I first read this in High School, so it may be that my opinion of the book is bouyed by the passage of time, but I still think that this is a very engaging and fun book with good science (so far as a mythologist like myself can tell) and enjoyable characters. Reminds me of Arthur C Clarke in many ways (at the very least in the loan of Europa), but with a bit more emphasis on purely human adventure-- perfect for a high school reader. I don't want to give away too much, but here are a few things which engaged me in the book:-- The emphasis on the unique, special person who does not know where they came from, or how they came to be the way they are-- think Heroes (which I've never seen and only heard about) or X-Men, with a more traditional Sci-Fi twist.-- Realistic, relatively near-future space opera (though I must admit that though the technology is realistic, the timeline probably isn't). The nuts and bolts that you find in Clarke are here, but with more of a "Star-Wars" feel. Actually, I suspect that you find this flavor in much hard sci-fi, but I primarily associate Sheffield with this.-- The impression of a larger and more wonderful universe than can be contained in the novel-- though I must admit that this leads in one or two cases to some red herrings which feel as though they were thrown in purely for "wow" effect. Overall a pleasant read, even if I'm not prepared to label it great literature.
Suprisingly good book. Has very little to do with the description on the cover, though.It is definately hard science fiction, and while the science is believable the politics are sometimes confusing and the characters are flat. For example all extreemely intelligent people love classical music and puzzles, which annoyed me a little.The story itself is interesting, the setting is very well thought out, and there is always something happening. I enjoyed the book, though some may not like the style. Not for everyone (especially literary critics), but I thing scientists/engineers will find it pleasant. Someone has to write for us too, you know :)
What do You think about Cold As Ice (1993)?
A bit predictable in places, and like most Scifi authors, Sheffield makes some assumptions over what technology could be developed (such as a miniature fusion power plant). The ideas about running superconducting wires around a space suit to protect against high particle ions from Jupiter was a clever idea. Considering it was written in 1992 its surprising there wasn't any mention of nanotechnology as nanotechnology, but perhaps that's how the field will develop? Once it falls into common place you don't use the same terms we use today.
—Paul Guinnessy
This is a novel written by a physicist with the focus on physics and not on the plot or characters. In other words, it's science fiction which focuses on the science at the expense of the fiction. This novel astounded me for its complete lack of any dramatic tension. It's hundreds of pages long and throughout its length, I never got drawn into the story, felt any sympathy or otherwise identified with the characters, and never cared about what was happening. That I finished the book was much more a testament to my disbelief that someone could manage to write such a long story with absolutely no interest to it than to any engagement in the tale. In my experience, there's run-of-the-mill bad writing, say, when there are inconsistencies in a plot, or a character acts in a way completely inconsistent with his nature. There's bad editing, too, such as when a book is published with a lot of grammatical errors, typos, or continuity errors (to borrow the phrase from filmmaking). But this manuscript was stillborn as soon as it was finished, and no amount of editing or re-crafting would have been able to resuscitate it. It boggles the mind why it was published.
—Harold Ogle
