the kitsch, popular and shiny. ..."

I'm inclined to think you're being more generous than you should be here. I don't think there is any real intention for this book to be seen as a postmodern deconstruction of 80s nostalgia, you just end up looking for that kind of reasoning because the lack lustre prose doesn't give any other substantial answer to the question "what the hell is this?!"

As another metaphor, I love the works of Hayao Miyazaki (Spirited Away, Kiki's Delivery Service, ...) and every time I watch one I find some new hidden nugget that I missed before. That said, I have to be in the right mind frame to enjoy them. Some days the old brain cells want nothing more than Sponge Bob or Roadrunner. Ready Player One falls into the latter mental bubble gum grouping and certainly has it's place.

For me this book really is all about the 80's references. There were several moments where I was throwing my fists in the air because the narrative mentioned something I loved. Underneath that, the plot was weak, the protagonist's journey was lackluster, and god help me if that final chapter had 1 more description about playing a coin op video game I would have given up.
I enjoyed the world building aspect of the book far more than the narrative. As for underlying social issues, it illustrated the growing economic inequality quite well. (view spoiler)[Rivendell? Ogg lives in Rivendell? And while I'm here, there are no TORCHES in Rivendell. (hide spoiler)]

Ugh. The descriptions of PLAYING video games. I scanned most of them after Joust.

Better or worse just to write, "It took me X hours, but I beat it.."?

i found it comical how much time he devoted to various tv shows and games. he had enough time to watch the entire run of the fact of life multiple times, memorize fifteen different movies, and become a master of a bunch of obscure atari games that are almost impossible, and just by chance, those were the shows/movies/games he needed to win the prize? i know the kid has no social life but good lord.

Joel wrote: "i found it comical how much time he devoted to various tv shows and games. he had enough time to watch the entire run of the fact of life multiple times, memorize fifteen different movies, and beco..."

Yeah I did think the same, but then Katniss was afforded all the right skills in The Hunger Games... you just kind of go with it.

I would like to point out that the title of this thread should be "for n00bs" not "for newbies" LTP.

After reading a short ways into our alternate read I found a latin phrase that somewhat fits here.

Tom wrote: "..LTP."

LTP?

Man you stop IM-ing so much and suddenly you don't know half the internet lingo.

Ready Player One is for Andrew.

Tom wrote: "I would like to point out that the title of this thread should be "for n00bs" not "for newbies" LTP."

I thought it was L2P?

Tamahome wrote: "Ready Player One is for Andrew."

Stalling because you don't know what it stands for either huh :) I thought he meant less than perfect, not learn to play (L2P) but then 1/2 the issue with these abbreviations are they are overused in different contexts.

I don't expect this novel to win any Hugos, but I still enjoyed it. All the 80s geek references contributed to this enjoyment, I'm sure.

The seemingly silly obsession with TV shows and video games feeds into an important theme of the story, including what could happen to a society that tunes out the real world too much. (view spoiler)[ At one point, Wade realizes that he really has no life and esentially declares himself a pop culture obsessed loser and recluse. <\spoiler>

Sure, Cline could have taken this deeper, but I still think this was much more than a "popcorn" read.
Sure, Cline could have taken this deeper, but I still think it was more than just a popcorn read. (hide spoiler)]

Nick wrote: "Rick wrote: "I don't expect this novel to win any Hugos, but I still enjoyed. All the 80s geek references contributed to this enjoyment, I'm sure.

The seemingly silly obsession with TV shows and ..."

Sorry, was having trouble posting last night. Think I actually posted it 4 times .

I didn't grow up and the 80's and I still greatly enjoyed this book. Ill admit it wasn't the greatest book ive ever read but i mean does it have to be a masterpiece for me to enjoy it. no it doesn't all that maters is that I enjoyed it

To echo Lepton a bit, I think my frustration with the book stems from being fed popcorn when I was hungry for meat and potatoes. And there is, in my mind, no good excuse for it. Surely it is possible to write a book like RPO with believable characters, good writing, clever world building, and a compelling plot? At times it does seem he is reaching for something more substantial, but it just falls flat.

I found myself wishing the story was about Halliday and his friend, and their strugglss to build the Oasis, what that meant for their relationship(s) and humanity in general. I would have loved to see how the future Earth culture played into that as well. And surely such a story would have been able to keep the references?

In the end, RPO truly is just a catalog of 80's nostalgic references. Really nothing more. I know it to be true, but I have a hard time accepting that at face value, I guess ;P

In its defense, I think it achieved a slice of decent social commentary in its second half. Early on the future dystopia seems hastily sketched - rushed through in order to get the story inside the OASIS. But during the whole indenture segment, we got more vivid glimpses of the how the outside world had decayed as people retreated to the OASIS, and specifics of the lives of corporate slaves, etc. I also liked how the end of the book pointed outward instead of cyber-inward.

But I do think Boing Boing's Mark Frauenfelder is off target ranking it with the likes of Snow Crash and Neuromancer - the quality of the writing and world-building is nowhere near those books.

And my biggest issue was Kline leaning too hard on his references - sometimes he'd do creative things with the 80s content, but too often it felt like he was letting the references do the work for him.

Despite all that, I did have fun reading it.

Sodon wrote: I found myself wishing the story was about Halliday and his friend, and their strugglss to build the Oasis, what that meant for their relationship(s) and humanity in general. I would have loved to see how the future Earth culture played into that as well. And surely such a story would have been able to keep the references?

That would be interesting. Maybe a prequel? (with deeper characterizations?)