Cecilia’s comment > Likes and Comments
1 like · Like
You definitely have a good point. From my point of view, I enjoyed all of the science. I am not super interested in emotional standards of a book, but that is my opinion.
The amount of science and engineering data is a measure by which science fiction earns the additional identification as "hard" science fiction. The "hard" indicates that it pays more than lip service to the science of the work. Weir's book clearly enters that category and dominates it in its detail. For a professional scientist and engineer, it is clear that the level of information probably exceeds overkill, but for me science is an avocational interest, and engineering is how alot of science gets done as it applies the technical means to do the science, at least that's the way it seems to me. Being a historian by training, I find the story of "The Martian" is an interesting read and clearly scientifically based. It also is a shame that Weir used the expletive "f-bomb" very often, but my understanding is that this is the way some people cope with the idea of being left in a totally hostile environment with only one's wits and some meager supplies to figure out how to survive and live until rescue can be expected. That was the single point in Weir's book that I found not as well received with me as it could have been. Still and all, it was a good read, lots of science in the details but with enough to understand and see how much the science and engineering provided the believable backdrop for the anchored the story, making it excellent "science" fiction.
In a way, the focus on science DOES explain how it would feel to be alone on Mars.
18months of extended-length days all alone. As someone who does like to get all existential here on little ol' regular Earth, I can tell you that's a long time, too long, to be alone with your own thoughts. You need something to focus on to keep yourself sane. It's the same reason why the use of "solitary" in prisons comes under scrutiny: too much alone time screws with your mind.
The focus on the science was not only to showcase the extraordinary work that he had to do survive -- not even flourish, but just to survive -- but it also showcases his efforts to stay sane. There's a reason why we were told about how he didn't want to stay in the confined Rover space for too long, why having just disco music was driving him crazy, why he would make the video logs and talk to himself, why he'd go off on tirades when something would go wrong, why it killed him when he lost communication with NASA and was forced into solitary again.
"First person alone on an entire planet", one that is not conducive to human life. How would you feel? Would you focus on the existential, how you could die at any moment, or would you focus on trying to get the fuck off that rock?
Don't think of the science/engineering as a technical manual. Think of it as his lifeline.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Ethan
(new)
Apr 07, 2016 09:49AM
You definitely have a good point. From my point of view, I enjoyed all of the science. I am not super interested in emotional standards of a book, but that is my opinion.
reply
|
flag
The amount of science and engineering data is a measure by which science fiction earns the additional identification as "hard" science fiction. The "hard" indicates that it pays more than lip service to the science of the work. Weir's book clearly enters that category and dominates it in its detail. For a professional scientist and engineer, it is clear that the level of information probably exceeds overkill, but for me science is an avocational interest, and engineering is how alot of science gets done as it applies the technical means to do the science, at least that's the way it seems to me. Being a historian by training, I find the story of "The Martian" is an interesting read and clearly scientifically based. It also is a shame that Weir used the expletive "f-bomb" very often, but my understanding is that this is the way some people cope with the idea of being left in a totally hostile environment with only one's wits and some meager supplies to figure out how to survive and live until rescue can be expected. That was the single point in Weir's book that I found not as well received with me as it could have been. Still and all, it was a good read, lots of science in the details but with enough to understand and see how much the science and engineering provided the believable backdrop for the anchored the story, making it excellent "science" fiction.
In a way, the focus on science DOES explain how it would feel to be alone on Mars. 18months of extended-length days all alone. As someone who does like to get all existential here on little ol' regular Earth, I can tell you that's a long time, too long, to be alone with your own thoughts. You need something to focus on to keep yourself sane. It's the same reason why the use of "solitary" in prisons comes under scrutiny: too much alone time screws with your mind.
The focus on the science was not only to showcase the extraordinary work that he had to do survive -- not even flourish, but just to survive -- but it also showcases his efforts to stay sane. There's a reason why we were told about how he didn't want to stay in the confined Rover space for too long, why having just disco music was driving him crazy, why he would make the video logs and talk to himself, why he'd go off on tirades when something would go wrong, why it killed him when he lost communication with NASA and was forced into solitary again.
"First person alone on an entire planet", one that is not conducive to human life. How would you feel? Would you focus on the existential, how you could die at any moment, or would you focus on trying to get the fuck off that rock?
Don't think of the science/engineering as a technical manual. Think of it as his lifeline.
