A number of people have recommended KS Robinson’s trilogy, Red Mars, Blue Mars, and Green Mars, very highly. I’m interested in the science, ethics, and social ramifications of space travel, terraforming, and longevity. So I finally got around to picking it up.
The first 100 pages were quite good. The science was believable. The characters weren’t particularly likable, but I did still want to get to know them better. The tension between characters on a ship bound for Mars was intriguing, and again, believable for a small group of people trapped in a bottle together for nine months.
Soon as they got to Mars, though, the trouble started.
- the characters are mostly neurotic and immature - so much so that the only reason any space program would send them to another planet is to get rid of them. Still, I could get over that and think it’s an interesting story if it weren’t for the next thing:
- The characters are not very well drawn. Personalities are given perfunctorily, and then only to underscore a point of view. What are these points of view?
- the same set of about three arguments keeps getting repeated over and over and over… which basically all come down to the pros and cons of social, economic, and ecological revolution. These arguments seem one-sided, with a single point of view always getting a more effective expression, and the opposition usually being portrayed as laughable. For example, arguments against terraforming Mars seem to be designed to be unconvincing: one geologist says, “You put too much value on consciousness and not enough value on rock.” That’s a very representative sample of the dialog.
I’ve kept plowing on, because I’m at least interested to see if this is really a thinly veiled socialist manifesto or actually a misunderstood exploration of how culture is guided (and misguided). But the lack of any real feeling, any real poignancy, or any real humanity is putting me off. What I’ve seen so far would be much more effectively told as clippings from newspapers.
Good science fiction (imho) must still be good fiction, even if it isn’t great literature. Is there something I’ve missed, or haven’t gotten to yet? Am I wrong to judge science fiction based on its qualities as fiction as much as its scientific integrity? If you love these books, tell me why… or why you think the Nebula Award (and so many other experts in science fiction) think so highly of it.