I have only read "Three-Body Problem", and I found it to be atrocious writing on pretty much all levels. Language-wise, it was more cliched and wooden than many fanfics I've read. Character development is non-existent, and most of the characters are very shallow and only exist to advance the plot. The plot itself, aside from the basic idea of a three-body system with life, was also very boring - the only part of it that I actually looked forward to continue reading was the Cultural Revolution flashbacks. And then there's the whole sci-fi part of it, which was beyond ridiculous - sentient elementary particles etc.
I still don't understand how that book gets so many good reviews, and especially don't understand people comparing it with Heinlein. Those reviews were the only reason why I forced myself to read it all the way through, and it still feels like some elaborate hoax, or accidentally ending up in some postmodernist art convention by mistake.
There are more axes than character development or adherence to the constraints of current scientific understanding on which to judge a book.
To me, originality and "philosophical development", or how the perspective of science influences the future and nature of humanity are very important, and that's why I consider this series an absolute masterpiece.
It's great in the same vein as 2001: a space odyssey, or rendezvous with rama, or childhood's end
I didn't see anything particularly original in the first book. Maybe it shows up later.
The other axis is quality of writing - i.e. how easy it is to read and understand, and how aesthetically pleasing the writing is. On that axis, I would also rank it very low.
"Dark Forest" is a fascinating idea that would make for an interesting short story, but I agree with you that the characters and plot are extremely lacking.
That's from the second book, right? A lot of people appear to be saying that the second one is the best. But then the same people mostly say that the first one is, if not great, then at least okay, and that's where my calibration goes off.
the second book is definitely the best (in my opinion), but yeah, if you were frustrated by the first book i don't think you would love the second (as exciting as the ideas may be).
for me personally, i approached it less as a hard sci-fi book and more of a fantasy/sci-fi novel with some big ideas, and loved it for that!
I still don't understand how that book gets so many good reviews, and especially don't understand people comparing it with Heinlein. Those reviews were the only reason why I forced myself to read it all the way through, and it still feels like some elaborate hoax, or accidentally ending up in some postmodernist art convention by mistake.