The Apolyton Science Fiction Discussion Group: Red Mars

[kittenOFchaos]

For my own part I enjoyed Red Mars, Blue Mars and Green Mars, but can't put a finger on why exactly!

I think it was the scale, the vision, drama and that things happened, the big story does move along pretty quickly. I love grandiose civil engineering projects that can have a real impact (hopefully positive) on our world, I love the thought of having the technologies to prolong life forever whilst retaining health. I love the idea that "we" could change Mars into a self-sufficient world and in such as short time.

I feel that is why I enjoyed the books despite some quite frankly atrocious content.


Frank, Boon, Arkady and Nadia were certainly the best characters in the book and I did enjoy those parts of the book that focussed upon them rather than characters such as Michael, Hiroko, Ann etc.

Indeed Hiroko and ALL that came of that side of the first 100 and the bloody children like Nirgail I would have loved to see brutally murdered. The politics on Mars was a coalition of the stupid with the Reds and Ann being down right crazy.

The colonization of Mars won't happen as in the book, not even close. It won't be as fast, well supported and the Earth won't be in such a mess, nor will the UN/whatever be so tyrannical in its control of the groups that go. It won't need to, the countries whose money put the people there will look to get a return in their investment and won't be putting people there so they do whatever they want to.


But as long as it can give me visions of vast civil engineering projects and fantastic technological developments, I'm happy.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Static Universe, tell us what you really think. Don't hold back.

I'm a decent fellow, really I am.

To be fair, the second half wasn't all that bad of a read. Robinson should stick to this type of political potboiler style as it suits him better. Or perhaps he should read more Asimov to learn how exposition should be done.

Science fiction, even hard science fiction, is about the human condition. It sounds like what you wanted was a technical manual with a story woven through it.

What I wanted, and still want, is a realistic depiction of the settling of another world. Some dramatic life and death struggle to showcase the talents of humanity, working together in at least some harmony. Not all this business about how scientists, unhindered by the bureaucratic apparatus and operating almost completely free of central leadership, will work miracles and everything will work out almost perfectly. (Until the people from earth show up wanting a return on their sizeable investment, that is.)

It's elitism in the worst possible way, and it's not surprising that Arthur C. Clarke extols the books virtues so highly, as this is right up his alley. It's the sci-fi old idea that once humanity frees itself from the pencil pushers and those tedious, irrational people who are more interested in feeding themselves than political theory, everything will be fine. We'll get a new "American Revolution", this time on Mars, although the same story could just as easily be told on the Moon I suppose. ( Something tells me it has. ) Asimov makes basically the same arguments in Foundation.

Perhaps it's just that I prefer the Star Trek style of science fiction more. I still have some hope for humanity left, and am not prepared to throw the earth to the wolves to get a better thing going on Mars.

Red Mars is a story about what happens to people. None of the situations people come up against in the book are situations we aren't going to have to deal with, one way or another, in the colonization of Mars.

So when we finally get that expedition going to Mars, the crew will be composed on fifty year olds, leadership will be fragmented by philosophical visionaries immediately up lift-off, and there will be a mystical "coyote" running around? Yeah, sure.

The exposure to high levels of radiation for example. I, for one, didn't know that CO₂ was poisonous. I just thought it was a lack of oxygen that made the Martian atmosphere deadly.

No argument here, I guess.

Why won't Martian terraforming options work on Earth? Life! The Sahara is a living ecosystem. We place a lot of value on our wild places in this world. People also live in many of these places, so you have to account for them as well, especially in democracies. India may want to displace three million people to create a reservior, but if they refuse to move, they have a problem on their hands. If they're China, they can forcably relocate people.

What I don't understand is how they can build a magic gadget on Mars to do whatever the story purposes require, but can't seem to figure out anything back on earth.

The problems the Martians are dealing with have little pratical application on Earth. Our problem is global warming. On Mars they want global warming. On Mars, they need to put stuff into the atmosphere. On Earth, we want to take stuff out of the atmosphere.

The problems have no applications, but the solutions do. Why is it that knowledge doesn't seem to make it's way back to earth? The implication is that people left behind on earth are for the most part not the forward thinkers that the First 100 are. Elitism.

The book makes it seem like once we get off earth, scientists are suddenly much more intelligent. Perhaps because they have no oversight from lesser thinkers, they can finally push the envelope to the max and all their theories conveniently seem to work out.

Mars may be a desert, but it's one like the Antarctic, one full of water (at least the story assumes it). Earth is covered in water, but we don't have enough of the right kind of water.

Then why can they easily desalinate Mars and not desalinate oceans? It doesn't make sense, given the type of cheap processes they develop on Mars. Must be those darn bureaucrat holding things back again.

Frank's problem with John is all about jealousy. Things come easy to John, Frank has to work for them. Frank was supposed to be the leader of the expedition, John becomes the person everyone looks to, John gets Maya, John becomes unofficial leader of Mars, etc. John is Frank's obstacle in all things, so he must be done away with.

Frank's problem is more Frank I would think. I don't see things coming any less easily to him, although he thinks they don't. Perhaps he would benefit from a good therapist, althought not that Michel chap. And how cliche is it for the psychologist character be the one who goes crazy, anyway? Don't even get me started.

So, what happens when new ground is opened up for people to begin livin their lives. At what point do you stop being colonists and become citizens of a new society. What rights do you have, what responsibilities do you owe?

I'm a firm believer in the idea that those who contend for their liberty seldom get anything but new masters (Emerson?). All a revolution really accomplishes it to begin the process all over again, with a smaller, more efficient political unit. Nothing really changes in how things are run. Distribution systems may differ, but there is still distribution. Someone's in charge, and usually the worst eventually rise to the top of the political food chain and the revolutionary process starts over again.

I want something new from sci-fi, something fresh! Something that shows the way, not sees the future through the eyes of the present.

Everything outside Earth is assumed, by existing treaty, to be the common property of humanity. So what happens when people start living there. At what point do they have a more important say in what happens. It's kind of like Alaska or the American West, in this way. Most of those areas are Federal property, the common property of the whole of the American people. People live there, however. Who has the greater right? Proximaty changes the equation, since they are too close to the US to assert any effective independence. Mars, however, is far away. How does that change things?

Distance doesn't absolve them from responsibilities to their human brothers back on earth. The earth needs the resources Mars can proide, and has made a sizeable investment in getting them. Is it appropriate for the Martian colonists to begin fomenting revolution within a generation? On the colony ship out, in fact?

Sure, the transnationals are wrong in how they wish to administrate the planet. But no capitalist system can adequately distribute social resources, nor has anyone ever shown that they can (Are you reading this George Bush?) And the civil bureaucracy of the UN is complicit in letting them handle things as they wish. No argument there, either in the book or in reality. But have the colonists no responsibility to the common herd?

Maybe I just expect better of humanity, and wish we solve some of these problems before we move to new worlds, rather than exporting them as we move into the universe.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos

I think it was the scale, the vision, drama and that things happened, the big story does move along pretty quickly. I love grandiose civil engineering projects that can have a real impact (hopefully positive) on our world, I love the thought of having the technologies to prolong life forever whilst retaining health.

I love big projects as well, but felt the "longevity vaccine" was more of a literary gimmick to keep the central characters young and fresh for the years the terraforming and settlement took to accomplish. They were too old to begin with though, IMO. For example, why would Nadia, an overweight woman in her 50s be chosen for the expedition?

I feel that is why I enjoyed the books despite some quite frankly atrocious content.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt that way.

Indeed Hiroko and ALL that came of that side of the first 100 and the bloody children like Nirgail I would have loved to see brutally murdered. The politics on Mars was a coalition of the stupid with the Reds and Ann being down right crazy.

I hate when writers drop in these mysterious, inscrutable Asian characters. And the whole ecological subplot was just plain stupid, IMO. Dead world here, folks!

The colonization of Mars won't happen as in the book, not even close. It won't be as fast, well supported and the Earth won't be in such a mess, nor will the UN/whatever be so tyrannical in its control of the groups that go. It won't need to, the countries whose money put the people there will look to get a return in their investment and won't be putting people there so they do whatever they want to.

Completely agree.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But he doesn't hate him without the Maya 'threesome'. Without Maya, I don't think it gets that bad. What? Have you never seen people get much nastier when there is a girl involved?

As much as I love a good threesome , I don't think Maya is really the heart of the problem here. If it wasn't her, it would have been some other issue that divided Frank and John. Even in his own flashbacks, Frank isn't really that much of a friend to John, really. He's holding back and plotting much earlier than Maya's first appearance.

You can have a realistic hard science fiction novel about terraforming and colonization and still have a good read about how humans live and interrelate under adversity despite differing political and ecological philosophies.

what?

I've read many sci-fi novels with technical details and good drama. You can have a good book about the moon landing without Buzz Aldrin plotting to kill Neil Armstong, you know.

I actually liked how Robinson did it. Much of it was about terraforming and the problems it posed on the people. Going into minute detail about what it takes to terraform Mars would have made me pass.

I'm not saying it has to be non-stop technical exposition, but certainly Robinson could have fleshed things out a little better.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by JohnT

I have a feeling a lot of people are not going to like how Robinson claims that a stronger UN, by weakening the authority of the nation-states, will allow for stronger multi-national corporations. Robinson does give corporations too much credit for strategic, long-term thinking though.

It's a matter of scale really. Given the fact that national govenments are easily under the sway of corporations, it's reasonable to assume the UN would not be any less corruptible, even more so, since it would mean bigger bribes in fewers pockets.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I've read many sci-fi novels with technical details and good drama.

You are missing the point. I'm not saying that it can't be done, I'm saying that I just wouldn't read it .

What I don't understand is how they can build a magic gadget on Mars to do whatever the story purposes require, but can't seem to figure out anything back on earth.

Who says they can't? We don't get the story from Earth, just what people are seeing from Mars. The problems on Earth are much worse than those on Mars. Overcrowding cannot simply be solved by terraforming. The problems are just more difficult.


Personally, I thought it was a good yarn. Nice characters, and an engrossing stroy. Robinson may wish to guide you towards a certain point of view (ie, capitalism bad, socialism good), but he tells a good story of how all the people relate to each other in the world.

Everything outside Earth is assumed, by existing treaty, to be the common property of humanity. So what happens when people start living there. At what point do they have a more important say in what happens. It's kind of like Alaska or the American West, in this way. Most of those areas are Federal property, the common property of the whole of the American people. People live there, however. Who has the greater right? Proximaty changes the equation, since they are too close to the US to assert any effective independence. Mars, however, is far away. How does that change things?

This is the main question, and it's a good one. Who controls what happens on Mars? The people living there, or the people that made colonization happen in the first place. After all, like Frank says, the reason they went was for selfish reasons on the part of the governments and corporations that sent them there, not for 'science'.

[VetLegion]

Ok, I have read this one (I have the same paperback from the first post)

It was one of the first books in english I read, after some novels by Terry Pratchet and Hitchikers Guide Through Galaxy.

I agree with Cybergnu that characters in the book are not it's best quality. Do you folks remember the 'personality grid'?

I do not remember was it one of the characters that drew it or was KSR just explaining the background but that thing was one of the biggest disasters I have ever read in sci-fi.

It would not be that bad if he only used it to create his characters, but he had to reveal it in the book? After I read the sketch that displays the grid all the characters became artificial, boring


The description of Mars and technology, cool even though some are quite unbelievable (the windmills)

A quote I remember... somebody asks a scientist: "Can you turn lead into gold?". What is the answer?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do you folks remember the 'personality grid'?

I considered that to be one of the most interesting parts of the book. It was fascinating to me. The philosophy and scientific theories are the most intriguing part of the book.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by VetLegion
I agree with Cybergnu that characters in the book are not it's best quality. Do you folks remember the 'personality grid'?

I do not remember was it one of the characters that drew it or was KSR just explaining the background but that thing was one of the biggest disasters I have ever read in sci-fi.

Couldn't agree more. And I'm not even sure that it's original to Robinson either. I'm pretty sure I've seen it before, although Robinson doesn't credit anyone else for it.

[Odin]

Sax needs a sense of humour implant in his brain. About Sax, check out my terraforming thread.

I like Arkady's political philosophies, but his attacks blew the revolution, It was good that Maya kepted the radicals uder control until the melting of West Antartica gave an oppertunity to smash the Metanationals' power in Green Mars. I thought the part in which Burroughs was evacuated and the air was breathable was cool. Sax must of let loose some Cyanobacteria without suicide genes.

[Static Universe]

Spoilers please.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I've read many sci-fi novels with technical details and good drama.

You are missing the point. I'm not saying that it can't be done, I'm saying that I just wouldn't read it .

Oh, I saw your point. I probably wouldn't want to read it either. I think many others, however, would.

What I don't understand is how they can build a magic gadget on Mars to do whatever the story purposes require, but can't seem to figure out anything back on earth.

Who says they can't? We don't get the story from Earth, just what people are seeing from Mars. The problems on Earth are much worse than those on Mars. Overcrowding cannot simply be solved by terraforming. The problems are just more difficult.

The problem of terraforming Mars is directly applicable to the earth. Most of the problem on earth come from people being crowded into habitable areas. Robinson himself makes this point about how in Egypt they crowded into the non-desert areas.

If they can bioengineer plants to grow in Martian desert, why can't they do it for an Earth desert? If they can desalinate an entire planet, why not a few million gallons of sea water for irrigation purposes? Why must they exploit Mars? Are there no resources on the moon? What about undersea mining? Undersea cities? Given the advances on Mars, all these things are possible.

Personally, I thought it was a good yarn. Nice characters, and an engrossing stroy. Robinson may wish to guide you towards a certain point of view (ie, capitalism bad, socialism good), but he tells a good story of how all the people relate to each other in the world.

I'll admit it got fairly entertaining in the second half, after it stopped being about terraforming. It has a few clever bits, like all the Americans thinking Frank is excellent with languages and all the non-Americans thinking he's terrible with their language. But nothing really too original here.

This is the main question, and it's a good one. Who controls what happens on Mars? The people living there, or the people that made colonization happen in the first place. After all, like Frank says, the reason they went was for selfish reasons on the part of the governments and corporations that sent them there, not for 'science'.

It's a difficult question to answer, because I didn't find the corporate greed in the novel to be that plausible. I also didn't buy the fact there would be zero civilian social infrastructure built whatsoever. I just don't think the UN or individual nations would have relinquished so much control to the multinationals, corrupt as the UN seemed to be.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If they can bioengineer plants to grow in Martian desert, why can't they do it for an Earth desert? If they can desalinate an entire planet, why not a few million gallons of sea water for irrigation purposes? Why must they exploit Mars? Are there no resources on the moon? What about undersea mining? Undersea cities? Given the advances on Mars, all these things are possible.

Because as che states Mars is dead! I could imagine that there is a big enviro movement if everything is so crowded. Destroying the Sahara and all the 'life' in it would be unthinkable, I think.

And remember, the original send up was simply to benefit Russia and the USA. They wouldn't care too much about irrigation (and undersea mining might already been happening) and simply want minerals. Of course transnationals have most of the power and would be the ones directly benefiting.

I'll admit it got fairly entertaining in the second half, after it stopped being about terraforming.

You have to set that part of up for the second part.

I just don't think the UN or individual nations would have relinquished so much control to the multinationals, corrupt as the UN seemed to be.

Who says they relinquished power? Transnationals simply became too powerful for the UN to ignore.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Odin
Sax needs a sense of humour implant in his brain. About Sax, check out my terraforming thread.

....

Uh, didn't you read what I said in regards to spoilers? Let me quote:

"Expect Red Mars to be spoiled mercilessly, but I do implore people to use the [ spoiler ] tag when they mention plot points that occur in the later novels – even if you aren’t sure in which book a given situation occurred, use the tag."

Therefore, please edit your post. Danke.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Because as che states Mars is dead! I could imagine that there is a big enviro movement if everything is so crowded. Destroying the Sahara and all the 'life' in it would be unthinkable, I think.

The so-called environmental movement is largely centered in the West. Given the pressure to send people Mars for a better life mainly seem to come from uninhabitable lands (for example the Arabs), or nations that cannot produce enough food relative to their population , I can't see that their preference wouldn't have been to turn their deserts into gardens in the first place. They don't seem such environmentalists to me anyway.

Yes, yes, I know we have no idea what's going on back on earth, but again, the level of technology shown could easily relieve these problems. Is it that there's no money in it? I find that hard to believe. Is it that the poor countries cannot afford it? Easier to believe. Which is all the more reason that the UN would not give up so easily to the multinationals.

Especially since the sudden glut of previously scarce commodities would probably wreck the earth's global economy in days. The multinationals simply would simply not be allowed to rape Mars like they do in the book. I don't believe there would be a complete absence of import quotas laid down by the UN and regulatory control over Mars.

And remember, the original send up was simply to benefit Russia and the USA. They wouldn't care too much about irrigation (and undersea mining might already been happening) and simply want minerals. Of course transnationals have most of the power and would be the ones directly benefiting.

One of the things that confused me in the book is that the Russians and USA pay for it all, then in the second expedition there is no one from any of the countries represented in the original expedition. And the second expedition is like hundreds of people. WTF? Why would they logically do this?

I'll admit it got fairly entertaining in the second half, after it stopped being about terraforming.

You have to set that part of up for the second part.

I should have jumped in around page 250, I wouldn't have missed much. And there'd still be a little suspense in the John-Maya-Frank triangle as well.