Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.75 AVERAGE
3.75 AVERAGE
Mars is definitely "Hard Sci-fi" and maybe isn't for everyone. I LOVED the detailed and imaginative story of the planet, however I had a really hard time caring about the characters. They would pop into the narrative and become the focus of the story only to be unceremoniously removed once their part of the book was over.
I'll probably forget about the characters soon after finishing the book, however it sparked my imagination and I'll probably dream about Mars for a long time.
Giving it three stars because I consider that to still be a good rating, but I really can't recommend this book to everyone.
I'll probably forget about the characters soon after finishing the book, however it sparked my imagination and I'll probably dream about Mars for a long time.
Giving it three stars because I consider that to still be a good rating, but I really can't recommend this book to everyone.
Sooooooo slow! There were periods that were interesting, but it was so fragmented and cerebral.
I know I read this a long time ago on audio, but don't remember much about it other than I thought about doing the other books on audio, so it couldn't have been that bad.
I couldn’t finish it. It’s more about exploring the politics of setting up a new country than it is about exploring Mars.
Hard SF at its best. It was not as difficult as some people say, thank Ares. Sure, there are too many description on terrains and terraforming processes for my liking (and capacity to understand - I need visuals!) BUT the story, characters, and the POLITICS are just amazingly and expertly told and woven into a very readable account of the first men and women coming to Mars and the rise (and fall) of human civilization in that mysterious red planet.
Packed full of so many interesting ideas and concepts.
But similarly packed with so many endless descriptions of Martian landscapes. Page after page of characters describing rock formations as they drive and drive and drive. At the end, it became an endless drive to finish this book.
But similarly packed with so many endless descriptions of Martian landscapes. Page after page of characters describing rock formations as they drive and drive and drive. At the end, it became an endless drive to finish this book.
Very, very reluctant 3 stars. (based off my own enjoyment, I might normally give something like this 2 or even 1)
I have read almost the entire original 100 from the SFF NPR list at this point, and out of all of them, this is the one that I would call "technically good" which I enjoyed the least.
The problem is that Robinson must have decided, at some point, that he was purposely writing a fictional history. Therefore, rather than putting us in the scene with the characters, let's rely on our good friends summary and exposition. Why have a character actually say anything when you can summarize entire conversations? Why explain anything organically or situationally when it is so easy to give encyclopedic infodumps of everything from Mars geology to terraforming technology to (no joke) characters' personalities, motivations, and generally who they are?
I say all this knowing that this book is extremely imaginative, that the characters do have depth, even if it's conveyed terribly, that it's probably one of the best depictions of terraforming I've ever read and that it is one of the better examples of hard science fiction I've ever read. But I just cannot get attached to characters this way. The most infuriating writing style quirk I think I've ever read is starting a conversation with one or two dialogue exchanges, and then SUMMARIZING THE REST OF IT. Oh my god I hated it so much. Almost as much as I despised how Robinson handles character death, in general. If there was any possibility for you to be emotionally attached to these characters, don't worry, he'll fix that with the way that he conveys death. Each major character death in Red Mars is dramatically botched in its own unique way.
A lot of historical nonfiction writers, when given advice about how to make their nonfiction engaging, are told to "write it as if it were fiction." This is an example of why the inverse doesn't work.
A lot of people love this one. I kind of get it. Really, really not for me.
I have read almost the entire original 100 from the SFF NPR list at this point, and out of all of them, this is the one that I would call "technically good" which I enjoyed the least.
The problem is that Robinson must have decided, at some point, that he was purposely writing a fictional history. Therefore, rather than putting us in the scene with the characters, let's rely on our good friends summary and exposition. Why have a character actually say anything when you can summarize entire conversations? Why explain anything organically or situationally when it is so easy to give encyclopedic infodumps of everything from Mars geology to terraforming technology to (no joke) characters' personalities, motivations, and generally who they are?
I say all this knowing that this book is extremely imaginative, that the characters do have depth, even if it's conveyed terribly, that it's probably one of the best depictions of terraforming I've ever read and that it is one of the better examples of hard science fiction I've ever read. But I just cannot get attached to characters this way. The most infuriating writing style quirk I think I've ever read is starting a conversation with one or two dialogue exchanges, and then SUMMARIZING THE REST OF IT. Oh my god I hated it so much. Almost as much as I despised how Robinson handles character death, in general. If there was any possibility for you to be emotionally attached to these characters, don't worry, he'll fix that with the way that he conveys death. Each major character death in Red Mars is dramatically botched in its own unique way.
A lot of historical nonfiction writers, when given advice about how to make their nonfiction engaging, are told to "write it as if it were fiction." This is an example of why the inverse doesn't work.
A lot of people love this one. I kind of get it. Really, really not for me.
Still not entirely clear on what I think of this book. On the one hand, it was a well written, and more or less realistic extrapolation of how the first several decades of a Mars colonization effort might go. On the other hand, it was *extremely* cynical, and it was really difficult to find a likable character anywhere in sight. I also never really got a clear picture of why Frank did what he did in the first chapter other than a general "they disagreed on lots of things despite ostensibly being friends."
It also wasn't quite what I was expecting, either. I went in hoping for a man-vs-nature survival story of living on the frontier. Unfortunately, those aspects of the colonization were largely elided in favor of political maneuvering and bickering. The frequent time jumps meant that you never actually saw them actually overcome any of Mars's environmental obstacles - issues raised in one chapter, such as radiation or Mars dust - either just disappeared as issues in later chapters, or were handwaved away by. As a result, I finished the book feeling vaguely dissatisfied - for all the insistence that things were different on Mars, and life was dangerous, it rarely felt that most of the colonists were more at risk than they would have been colonizing America in the 1600s.
It also wasn't quite what I was expecting, either. I went in hoping for a man-vs-nature survival story of living on the frontier. Unfortunately, those aspects of the colonization were largely elided in favor of political maneuvering and bickering. The frequent time jumps meant that you never actually saw them actually overcome any of Mars's environmental obstacles - issues raised in one chapter, such as radiation or Mars dust - either just disappeared as issues in later chapters, or were handwaved away by
adventurous
emotional
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes