r/Hyperion

I was thinking the other day, if humanity ever wants to travel to another star or galaxy, we would be bored out of our skulls along the way. So cryosleep is often presented as an option for these travels, but then again, imagine arriving there and the conditions are so extreme, life there is boring as hell again, living in domes, space suits etc. Not being able to actually live in a decent way. So what if we ditch the idea that we should remain human to become a space faring civilisation? I know I’m not the first one to come up with this, so my question is: are there any books, series or movies, that go deeper on this approach? I know the Hyperion cantos has the Ousters, but I’m looking for something with more focus and detail on this. Like, it’s the main thread in the story. Thanks.

In Czech it was a "scorpion" (štír). Kinda elegant when I think about it, as it kinda fits both phonetically and visually. (Only direct translation of "Shrike" in Czech is the local name of the butcher bird.)

Holy shit.

That might have been the best chapter of a book I have ever read. I have genuinely never been so interested in what happens next. The Priest’s tale had me thinking about it over night. All I can say is, holy shit.

I have so many questions, so many. The Shrike, the basilica, the ending of the chapter.

But holy shit. Just wow!

I genuinely will need 10 video essays on this book once I finish (lol).

I genuinely can’t wait to read more.

Anyone have any thoughts? (No spoilers please!)

Who’s your favorite minor character and why is it Izzy the Dog?

I've started the Hyperion Cantos 1.5 months ago and am already halfway through Endymion and I'm loving it, truly some of the most interesting, thought-provoking and simply great Sci-Fi I've ever consumed. One thing always irked me though, the ending of Fall of Hyperion is just a little too out there for me. Specifically the scene where the disembodied Severn/Keats floats in the datumplane (which should have been shut down at that point because Gladstone nuked the farcasters) and just sort of swoops baby Rachel out of the Shrikes hands while in the Sphinx, after which baby Rachel and Moneta appear out of the Sphinx portal. How can Severn/Keats interact with the Shrike after it vanished into the Sphinx? Don't get me wrong, I loved all the other parts of the ending, and the book itself, it's just that one scene that seemed weird (and not the good kind) to me.

Am I simply misremembering/ Did I read it wrong?

Please make it make sense! Thank you!

<some spoilers ahead for Hyperion and Rise of Hyperion>

So last month I handed in a BA thesis to my university, a literary analysis of Hyperion or more specifically, the Shrike and its role.

My argument for the paper was that when you strip away the books given origins for the Shrike (muddled as they are), the Shrike actually begins to fall more into the role of that of an angel or at the very least a divine being. Essentially the Cult of the Shrike has the right of it, except they didn't understand its full purpose.

I based my work on the depictions of angels as they were presented in the old testament, not as beings of pure goodness but rather as something that at times is rather horrifying... Think of the Destroying Angel of the 10th plague for example. They often test the faith of the humans they encounter through various means.

In this sense, the Shrike's presence can be seen as undertaking a divine mission of sorts. Its horrible murder of anyone who ventures near the Time Tombs as well as the strange encounters it has with the pilgrims is merely its ongoing mission to ensure that events unfold exactly as the UI intended (God). Although whether that is the Machine UI or the Human one (or Both) is up for debate. Given the time travel and timeline entanglements this becomes even more complicated.

To support my argument I had an in depth look at three of the pilgrim's tales and how the Shrike in essence forces those people to confront their relationship with their faiths and/or moral framework, making or breaking them in the process.

Without going into specifics, my argument was that Paul Duré (while not a pilgrim but crucial to the story) is already a man about to lose his faith in the Catholic church, dying at the time of the novel. His crime of apostasy and faking archeological evidence to drum up interest in the church very much resembles a saint's hagiography where the saint to be is tested through sin and divine trials. The shrike's "offer" of false immortality through the cruciform causes Duré to rediscover his faith and accept the fact that things must die (he and the Church both) if they are to be reborn to live again. His self crucifixion is his final answer to the Shrike, choosing pain and suffering in order to do what is right by his faith. His reward is ironically enough his resurrection some years later and his ascension to pope.

Col. Kassad was my second pilgrim where I argued that Kassad was a man straying from his twin-allegiances to that of Islam and of the in-world concept of Neo-Bushido. Within both teachings we can find examples of how a warrior is supposed to behave (moral, merciful, righteous) which is something Kassad initially appears as with his dedication to honest warfare but is revealed later to love the alternative. He loves violence, earning the moniker "The Butcher of Bressia" for his absolute drive to win, to fight and to maim.

Kassad's "angelic visitation" then comes in the form of Moneta or the "Moneta/Shrike" hybrid. Whenever he is performing like a good, valiant soldier, she arrives and they have sex. After the battle of Bressia however, she does not and Kassad only mentions that he thinks he hears her call his name. This indicates a punishment of sort for his transgressive, violent acts. This is immediately reinforced following the battle on the Hospital ship where he once again fights not because he loves it but because he has to. After landing on Hyperion, they meet for real and have sex again. It's important to remember that each of these sexual encounters are described like a euphoric and dreamlike thing, something akin to an angelic visitation. The final fight where Kassad fights against the ouster remnants using the time-dilation effect, a completely dishonorable act according to both his moral codes, again brings out the love of violence in him. The ousters are butchered without mercy or fairness. And the result? The following sex-scene with Moneta turns into a nightmare... the "angel", Moneta/Shrike, reveals itself fully and punishes him for his wickedness... or perhaps in Kassad's case gives him one final warning. Kassad flees from the scene and becomes a pacifist. He is still a warrior, but now one that fights ONLY when he must and when it is just. War is bad.

My third pilgrim was Sol Weintraub. His "Binding of Isaac" story is basically a retelling of the Akedah and as such the Shrike steps into the role of messenger for God, demanding the sacrifice. This is evident through the attention to the eyes and later the allusion to the "Golem" myth. For those of you that don't know, the Golem was a mythological creature brought to life by a human rabbi, although with divine methods. This ties in nicely to the idea of the Shrike being manufactured (a robot) but also with one foot in the realm of the divine. Sol's entire trial with the Shrike is for him to stop denying his Jewish heritage and to approach God on equal footing, re-negotiating their relationship.

"There will be no more sacrifices."

I made further allusions to the Shrike's possible divine nature by examining its physical form. Its metallic surface especially is worth mentioning as it serves dual purposes. Angels in the Bible were sometimes said to be "bathed in the Lord's splendor/light" which to me sounds an awful lot like shifting metal which reflects light. We even get treated to such a scene a couple of times... think back to Duré's encounter with the Shrike among the Bikura where it reflected the dim red glow of the cruciforms... or later when Lenar Hoyt dies in the time-tombs. Flames erupt below and reflect on the shrike, giving it during that scene a more "inferal" or perhaps devilish appearance... a punisher. His death scene is him essentially being consigned to hell for his failures.

I wanted to write about the other pilgrims as well in my paper, but alas my word limit prohibited me from doing so. In particular I wanted to examine the characters of Martin Silenus, who can effectively be said to have entered into a non-verbal Faustian bargain with the entity. The Shrike here would have taken the role of Mephistopheles... not an angel but the devil himself. An examination of angels/devils as beheld by pagans would have been very fun to do, especially so as Martin is one of the only protagonists we see the Shrike directly "punish" for the wrong action. He refused to stop writing the cantos and wound up on the tree of thorns, if only temporarily.

I don't know what angles I would have taken with the rest of the pilgrims if given the chance. The Consul for example is the only one who declares himself an atheist, so it would have been interesting to contrast his encounter with an "angel" through the eyes of one such. Although if memory serves, Brawne Lamia declares at one point that she does not "succumb" to religion, indicating atheism... or at the very least agnosticism. Ironic, given how she essentially gives birth to someone that becomes a savior figure which ultimately ensures the creation of "God". Het Masteen and his quasi-druidic Templar faction would have been equally interesting to explore, but alas we get precious little information about him in those first two books. His intended role as "captain of the tree of thorns" would have warranted examination at the very least.

What are your thoughts on all this?

In your head canon, what is the Lions, Tigers, and Bears’ plan and deal with Aenea for Earth? Do you think the child will have to live up to Messiah like expectations? Could Dan Simmons have continued on the series with the way he left it.

This is some of the best writing that I have read. The scholar’s tale will be the gold standard for me in the future.

First time reading the series. Just finished reading Chapter 4 of Hyperion, The Scholar's Tale. The parts that tell Rachel's encounter the Shrike under the Sphinx are written from the POV of Rachel, while the rest of the tale is written from the POV of Sol.

Is that switch of POV intentional or just an unfortunate plot hole? Based on what I know by the end of The Scholar's Tale, nobody could've known Rachel's experience from that night except Rachel herself. And Rachel doesn't remember what happened. Do we just have to accept that part of the chapter is told from Rachel's POV so that the reader has more info than any character in the book? Does the book later explain this?

Down to discuss anything! Loved every page of it. Immediately watched and read a bunch of reviews, I can’t believe how split the opinion is??

I thought Simmons did a wonderful job of alternating viewpoints, the chaos of multiple POVs per chapter near the end really conveyed the frantic state that everyone was in. The addition of Severn was a bit rough at first, but he blended into the story incredibly well.

When I started Hyperion last month, I read a comment on this sub saying something along the lines of, “Simmons never introduces something he doesn’t later come back to explain”. And that was absolutely true! My favorite part about this, other than being a satisfying conclusion, was that nearly all of my questions were answered in very interesting fashion! Really scratched my sci-fi itch!

Now onto The Book of The New Sun before diving back into Endymion.

Dan Simmons ties a lot of the book (and I've heard subsequent books) to John Keats. The real world Keats had a lover named Fanny (also mentioned in the book) and coincidentally her last name was Brawne. Did the character Johnny ever point out that Brawne Lamia and her shared the same name? Or was this just another reference Simmons makes to John Keats. If it's the latter I find it strange why Johnny would never mention the connection, since he has the memories of the real Keats.

Had a good week of letting it all sink in and one of the first things I thought was “I should have bought the books so I can reread them right away, or at least look up things, now everything is still fresh”.

First I was a bit divided on the ending. I was expecting/hoping an ending like FoH - super epic, with an insanely deep impact ( >!Blowing up the farcaster network changed the entire way everyone lived!< ) - but later on I realised >!Aenea’s death!< really did change everything, just on a longer timescale.

Lots of people here are a bit turned off by the love story between Raul and Aenea, but it didn’t affect me. But I should say I read it in Dutch and seeing here that in the English version the term “kiddo” is used a lot, I get it. In Dutch, they use “meid” and that has a less juvenile sound to it. Was it “meisje”, then it would have had the same vibe. But generally it was made clear in the story a few times, once things got more “intense”, Aenea was 21. So yeah, ok.

I love how the >!cruciform!< got a central role later on in the story.

The story line about Moneta and Kassad didn’t have that big of an impact as I expected, but it was a good time bending side story.

There was a lot of poetry which, I must admit, I mostly skimmed over quite rapidly.

The metaphysical angle about Empathy was a lot to take in the first half, because it felt quite vague. Glad to see that got more context in the later half.

How did Raul suddenly realise >!A. Bettik!< was >!an Observer!< after he said something seemingly random during their goodbye? It felt a bit bolted on there to close a loop, but maybe I missed some subtleties.

Curious to hear your ideas, fellow pilgrims.
See you later, alligator.

I can't understand how the Ousters haven't developed weapons systems that makes everything the Hegemony or the Pax have looks pathetic.

The Pax and Hegemony are both stagnants due to the Core parasitism, while the Ousters are building a Dyson sphere. They should have technologies even the Core can't understand and replicate.

They are also aware that the Hegemony and the Pax are genocidal maniacs, with all the sentient species that have to take refuge in Ouster space to escape extermination, and latter the Pax crusade.

How why they don't develop more advanced weapons system and ships to defend themselves against the Core, or even invade them to end the atrocities they commit with their Hegemony/Pax puppets? From what I read in the book it feels they let themselves being slaughtered.

Even if the archangels use Core weapons more advanced than what the Ousters can imagine, they could have studied the ship of De Soya after he defected, and had 10 years to build counter-measure to the archangels. They also took control of Gideon drones, so they can share these counter-measures to all Ousters system without time-debt.

Even if they can only use the Hawking drive, they seems to have much more ressources available than the Core and the Pax puppet, so they could have in every important systems enough ships to defeat any Pax ship agression, or even invade Pax space to at least force them to be on the defensive so they can massacre Ousters civilians.

After the agression of the Hegemony at Bressia, I think they should have wage war against the Hegemony, and they could have invade all of it during the Fall, and make sure the Core influence of humanity disappears.

I have almost finished the last book, so maybe there are more explanations, but for know it simply breaks my suspension of disbelief.