You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
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.