I have an issue with the 3 Body Problem
Alright, a 2nd spoiler disclaimer for those who accidentally clicked it anyway.
When it became apparent to me that the alien race had sent over two 10-dimensional supercomputers folded into the size of a proton trying to halt human scientific progression in an attempt to maintain its technological advancement while making the travel towards Earth, something doesn't sit right with me.
Why oh why, if you were a 10-dimensional supercomputer being nearly all-knowing yet having only the capacity to be at one point in time and space to deny or halt scientific progression, you wouldn't just write code to A) make copies of yourself to then B) hack all the systems and possible computers in the world to halt anything and everything and basically just plunge humanity back into the dark ages if not outright spreading a deadly virus that would eliminate us from the face of the earth if we are such a big threat to them.
And over the concept of lying and then not being able to coexist with that even though you have the technological head start? And why only communicate with a human to figure out about us if you have two quantum entangled super computers capable of overseeing everything and anything all the time anywhere to gather pure 'scientific' data about us as a species.
Having read the books (and not watched the show) I think that some of this is directly handled either in the first or second book. Some of the answers are "very real game theory issues" and some of them are "if it were possible they would have so since they didn't they couldn't".
The first is simple enough and kind of a spoiler, so on the second-
It's the whole "well if you could time travel why didn't they do X" writing issue. At the end of the day you can either assume "everyone is an idiot" or "there are rules to this that weren't explained but they know preventing them from doing so".
So since I don't know how hard it is to program a 10th dimensional super computer folded into a lower dimension to hack "every computer" vs "screw with everyone's experiments and eyes" I'm going to assume the second because it doesn't really matter?
Don't know how far you are but like...it could literally be argued the logic was "why bother doing more" for very good reason.
Here's my problem, having read the books a few years back and about half way through the show so far...
Maybe spoilers?
If you can make particle collisions break down everywhere on Earth to the point that physicists think they can no longer do physics and choose to kill themselves, you can far more easily just break enough of modern computing to send humans back to the stone age. The Trisolarans have a very firm understanding of how important computers are, but that's not what they choose to do with the Sophons. It's just insane. They could launch nukes, they could blow up power grids, they could basically destroy all meaningful technology on Earth, or they could just subtly corrupt human understanding to their ends by controlling all information, but they do none of that, they mess with physicists vision, make particle collisions look funny, and blink the sky. It's insane that it's never addressed how these things have godlike power in our modern world to really truly wreck us and they never use ANY of it to achieve their specific stated goal, instead they try to stop us from learning further physics, which is Bond villain levels of roundabout non-sense.Quoting spoiler
> If you can make particle collisions break down everywhere on Earth to the point that physicists think they can no longer do physics and choose to kill themselves, you can far more easily just break enough of modern computing to send humans back to the stone age.To memory the point is it's not all experiments, just enough. The way that kind of science is done requires a ton of repeated results to confirm things. If it turns out you can't trust 1 out of X results, you can't make progress (the whole pool table being moved around the room example). It's an extremely simple (compared to your alternative) and elegant way to literally lock out progress for an entire field (which is very relevant in book 2).
They really don't want humans nuking the planet into dust while they get there so "launching nukes" is absolutely not on the menu.
I think the suspension of disbelief tracks HEAVILY with reality. We've had fusion bombs since the 50's. We are STILL working on fusion power, and should that get off the ground, it will be in an extremely limited capacity. We've had nuclear power for even longer and yet are still reliant on fossil fuels. There are political reasons for this (which the aliens in 3BP are not immune to) and very real "it's hard to do it right" issues. So the idea that getting the sophons to screw up some experiments and mess with some peoples eyes was the easiest way they could think of to ensure the success of their invasion strikes me as very realistic. They aren't even near the top of the food chain in crazy tech, so to memory the sophons are sorta like the "Great pyramids" of an entire society FORCED to work together.
The Trisolarans never know how much time they have to do research or implement plans. It's literally the sole driving factor of their planet that basically any year they could wind up with a hellscape that locks them out of habitation for days or centuries. Under that kind of pressure "what can we do RIGHT NOW" seems very very important.
Still sorta spoilers I guess?
Meh. It was too much suspension of disbelief for me.Perhaps that's my bias coming from a computer science background, but in earnest, the kinds of energy they're talking about would be enough for them to subtly (or full blast "Hey pay attention to us!" mode if desired) effect any changes they wanted in the world of computing almost without limit. They wouldn't have to make any particle collisions look screwy when a significantly smaller amount of energy could meddle with the outputs from every COMPUTER BASED device watching the explosion to show whatever results the Trisolarans wanted. They wouldn't need humans at all to affect their will for things when the Sophons could just flip a few bits here and there and make the systems we rely on say the right things for people to do whatever the Trisolarans want without any human having to know there's anyone out there pushing their buttons.
We know from the game that the Trisolarans figured computers out as a fundamental of their being so that they could do advanced calculations with their bodies, emulating computer systems as we know them as naturally as bears shit in the woods. So it's incomprehensible that they would view sabotaging our real world scientific endeavors as a more reliable plan than sabotaging our computing power, which again is a trivial action for something that exists in 11 dimensions and is able to manifest as a proton in our 3 dimensional reality. A single charged particle in the right place at the right time can do basically anything at our current technology level and if it can move at relativistic speeds, it's basically not limited in any way that would be meaningful to its abilities to modify our computers. Things aren't as robust in our computer infrastructure as people seem to just take for granted that they are, much of what we use day to day even still here in 2024 is basically working on pinky swears and good wishes, a motivated attacker with the power of two Sophons would own our asses overnight and how are we supposed to advance at all without computers? We'd be back to the technological level of the 50's overnight with no road forward to rebuilding where we are now in a timescale that would be meaningful for the Trisolaran plans.
I can get behind space magic, or worm poop giving people mental capabilities. I liked the overpowering feeling the aliens had and how that was communicated in the show, but then I couldn't help but think "wow, you have this leap that is beyond our comprehension, clearly more can be achieved". I guess that is what fiction is I guess, some thing are plot devices purely to make the story work. Maybe I'm too much of a realist in that case. I did like the Expanse though.
I can't speak for the show but it's pretty well explained in the book why they do what they do, and why they don't need to do more, but again I'm in spoiler territory for future books.
Fair, thank you. I'll patiently finish the series and see what's up :)
Hoooo boy. I have been on a trip. Finished the show over the weekend. Couldn't wait, started reading the second book, finished it Monday. Half way through the third.
Without spoiling things, one thing I can say is that the show showed them making the sophons. Perhaps it wasn't clear enough in the show, but the sophons are not easy things to make (high energy and material requirements)...Which means perhaps it's not easy for the sophons to just replicate themselves, or at least not if sticking to 3D+time rules.
As far as hacking everything, or seeing everything, I got the feeling that there was some limitation. This is just conjecture, and not really clear in the books either. For example, maybe they had to focus on specific people or events, otherwise it would be missed. On the other hand maybe the aliens just didn't have the man power to work through all the sophon data being received and authorize courses of action. I dunno.
As for lying and coexistence....I find that to be a weak link myself. The aliens might be "honest" but like the Aes Sedai in Wheel of Time, they seem to be pretty fuckin good at lies of ommision.
I feel this was sorta explained in a few ways:
MAJOR BOOK 2 SPOILERS
I think that yes, there are limitations that we don't understand, and probably make sense given the framework of the larger story about how tech still has limitations.
But also, they don't need to do more.
The problem they're trying to solve is that they're about to do the most telegraphed invasion in history, and they KNOW that humans have the ability to learn fast enough that by the time their forces arrive, humans will wipe the floor with them if they're allowed to continue research. They're essentially launching an invasion that will be known about, while their opponents have something like 100+ years to tech up and find solutions.
So they lock us out of materials research, and quoting from some youtube comment somewhere, we eventually wind up with the absolutely best "bow" technology ever. We've got bows that make modern bows look like toys. They fire amazing arrows and link up and do all this neat shit. And none of it matters because the San-Ti show up and do the equivalent of shelling the shit out of everyone with cruise missiles.
They're literally trying to limit humanities ability to achieve the next "frame of reference" in war, and that's all they need. If you knew you had troops with automatic rifles, and your opponents only had bows and arrows, and you could make sure that was the case when you arrive, why do more?
Spoilery question
It’s been a few years since I read the book and I haven’t seen the show yet. There’s one scene in particular from the book that really seared an image into my brain, involving carbon nanofibers and the Panama Canal. Is that scene present in the show? Did they depict it well?The first book was my least favorite in the series, by a long shot. That one moment is the only thing about it that really sticks with me years later… I still shudder to think about it.
Yes, it is in the show and it well done, not just from an overall special effects standpoint, but also from a human level experience of the devastation it brought within the ship.
It’s in the show yes. Funnily I didn’t remember it from the books at all so I can’t comment on how well it matches the book events :)
I didn't read the first book, but it is mentioned briefly in the second, and does indeed appear in the show. It is done "well" as inappropriate as that description may be.
And yes, I am finding the third book to be the most interesting by far.
These are great answers and I would like to offer my own. I've read the books but only watched the first episode of the show, so I'm not sure where the adaptation deviates from the source material.
One of the themes of the trilogy is importance of understanding an opponents true aims and motives, and how, when those are understood, their actions can be undermined. The sophon strategy described in the books is very subtle. What's happening? Why doesn't anything work? No one knows, initially. The Trisolarians may have assumed that humans are dumb enough to never figure out why. If so, why reveal more than needed and thus enable your enemy to undermine your objective?
There are other, even more improbable premises introduced in the books as the story continues. I hope you continue to post your observations.
Personally the biggest problem I had was why the aliens even bothered to come here in the first place. It is not shown in what environment they evolved in but it good bet is it is significantly different from Earth.
Then even if we just completely ignore ethical ramifications(personally I find the bug metaphor flawed as hell), we have potential problems stemming from dedicated and advanced opposition that has four centuries to think of something. Seems like too much risk.
They are clearly highly advanced. Why don't they just pick suitable uninhabited star system in vicinity and colonize space which is better long term strategy anyways?
Interesting take and I agree with your last point. Why are the stakes so high they'd pick a bone with humanity. Why for that matter test our empathic tendencies through a video game to show how many of their civilizations have perished only to then blame us for not understanding? There are a lot of artistic freedoms being used, which is fine, just not to my taste.
Finished the series just now and I'm curious where they'll take it next, but I won't be reading the books.
I haven't seen the show yet, but I felt the same way after reading the first book to the point that I didn't want to continue the series. The overall issue with the book for me was that the writing feeling very amateur-ish and failed to submerse me in a full understanding of what was going on or build attachment to any of the characters. The failure to address many of the questions and possibilities in this thread is something I attribute to a lack of depth in the writing. IMO, the author focused so much on theoretical science details that they spent little time on character development, including the Trisolarans.
I'm a little confused by it all because apparently Ciu Lixin has won awards for these books. Not to sound overtly snobbish but how high was that bar :\ ? And what about any competition?
Personally, I disagree that they didn't answer a lot of these questions, quite blatantly, in the book. "why didn't they just inhabit some nearby uninhabited system" is very much answered in a decently believable way. Tech is NOT omnipotence and for all the absurdity that will be shown in this series, things like the speed of light are still very much real limitations that affect the decisions and actions of societies.
I do get the "oh the characters are flat" thing, which I've heard might be a translation/culture thing, and might just be "well it got awards for handling sci fi in such a unique and interesting way", but it personally wasn't a problem to me (and I do think they do a GREAT job of setting up one of the major character motivated plot points in the book, despite it feeling like a huge tangent until that moment).
I only saw the series but the characters are one of the best things about it. I love the cast, the diversity, the humanity shown between especially Will and his friends and how they deal with his passing. And Tatiana is such a faithful and sinister fanatic, I loved it!
Yeah the show is on my list in part to see how they adapt some of these things. I mostly liked the characters in the books, but I felt they also "stayed true" to how some of these people are. Not every cutting edge scientist is also a tortured soul dealing with weight of reality or whatever. More often they're really smart, and to a degree, boring.
I'm actually wondering if they juiced up some of the characters to make them more interesting or if it's easier to see what they're dealing with when it's all visualized.
I'm taking a wild guess here - but maybe the scientific theme was so original and different that it overcame the shortcomings in writing style and character development depth. But also, I think part of the disappointment for me could be the high expectations that were set with all of the awards and recommendations about this book, and the book just not meeting them. Maybe you and I care more about the parts of the book that ended up being lacking than others, who may have valued the overall premise and pure science.
I think you're right that they should have addressed this. The sophonts could have zoomed around at the speed of light checking out local star systems until a suitable, empty one was found. Guessing they just couldn't come up with a satisfying answer so they just ignored it and left it to us.
Best I can do is: alien reasoning? They found a planet they liked and judged the risk of fighting humanity to be less than the risk involved with waiting to fund another planet?
Or: maybe the sophonts only last 500 years, so long enough to get to earth but it would be a risk to only get 1000 light-years of exploration to find another suitable host planet? I might have gone with that one, actually.
I think this greatly underestimates the scope of useless space:
https://www.space.com/18964-the-nearest-stars-to-earth-infographic.html
This is everything "near" earth.
Alpha centauri and Tau Ceti are the closest to being anything remotely habitable. You could have sophons zooming around for generations and find nothing, and in the scope of the story there's a very real time limit and local political and uh...astronomic, implications.
I mostly meant why fixate on planets at all? Finding one that is habitable for them, no matter their requirements is a long shot. Finding one that is terraformable with their technology is probably possible in near space but why not simply have a series of space stations in a stable star system with decent amount of mass, that is resources?
Or going step further, why leave their current system at all? They are clearly capable of having space based industry and population. Make the stations able to move and the probability of any one of them getting destroyed is low and if it does, it is a tragedy, not an extinction event.
I haven't seen the show, but I have read the books.
spoilers for the books
They need to leave their planet because of the titular three body problem. Their system has 3 co-orbiting suns. A planet orbiting in a system with 3 suns (or other gravitational bodies) is inherently unstable. Small perturbations in initial conditions cause wildly different outcomes in a system like this. This idea is the basis for a branch of mathematics called chaos theory. In the books, the tri-solarans have found that their system used to have many more planets (I think 12), but because of the chaotic system, the orbits of each have been disrupted until they fell into one of the suns. The tri-solaran planet is next. This is why they need to leave their system.
They only have the capability to produce one invasion force/colonizing party in the remaining time they have. They choose earth because it is guaranteed to be hospitable to the tri-solarans. Life in the universe is very common, but it is extremely rare for civilizations to reach out to other galaxies (I won't get into why this is, because that requires some MAJOR spoilers for book two). Genocide is also very common in the universe (again, spoilers). From the tri-solaran perspective, committing genocide to guarantee their species' survival is a logical conclusion. Since humanity has attempted genocide of our own species for far worse reasons, this shouldn't really be a surprising conclusion.
They could of course send their invasion fleet to another solar system. That would involve several more hundreds of years in interstellar space, with no guarantee of success. This is actually their backup plan.
I tried not to spoil too much of the books. Any further explanation would require some very major spoilers. These books are very good, and I highly recommend you read them.
I admit I only saw the show so it is entirely possible the books have plausible explanations for these questions.
From your descriptions it seems likely I will not personally agree with the philosophy present in the books but that does not mean they are not worth reading.
I can't recall the name right now but despite my griping I agree with the principle that the founding pillars of the premise of a story can be incredibly unlikely to enable an interesting story to be told. I just think they should still be plausible.
To be entirely honest, I am not sure if I fully agree with the philosophy presented in the books. I will say it gave me one of the most compelling explanations of the Fermi paradox that I have seen. It is very cynical of life and societies though.
Book one is interesting, but I find it to be the least compelling of the three. I view it as mostly worldbuilding for the next two.
Book two is where humanity learns about the dark forest idea. Since that is the title, I don’t think that phrase is too much of a spoiler. I will say that, while the dark forest idea is fully explained in this book, it isn’t really well supported.
Book three is where the dark forest idea is actually explored and reasoned through. I think the series is sorta like an inverse of proof through contradiction. You have to accept some premises in order to get to and understand the main proof. Once you get there, it becomes much easier to accept the premises you earlier had to take for granted.
There was a good bit of criticism online even before the TV show about these books. There were a lot of people thinking that the awards given to these books were unfounded. In my opinion, this was because there are actually 2 different types of science fiction.
The first type is closer to fantasy. It’s about escaping our real world and living in a fantasy, but one that happens to be based in science. Some works that fit into these categories are Star Wars, many Marvel movies, the Star Trek reboot movies, and, from what I have heard, the original Star Trek (I haven’t seen that last one). These can be really good, but I don’t think this is where science fiction shines.
The other type is what I consider true science fiction. This somewhat lines up with what others would call “hard sci-fi”, but some hard sci-fi can end up in my other type. These works use science fiction as a backdrop to explore characters, the human condition, and society. The often provide a critique of our society, but they don’t have to. Some works in this category are Star Trek TNG, Red Mars trilogy, Jurassic park, red rising, many of John Scalzi’s books, and I, Robot.
The three body problem straddles these types, and doesn’t do it very well. Book 1 reads much more like type 1, but hints at some aspects of type 2. Books 2 and 3 are solidly type 2. I think this is where much of the criticism of the books comes from. Some readers just want an escapist fantasy, and this book doesn’t deliver very well. Some want a book with deep philosophical underpinnings, and the series takes 1.5 books to really get into that. And when it does, it explores a philosophy that is extremely cynical and has not been explored in other media previously, making it hard to accept. Despite that, I think it is very worth reading the books.
I feel the same about a few things in the show, and I know we need to suspend disbelief. I certainly think it has potential, but it also has so many little holes that I'm afraid the writers are going to constantly pave over just to extend the series life depending on its ratings. I think that's where plots start to unravel.
As for the one big issue I'd like to put out there to all of you starts with the very first message received from the San-Ti.
Spoiler up to Ep.4
Ye Wenjie was told to not respond. Her first sent message was received by a "pacifist" San-Ti and that others are not the same, to keep quiet or they will come and conquer them. But later when Mike Evans is talking to the San-Ti, they say that "we do not understand" regarding lies and also tell Evans "What is known is communicated as soon as communication takes place."So they don't lie (but they clearly do in so many other small ways in the show) and that they know what all other San-Ti know as soon as they communicate with another San-Ti... So how do we reconcile the first San-Ti pacifist keeping secrets from all the other San-Ti? That one San-Ti lives in complete isolation?
if they are technologically superior, that received radio message surely would be picked up by other San-Ti. How could one pacifist accidentally intercept that message and stop it from reaching all other San-Ti, yep, good question.
Yes and if that one pacifist San-Ti knows about Earth and us, then how did that San-Ti expect to keep their knowledge secret if all that is known is communicated when communicating anything?
Is this another thing that was explained in the book series?
I'd say it's explained yes, although I think the key problem here is this
A VERY core point of the book is that tech is NOT magic. If I was some middle ages archer, and saw a modern marine mow down an entire army with a few clips of ammo I might think they can do anything, but they're still limited by the very same laws of physics we are, and sure as hell aren't immortal, invincible, or omnipotent. The archer can't fathom what's happening and will probably make major assumptions on what is or isn't possible, but there are still very much limitations affecting both of them (like logistics).
Combine this with the forced time frames imposed by light years of travel and you have a major information problem.
So the assumption that "well of course others heard it" really doesn't jibe. There's plenty of monitoring stations now that might just be looking at the right spot at the right time to pick something up and have one person who could make the decision if that goes further, and that's very much the same in their world.
Yes, it was explained. I can give the most broad answer without spoiling any huge plot point. But it's a small spoiler that explains things from their perspective.
Spoiler for the novel series
The San Ti have monitoring stations and people monitoring for signals, similarly to Earth. The original transmission was picked up, but with no way to pinpoint the exact position. It would be from some window of the sky, but from any number of stars.By receiving a second transmission while monitoring the general area, they could pinpoint the source and find Sol.
This is explained in the book: one message from earth is not enough to pinpoint its location, but two messages would be. It doesn't matter if other Trisolarians/San-Ti hear it.
The message in the book was:
This world has received your message.I am a pacifist in this world. It is the luck of your civilization that I am the first to receive your message. I am warning you: Do not answer! Do not answer!! Do not answer!!!
There are tens of millions of stars in your direction. As long as you do not answer, this world will not be able to ascertain the source of your transmission.
But if you do answer, the source will be located right away. Your planet will be invaded. Your world will be conquered!
Do not answer! Do not answer!! Do not answer!!!
A secret is not a lie. It is implied that they communicate with telepathy which is not "like words, but silent " but instead a sharing of your thoughts.
Presumably they can avoid sharing that thought unless specifically enquired.
Imagine it like blushing when something is mentioned. As long as you steer clear of the subject you're fine, the moment it is brought up everyone knows you're blushing.
Just finished the Netflix series.
I'm completely disregarding the original material and am solely speaking from what the show has presented.
But the whole "Trisolarians can't lie" is 100% bullshit. I might go so far as to say it's questionable they're actually from a 3 body system (or maybe once were), but use that as a manipulative tactic to help goad the more intelligent to welcome them.
They act as if story telling as a concept is unknown to them but they make a game that is extremely socially manipulative in order to get people to accept and welcome their coming (as opposed to defending against an invasion).
They act as if manipulating people into thinking something that's not real is real (a lie) is an unknown concept, but they're actively deceiving our perceptions of reality on a regular basis, whether it's our experimental results, our own sky, or even what we think we see with our own two eyes. They're master manipulators.
The first communication admits that they're extremely capable and confident they'd wipe out our civilization despite not knowing anything about us, which speaks to frequency. They've done this before, they've gone out and conquered other civilizations and that's built confidence. To act like they're simply looking for safe harbor IS A F*CKING LIE.
Another aspect of this, is that an "AI" still has a foundation in the intelligence of the creator. The minds that created it work far differently than ours, and the AI produced may be closer to their experience.
So maybe it had no "desire" to subjugate all systems, because the goal was to keep the hearth warm without exposing the truth. More extreme but highly individual solutions were also used, but the exact method was not verifiable outside of a single observer. There may be other criteria for why some progress was halted via experiments versus direct action, which they know from their own advancements.
If the AI did have the desire and capability to spread and control everything, what would stop it from turning on its creators?
For reference, trying to keep out direct spoilers. I read the series a few years ago and finished the show.
Your questions ultimately come down to suspension of disbelief. Which it not to say there aren't realistic, believable rational logical things that explain your objections.
The sophons, for example, are some sort of "super everything" that can travel at light speed, hack, observe, exert some level of control over basic physics, etc. However, from our own history, we know (especially with high tech, prototype tech, cutting edge technology), scarcity is a thing. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you can actually do it as and where and as often as you'd like, and have it in the abundance you'd prefer.
The nuclear bomb, for example, was exceptionally expensive and difficult to manufacture. In WWII, one of the reasons America chose to drop the two they did was in an effort to bluff that they had many, many more. The hope was the two that were on hand could be used to end things so that more wouldn't be needed. If the Japanese or other opposition powers had called that bluff, things would have been bloodier and messier than they ended up working out.
Likewise, just because the aliens have two sophons and have dispatched them to Earth doesn't mean they can put in a hundred more. Which doesn't even touch on things like arrogance, or assumption. Perhaps the aliens don't consider humanity that much of a threat, that they don't think we'll be able to work around their mighty sophons. Perhaps they feel they can subjugate us with only two.
There are all sorts of lines of reasoning aong an axis like that which address why only two. And do so believably.
But the main issue is storytelling. Conclusions, decisiveness, finality, doesn't make for good story. Not ever. Not until the story's done. You become final and conclusive when you're wrapping things up. Conclusive is for "happily ever after", not the building or mid points.
Which means, if you're telling a story of dystopian oppression, then you construct a scenario where all is seen and known. So the "bad guys" can use it to oppress. It serves the story to have there be little or no wiggle room to object and resist. But if the story is about resistance, then it's boring and uninteresting if there's no chance or opportunity for resistance. There, an omniscient overseer is bad for the story, because it cuts off possible avenues the story could take.
It's a common issue with non-storytellers; looking to "solve" the problem. Story problems aren't really there to be solved. And if they are, it's usually really bad for the story. Bad meaning it makes the story uninteresting, uncompelling. Love stories usually end after the couple is together. Why? Because will-they-won't-they doesn't work when they already have.
What stories can you tell then; the happy couple goes to get coffee, the happy couple cuddles on the couch? Boring. Would-be couple fighting their way through messy emotions and conflicting goals to find happiness is interesting, and will hold the audience.
For war or drama, the objectives are there to complicate things. Humanity has four centuries to prepare to resist the Tri-sols. Okay, that could be interesting. Humanity will have to be "sneaky" about how they prepare due to the sophons; okay, interesting. Anything humanity writes down, even in a computer, is subject to observation and could be messed with; interesting.
Tri-sols send an armada of sophons and lock down every single everything on the planet, including constantly following any key or important figure around 24/7 so no word or gesture goes unknown. Not interesting. At least, much less so, since it removes most (all?) chance to go about resisting.
Any kind of space opera always has to deal with some niggling complications around an extra-solar invasion. After all, it's pretty easy to logically lay out why it's inefficient, how it's prohibitively expensive, to invade some other solar system. If you have the technology to build ships and fill them with some sort of invasion force, you have the technology to colonize in areas where you won't have to follow up the travel with fighting.
Especially not fighting at the end of an interstellar supply line, shipping in your troops and supplies. The logical calculation is even a technologically inferior species, that already has control of the planet the fighting is taking place on, will have more and an easier time getting supplies, than the invaders who arrive on an interstellar fleet.
But that's not always interesting, to bog down in a detail like that which says the story shouldn't happen. Sometimes the audience just wants a story where aliens invade Earth. Who gives a fuck that it's "not logical", that the aliens could pick some other system with inhabitable bodies they don't have to scrape humans off of? Sometimes the story just requires you go with some stuff.
This is why it's not a great idea to try to watch some kinds of stories with some kinds of people. I like Neil deGrasse Tyson, but he's not someone I want to watch a movie with. He looked at the fucking sky in Titanic and complained that "in 1912, the sky from the North Atlantic at that position would look nothing like that."
Okay, I'm not saying Tyson's wrong. I'm just saying he's like one of maybe, maybe a dozen or so people on the planet who would've tripped over that detail. The fact that Cameron and the film production didn't map out just exactly how the night sky should look as our hero and heroine float around freezing to death in the Atlantic Ocean.
The storytellers were focusing on the story, not some pretty much irrelevant background detail. Cameron famously went to some lengths to accurately recreate the sets (i.e, a depiction of Titanic) and the props (dishes, clothes, etc). Did he have to get the exact pattern of china that was in use on the Titanic? Could he have just gotten some generic china pattern?
I'd argue probably a few more folks might notice the china patterns than the stars in the sky. Probably a few more folks would look at the dresses and other clothes and go "hey, that's a style that didn't come into things until the 20s, not 1912 when the ship sank." Neil wasn't interested in the dresses, he was counting the stars, judging how far apart they were and where, and he was one of a very few people doing that while below the stars, Rose was freezing and Jack was pretty much already dead from hypothermia.
But ultimately, you work on things that need to serve your story. Period pieces need certain kinds of details to tell their story. That's the point of hiring a costumer who can accurately dress your cast from the period. That's the point of working over the script to ensure the dialog doesn't have anachronisms. But whatever you do or don't put into the story, you do it because you need it to serve the story. That's the goal; to tell one.
Pissing on about how "but if they have sophons, why don't they just blanket the planet with them so they have total control and can't possibly lose" kind of moves into the same area of Neil missing the point when he raised a fuss (however politely) about the night sky. Which is sort of to say it's missing the point.
The sophons are a story construct. They're there to apply a bit of pressure, hopefully in an interesting way. They're not there to turn the story into a tragedy where "and then Humanity loses, the end."
In that case it could be communicated better that the Sophons aren't as powerful as they have been explained to be. And if that is the case, that means the San-Ti are lying, contradicting their own explanation of not knowing the concept of lying. And if they were lying about not knowing about lying, well, then they're pretty bad ass in a way.
The easiest explanation for that is that they know of the concept of withholding information, e.g. a "healthy fear" of others. They didn't expect or initially understand the concept where communication is not complete and absolute when it occurs, e.g. metaphor (indirect meaning), and deception (communicating falsehoods).
Since no one else has dropped this take yet: I’m 100% with you, OP. The sophon reveal is a massive deus ex machina in a lab coat.
It reminded me a lot of Lost: a mysterious moving island previously occupied by a shadowy research cabal, tinged with light supernatural touches? Great. Sudden smoke demons and ancient egyptian gods? Bad.
It’s not so much that smoke demons/magic atomic particles can’t make for a good story - but when you lead in with a relatively grounded premise then make a sharp left-field turn towards the outlandish, the worldbuilding immediately stops feeling internally consistent.
It‘s not only that it’s unbelievable but by it‘s own invented logic the story would have been over right there and then.
Spoilers ahead:
If they can mess with earths tech why not shut down and erase everything? One or two super particles traveling at light speed around earth should be enough to keep humanity from recovering anything and have them stuck in the pre computer age.
The sophons didn't hack the cars.
I remember watching the jet escort and thinking the same thing.
You should stop watching because that is not a hard left turn, it's maintaining the course of the books that goes way beyond the sophons in terms of wild sci-fi stuff, and it sounds like you're looking for something more grounded.
Both issues are explicitly referenced and explained in the show.
We're shown and told that the sophons were a major undertaking, and the characters directly say that they can be anywhere but not everywhere, they're limited by the speed of light and it does take them time to do things.
I feel perchance you've identified too strongly with the human characters, who feel they're up against an omnipotent god.