4 ms·
A variant on this features prominently (through one of the main characters/factions) in Kim Stanley Robinson's excellent Red Mars trilogy.
by semi-extrinsic 11y ago
A variant on this features prominently (through one of the main characters/factions) in Kim Stanley Robinson's excellent Red Mars trilogy.
- stcredzero 11y agoFrom what I recall, she keeps on going on about the beauty of the empty landscape, and the possibility of martian life is mentioned less often.
- knowaveragejoe 11y agoWho is she?
- arethuza 11y agoProbably Ann Clayborne - the original Red: http://www.kimstanleyrobinson.info/d/content/ann-clayborne-2 http://www.kimstanleyrobinson.info/d/content/ann-clayborne-2
- arthurcolle 11y agoKim Stanley Robinson is a male author.
- maaku 11y agoThat wrote a book with a prominent female character that was concerned with the native Martian environment.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dredmorbius 11y agoKim Stanley Robinson is male.
- stcredzero 11y agoThe relevant character is female.
- ju-st 11y agoThe reason why the beauty is more prominent is political in my opinion: The people on Mars can relate to and see the changing environment in the later books. The possibility of Martian life is a mere academic motive. Also some characters begin to spread earth life already in the first book. So if they would find Martian life after this event it could be just mutated Earth life...
- bsder 11y agoCaution: I found the Red Mars trilogy excruciatingly boring. YMMV.
- __david__ 11y agoI'm glad it wasn't just me. That book had the largest gap between how much everyone else hyped it and how much I hated it that I've ever encountered. I think the main problem for me was that it introduced so many characters and it rarely (if ever) returned to them in later chapters, that I just didn't care about any single character at all. And that makes reading about them so tedious.
- EGreg 11y agoWhat's the point of preserving a lifeless environment or even one with bacteria and no intelligent animals, over giving humanity a second planet to survive on in case something happens on Earth? After all, even here on Earth we haven't had such a concern for species that are not us. We drove many to extinction even without it being an existential matter for us. I think the human sense of morality is largely dependent on how similar something is to us, to know if we are even hurting it. How can you hurt a lifeless environment that's the product of random, and sometimes cataclysmic, events?
- justnotforme 11y agoI wonder about this; are NASA afraid that we are being monitored by a higher power of some kind that will judge us for polluting Mars. What is the evolutionary value of intelligence if a species choose to confines itself to its home world.