Pros: A return to the fascinating Ringworld. Cons: Drags at times.
With the success of his classic science fiction novel Ringworld, it was inevitable that Larry Niven would write a sequel. He certainly took his time, however, since The Ringworld Engineers was not published until 1980, a full ten years...
Pros: Most exciting book of the three. Cons: Leaves some pretty good loose ends.
It actually has been a while since sat down and read Larry Niven's "Ringworld" books. However, they are among my favorite, and "Ringworld Engineers" is my most favorite of the three books.
Pros: Expansion of the Ideas introduced in the first book. Cons: Faster pacing.
The original Ringworld book was well written and compelling. It introduced a lot of unique ideas and characters and was a great read.
The Ringworld Engineers: Not so much. Obviously, this story isn't as ground breaking as the original was. It does however answer several lingering questions from the first book, most importantly, who built the Ringworld.
As for the story, it follows a similar pattern to the original, only faster. Once again, Louis Wu and Speaker-to-Animals are taken by a Pierson Puppeteer to the Ringworld. This time, it's Nessus' mate that ferry our heroes. We're given a much more varied illustration of the Ringworld inhabitants in this book, and in this regard, it is more interesting than the original. The Luis Wu character seems more human and well written here. He spends half of the book trying to get over an addiction to a drug called Wire, which is an actual wire in the skull that stimulates the pleasure center of the brain. In addition, there is more action this time around.
Overall, it's a good book. If you've read Ringworld, you'll enjoy The Ringworld Engineers
This rousing sequel to the classic Ringworld continues the adventures of Louis Wu and Speaker-to-Animals on that fantastic planet. --School Library Jo...More at Buy.com Marketplaces
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.