Talk:The Algebraist

Untitled

Some mistake, surely.

Charles Matthews 20:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

So. will be published. Is this encyclopedic?

Charles Matthews 07:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

It will be, in 5 months' time.

We can delete and then ressurect it, if you want. But that does seem a little pointless.

James F. (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

OK - I read Bsnks too. But, isn't this really just an advertisement, as it stands?

Charles Matthews 09:11, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose, but you could say that about most of the entries on books on the Wikipedia right now.

I've added a small amount of text extracted from the pre-print blurb, but it's still... non-optimal.

Thoughts?

James F. (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Could redirect to Iain M. Banks and place this plot summary there, for now.

Charles Matthews 10:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm pretty much happy either way; you decide — be bold! ;-)

James F. (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

As this book will be released very soon, I have given this book it's own page again. --Dan Huby 15:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

I remember reading in an interview somewhere that The Algebraist might be the first of a series of books - but I can't for the life of me remember where. Anyone better at Googling than me able to find it?

I was reminded of this book when looking through Cassini pictures earlier. Here, have the original photo for the front cover! 194.247.44.210 3 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

Found it - he says "It was always going to be a long book anyway, and it’s actually longer than I intended. It probably could become a trilogy, but for now it’s a standalone novel." So there you go, a possibility rather than a probability... 194.247.44.210 3 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

Cover picture

This library catalog ([here]) has a thumbnail-sized cover picture (and a larger one available on clicking). Can we use this picture? Can we use pictures from there in general (there are cover pictures for most, if not all books in the catalog)? I'm not sure of the copyright status. Golwengaud 05:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The truth

Guinnog: perhaps read the book again? http://www.hex4.com/ Joncolvin

Not a Culture novel?

I take it this is not set in the Culture universe?

Correct. Psychobabble 22:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there are some startling similarities! For example, the Beyonders seem to be a grouping that very much resembles the origins of the society that became the the culture (as described in Banks' notes on the culture essay). The Mercatoria is thus much like the oppressive regimes that were seeking to stifle the 'proto-culture'...

The AIs are very much like the Minds of the culture.

All a bit moot I suppose, since the history of the culture is older than that of Earth bound civilisations (which are explicitly referenced in the Algebraist) and the culture is known to have visited Earth (State of the Art).

Having said that though, the Algebraist does make reference to two strands of humanity the 'remainder humans' stuck on Earth and the ones who were kidnapped and 'mentored' as part of the galactic culture.

Even so, the timelines quoted for this book an the culture novels don't seem to tally, so what I think is a nice idea, doesn't seem to work! :-( 82.211.95.178 15:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't possibly be in the Culture universe, because the Culture has hyperspace and no wormholes. It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that the laws of physics drastically changed at some point,or that everyone just forgot that hyperspace/wormholes had ever existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.175.190 (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, but FTL travel (hyperspace) might only be known by a subset of the space faring community. Wormholes might be considered more primitive and less useful. E.g. FTL travel depends only on the propulsion system of the ship and can take you anywhere. Wormhole travel requires a wormhole, thus can only take you point to point. It is also vulnerable to attack... Anyway, I had thought when reading the book that FTL travel might be available to the gas giant dwellers. The reason was that the journeys made by the main protagonist seemed to take longer when he was travelling further (ie FTL travel is not instantaneous). Perhaps that was deliberate on Banks' part? A red herring to throw us off the scent?! Also, I'm not sure on this, but perhaps wormholes could also exist in the Culture universe? Even if they are not mentioned, it doesn't mean they are not there. They may not be mentioned much because the Culture regards them as an obsolete technology?82.211.95.178 (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wormholes are explicitly mentioned in the context of Displacers in Excession. 37.14.206.78 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Dwellers vs Wikipedians

Has anyone else noticed some eerie similarities between the Dweller society and wikipedia?

• Neither has any real system to motivate people, as in everyone just kind of does what they want in the hope of getting respect from others.
• Both lack formal power structures. If a job needs doing, someone just does it. (Whether it's blasting ships out of orbit or deleting cruft).
• Both settle disputes via arcane logistical structures that may or may not accomplish anything :)

hmm... any other ideas?

--Bfigura ^(talk) 04:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Both exercise totally effective defense systems.WolfKeeper 05:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Both conduct Formal Wars about aesthetic points that usually happen to be moot by the time they're settled. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions. It is of course perfectly possible that Banks has edited Wikipedia. Or at least is conversant with such things. --John 06:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Both hold grudges, and sometimes act on them.

  Picking a fight with a species as widespread, long-lived, irascible and - when it suited them - single-minded as the Dwellers too often meant that just when - or even geological ages after when - you thought that the dust had long since settled, bygones were bygones and any unfortunate disputes were all ancient history, a small planet appeared without warning in your home system, accompanied by a fleet of moons, themselves surrounded with multitudes of asteroid-sized chunks, each of those riding cocooned in a fuzzy shell made up of untold numbers of decently hefty rocks, every one of them travelling surrounded by a large landslide's worth of still smaller rocks and pebbles, the whole ghastly collection travelling at so close to the speed of light that the amount of warning even an especially wary and observant species would have generally amounted to just about sufficient time to gasp the local equivalent of 'What the fu—?' before they disappeared in an impressive if wasteful blaze of radiation.

  htom (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Plot introduction

There was this section below at the beginning:

Plot introduction The book largely focuses on the challenges of interacting with intelligences that operates at different timescales than humans. Banks covers common themes in his work, such as cultural activity in post-scarcity societies, identity construction in a post-death society, with a special focus on different forms that intelligence might take and how cultural constructions might evolve in alien societies.

It's full of undefined terms ("post-death society"??) and the parts that are intelligible are either original research or some unnamed person's opinion. And it seems quite unnecessary, so I deleted it. Any revival, please try to address these points. Barsoomian (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Post-death society" makes perfect sense within the context of Banks' SF novels: it's a society where death has become (except in unusual circumstances, or over periods of time far longer than a current human lifespan) optional. The parallel with "post-scarcity" is pretty much exact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.215.114 (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Within the context of the novels, yes. Within the context of the article it made no sense at all. Geoff B (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

AI and AI wars

Significant in the novel - but I read it a while ago. Anyone with wider knowledge able to add a section in? Regards Springnuts (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Stupidity of the twist

Ah, this might not strike most maintainers of this article as particularly relevant, but I was wondering if there was any reviews which underlined the sheer stupidity of the plot "twist"? Anyone that's taken a first year, extremely basic course in differential equations (enough to solve Poisson's equation) can see from the very first chapter how the resolution is going to play out; it beggars belief that an entire spacefaring civilisation wouldn't come to the same conclusion in about five seconds. Especially with the stupid and unnecessary hint about "water moons". I accept that I might not be the target audience for the book, but it puts a quite different complexion on things when you have to assume every single character is severely mentally impaired. 7daysahead (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You absolutely cannot make a statement that starts with "Anyone thats...", then state a *first year university course* as the requirement and retain any credibility.178.15.151.163 (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I suspect most readers capable of such thought, thought "I wonder if he's going to ..." and read on, thinking "Yup!" to themselves when he did. That most would think the every single character in the book to be severely mentally impaired, not so much. htom (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

bollocks Derekbd (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I could see how the Merc. might disregard the possibility due to "thinking in a box" plus the very significant engineering involved. Banks carefully sets up the Dwellers as appearing to be technologically inept. 1Z (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Mercatoria (and everyone else) don't see the blindingly obvious because it has never occurred to them that a Wormhole might be on a planet. To them, wormholes are things in space so space is where they look for the Dweller network: if the information that they have doesn't seem to indicate that, then they think they are processing it wrongly - as the old cliche goes "there's none so blind as those who won't see". 62.196.17.197 (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Similarities to The Saga of the Seven Suns

I was wondering if there have been any sources commenting on the similarity between the Dwellers and the hydrogues in Kevin Anderson's series. Hidden Empire was published two years before this novel, and it contains many similar aspects. Large spherical ships. Portals at the centers of gas giants. Seems like it would be worth a mention, if there's a reliable source out there. 209.169.104.28 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"Quick" Vs "Slow" Species

My take from reading the book was that 'quick' species are those which may wipe themselves out within so many millenia (or even '00,000s or some millions of years), and hence 'come and go' with relative speed compared to the billions-year-old Dweller civilization. Hence humans were considered quicks as humans have only been around ~200,000 years. The Dwellers appeared to have no problems living at 'normal' speed, although some of the older Dwellers preferred to live more slowly and Taak etc were able to slow down to accommodate this. Much of the 'action' in the novel does appear to occur within short time frames, and it is explicitly mentioned when Taak slows down to converse with a Dweller. Other time lapses in the book occur due to various short sub-light trips in spacecraft, not due to Dwellers living at below normal speed. I think the following lines from the article are wrong:

"Dweller societies try not to get involved with "Quick" species, those with sentient beings who experience life at around the speed human beings experience it. Dwellers are one of the "Slow" species who experience life at a much slower temporal rate."

59.102.77.142 (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)