3 ms·

FWIW, I hated Red Mars as a novel. It had some interesting science in it but as a story it was way below par. The characters were not fleshed out well, the bad

FWIW, I hated Red Mars as a novel. It had some interesting science in it but as a story it was way below par. The characters were not fleshed out well, the bad guys had no motivation, the chapters seemed strung together haphazardly with plot threads constantly left dangling. The "exciting finale" felt completely forced with a silly chase sequence that didn't seem to matter in the overal scheme of things. Bad, bad book.

loire280 16y ago
I agree, as a novel it's frustrating at best. I usually give science fiction a pass on plot and characters if the ideas are good. The science is generally sound, the ideas (especially the terraforming techniques) are very interesting, and the descriptions of the Martian topography help anchor the planet in reality in a way that maps or even the rover images can't.
- dstorrs 16y ago
  THANK YOU. I found this book horrifically tedious, and everyone I talk to apparently thinks it's the Greatest Story Evvvaaaarrr1!!!11!! It's nice to know that I'm not completely alone on this.
flatline 16y ago
I thought the first book was alright. Not the best writing but it kept a pace and had interesting content. I read the second and part of the third, they were completely lacking any of the charms of the first.
- jarin 16y ago
  It really helps if you don't try to analyze all of the philosophy and politics until you're done reading the series. I was a little put off by the deus ex machina of the longevity treatments, but I understand that it was necessary to keep a consistent narrative over the timespan it would take to actually terraform Mars. I thought the epilogue (humanity's colonization of the solar system and migration to the stars) was pretty inspiring though.
hartror 16y ago
That often can be a problem with Hard SF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction) the characters usually take the back seat. There also was definitely some loose plotting in there. All that said Red Mars is essential the canonical book when it comes to Mars colonization. Some excellent ideas are imaginatively explored within.

loire280 16y ago

I agree, as a novel it's frustrating at best. I usually give science fiction a pass on plot and characters if the ideas are good. The science is generally sound, the ideas (especially the terraforming techniques) are very interesting, and the descriptions of the Martian topography help anchor the planet in reality in a way that maps or even the rover images can't.

dstorrs 16y ago
THANK YOU. I found this book horrifically tedious, and everyone I talk to apparently thinks it's the Greatest Story Evvvaaaarrr1!!!11!! It's nice to know that I'm not completely alone on this.

flatline 16y ago

I thought the first book was alright. Not the best writing but it kept a pace and had interesting content. I read the second and part of the third, they were completely lacking any of the charms of the first.

jarin 16y ago
It really helps if you don't try to analyze all of the philosophy and politics until you're done reading the series. I was a little put off by the deus ex machina of the longevity treatments, but I understand that it was necessary to keep a consistent narrative over the timespan it would take to actually terraform Mars. I thought the epilogue (humanity's colonization of the solar system and migration to the stars) was pretty inspiring though.

hartror 16y ago

That often can be a problem with Hard SF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction) the characters usually take the back seat. There also was definitely some loose plotting in there. All that said Red Mars is essential the canonical book when it comes to Mars colonization. Some excellent ideas are imaginatively explored within.