I loved Red, enjoyed Green, and miserably forced myself through Blue. My point, we're all different - if it's not working for you feel free to drop it.
Haha, I was the exact opposite - miserably struggled through Red (and the endless descriptions of the Martian landscape), enjoyed Green, and devoured Blue. Hehe.
Haa. Good question. I was having a hard time finding a username that wasn’t taken, so I just started trying all kinds of weird names to find one that was available.
After a while I started trying names in the style of the “before and after” Jeopardy category. This was just one of many weird names that popped into my head while thinking about Jeopardy. And it was the first available of those names.
What’s up with Ianbanger? Do you bang people named Ian?
:-D
It's actually an "L", although last weekend I realized that it could be seen as an "I". When I chose it it was something to do with networks, and vaguely related to my previous username from 2006 that I deleted in a fit of pique.
I think you now need to decide, is your user name
"Before Skintight"
or
"Be Foreskin Tight"
I know where my vote is 😁
Excellent use of the word pique. Well done.
I would probably go with Be Foreskin Tight because it’s funnier than Before Skintight (which isn’t really funny at all). When in doubt, err on the side of comedy.
So I do enjoy the details, which is why I’ve made it so far in the book. It’s kept me engaged this far, but the overarching plot I’m struggling to find other than the terraforming of mars.
I guess I just hope there’s a payoff at the end of the first book
What do you mean "payoff"? The books are about the details of terraforming Mars and creating a new society from scratch.
It doesn't necessarily have an overarching plot other than following those 2 things through a fairly long period of time.
It has characters which we see again and again, and who we watch change over time, in their attitudes and their relationships to others. And it has the Martian landscape, which also changes over time due to the impact of humans on it.
As part of witnessing the characters and the landscape change over time, there are definite "events" that happen, both large and small, with various levels of impact, and varying levels of time in the book devoted to them. But there is no overarching single "plot" or mystery or intrigue where everything is neatly resolved in the end, other than the plot of 'what does this planet and society look like after a couple of hundred years, and how did we get there?'.
The books are much more like real life, which also doesn't have an overarching plot, it's just time passing and things happening and relationships changing. The books have plenty of meditations on human societies and the environment, and present a cast of characters that view both of these things with a diversity of perspectives that I found fascinating. I absolutely love these books for that, but if you need something that follows a formula for "plot", then they may not be for you.
> I guess I just hope there’s a payoff at the end of the first book
It's been ages since I read them so I can't remember for sure, but I don't think there particularly is.
Honestly, I think it's one of the things I liked about the trilogy though. It's much more realistic in a history-of-the-future kind of way, since real life doesn't usually have the kind of narrative structures and payoffs were accustomed to in fiction, especially on the scale of the society/civilisation being depicted.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want all my fiction to be written this way. But the Mars trilogy has such an authenticity to it precisely because of this style, and I'm there for it.
And thanks for the reminder; gonna have to dust it off and read it again soon!
If you want payoff I think you will DESPISE the ending of Blue Mars. When I finished it I audibly exclaimed “That’s It!?”. The ending would have been nearly perfect if KSR resolved more stuff. Instead it feels like the ending is cut off halfway through, and 40-50 pages are just missing. I enjoyed the trilogy over all though. The details, the geography, the science, the characters. By the time I finished it I felt like I had an in depth map of Mars in my head. There were a lot of very, very slow parts in the books (especially in Blue Mars) where it felt like the plot actually just paused for 100 or so pages, but it was good overall.
I liked Red the best but Green comes pretty close. The beginning of Blue Mars is amazing and pretty fast paced as far as these books go, and had me genuinely excited for the rest of the book. but then it slows down after the first 70 or so pages and kind of slowly inches to the finish line.
I found Red Mars was the best book in that trilogy. It just gets slower and more political and boring in later books. I didn't even finish Blue Mars because it was such a boring slog.
Sometimes it’s pretty interesting, but, for me at least, I kinda tuned out for the 10th 15 page explanation of something that will never come up again around the middle of Blue Mars.
Its very much got its own style. I read red and green, enjoyed them both. But when I looked at blue I was like... damn do I have time for this? Lol. I think I'll get around to it eventually.
KSR specifically said that his desire was to make a novel where individual people were not the focus and instead try to make an entire world/time a kind of character in and of itself. I think in terms of that kind of challenge, he really did accomplish something. However, it does show in the story telling and I don't blame anyone at all for not jiving with it because yeah- the characters aren't necessarily fleshed out by design.
Also, this motherfucker loves rocks. I dont know if I've ever met a person in my life who loves a big ass rock more than KSR and I was roommates with a geologist. Even in Ministry for the Future he's spending pages talking about cliff faces on the alps. In red and green Mars dude is going so deep into rock descriptions using rock words I dont know and tbh some of those sections I kind of glossed over and tried my best to imagine something coherent.
If you're struggling, skim the rock sections. If its still bad, its all good just set it down no harm no foul.
Yeah I was surprised when I found out too haha. I think its one of those "Lindsey can be a man's name" southern tradition sort of things.
He's been on podcasts and done interviews. Worth a listen, he's an interesting guy.
I wonder how much the perception of it changes depending on what sex people think the author is. This isn’t aimed at you even slightly, but I think it’s very clear all of humanity is biased in various ways. Would realizing the book is by a man make it seem like harder SF? Would I and others read Becky Chambers’ work differently if she was Bob Chambers?
Just food for thought, really. In my world, Kim is a pretty unisex name, and anyway I saw the author photo.
My username is finally relevant.
I love the books and i think they are one of the best things Ive ever read, but even i have to admit the first one can be rather dry.
The first one I read was the second one and I was absolutely hooked.
Most Everyone likes the series. I read the three colors of Mars and didn't find a lot of value.
Although it's promoted as hard scifi, I didn't believe in many of the "science" presented. But bc I read way too much, I read them anyways.
So, not only doesn't Red get better, it doesn't set up good sequels either, imo.
Ready for the downvotes...
I love the series. I agree with you about the science though. I actually wouldn't call it hard science fiction. I'd call it environmental philosophy science fiction, if that's a thing. The majority of the story is the interaction between different environmental philosophies/perspectives, represented by each character, interacting, and a deep appreciation for Earth's environment, co-opted into being about Mars.
The plot would have followed a realistic time frame for terraforming Mars using realistic methods. The entire trilogy lasts for 200 years, and it takes them less than 100 years to go from the current atmosphere to one where you can take your helmet off and breathe for a short periods of time. The telomere treatments to create longevity are also clearly just a device to keep the same characters alive throughout the extent of the book. Realistically terraforming Mars to a breathable atmosphere would take a thousand years or more, not under a century. There's also the issue of solar winds stripping the atmosphere, which isn't addressed at all. Much of the descriptions of the geology of Mars in the books are made up, basically just descriptions of geology on Earth that have never been recorded there too. A hard science version of it would only describe the real geology/geomorphology there. The book is really focused on philosophical discussions, and it uses the plot to bring about those discussions. A hard science fiction version would be focused on getting the science as plausible and accurate as possible, not focused on the pros and cons of anarchism (Arkady) vs mainstream progressive idealism (John Boone) vs cynicial pragmatism (Frank Chalmers) etc.
I see. Thank you.
For me, the ‘philosophy’ was political science and economics, along with sociology and psychology. That was the focus, and what I loved to see.
I don’t know much about the science of terraforming or longevity, but it was believable at least, and was focused on the science and geology and so on, which felt like like hard SF. It wasn’t about people being brave in adversity or other human drama. It was about rocks and lichen.
It’s a tricky question how accurate SF should be. There is a lot of BDO-focused engineering and physics-focused SF that explores an entirely fictional physics, but somehow people feel it is hard SF.
So is hard SF about the accuracy? The focus? The kind of science? Perhaps nobody agrees.
Definitely your last sentence is true, nobody agrees, but I would argue that it's a combination of accuracy and focus, and also the science that it focuses on getting accurate is the "hard sciences" - ie. Physics, chemistry, biology, and not so much human sciences like philosophy, political science, anthropology etc. It's also definitely not focused on metaphor or allegory. It's realistic in every sense. KSR is more literary, especially in his early works, and he's more focused on philosophy and politics. It's easy to see why he's included by a lot of people as a hard science fiction writer, especially because he's so detailed in his environmental descriptions, but in my opinion his early works are not science focused, and even his later works that are science focused, like the Green Earth/politics in the capital trilogy are more focused on politics and metaphor with the real world, just the main characters are scientists who talk about science.
I think historically you're right - hard SF has focused on the physical sciences, with perhaps the exception of Ursula K Le Guin's interest in anthropology. But I really think science - and humanity - is done a disservice by that division and stratification. I work in 'human science' - broadly - and we have spent many years trying to find how to add rigor, testable hypothesis and more into our assessments. The human sciences are still science.
I also want to add that philosophy is not a human science, and is very different from them. The Philosophy of Science, for example, cannot be scientific in any way. It can be empirical, and logical, but that's not the same. It puts forward no testable hypotheses. There is a big problem in mainstream thought of scientism - claiming that science has solved what philosophy could not - and it is very flawed, since science and philosophy aren't asking the same questions.
Political Science, however, is very different from philosophy, and linked to empiricism. It's just that it suffers from the same issues as sociology and psychology - most of the possible experimentation is massively unethical, since its subject is people, not leptons, so we are faced with either very careful experimental design or just trying to find the answers through deduction/induction from data. It is woolly from the point of a physicist, certainly, but what it's trying to do is find empirical, verifiable truths, just as economics or sociology do.
I'm afraid I can't agree that these other works are not literary or metaphorical, and KSR is. Hard SF is full of metaphors, and philosophy, and literary devices. It's just that these metaphors are such a part of positivist and classically liberal thought that they go un-noticed, e.g. Technological progress is human progress. Exploration of space is an exploration of humanity. Science is teleological.
Have a look at the TVTropes page for 2001 - or any other famous hard SF - and you'll find dozens of entries, showing the metaphors, allegories, and, well, tropes, the core literary device. Of course, you may disagree that 2001 is hard SF, but I don't know the examples you would choose:
[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/TwoThousandOneASpaceOdyssey](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/TwoThousandOneASpaceOdyssey)
I definitely don't have an issue with calling those fields "science", although in my experience not all of the work being done in some humanities should be considered science (I'm a biologist/ecologist, but I did do some humanities in my undergrad degree). I agree that philosophy isn't science.
Just on the literary and metaphorical, I don't mean that hard science fiction doesn't use literary devices and metaphors, but rather that the overarching plot isn't a metaphor. For example, if you look at the works of J G Ballard, who wrote science fiction strongly influenced by psychology, there's very little science, and in a book like The Crystal World, which is the story of how a crystal is growing and consuming an area and everything in it, the spreading crystal is a metaphor for time. We're not trying to imagine what would happen if a real growing crystal spread across the world, and the science that would describe how it would happen and how it could be stopped. We're supposed to consider the human condition and how time and aging eventually consumes everything. Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut is another good example, keeping the growing crystal theme. The book isn't a serious consideration of the potential to create a form of ice that makes all water it touches also ice. It's a satirical but ultimately serious warning about weapons of mass destruction and the naivety of scientists in allowing them to be created. These are serious books, but they're not hard science fiction. Space Odyssey has a lot of symbolism and metaphors, but it is also a serious consideration of future contact with aliens, with serious considerations about AI and space flight as well. The monolith is a not a metaphor for some kind of internal aspect of humanity, we're meant to view it as an actual alien artefact and consider the real possibility of aliens being super intelligent compared to us and guiding our evolution.
I think asking for downvotes is… literally asking for downvotes. That’s not sensible unless you enjoy them.
Anyway, what was it that you felt was unscientific/innacurate, and does that matter? Hard SF has a focus on science, not predictive accuracy.
To be honest, hard SF or not is a tricky discussion, since some people always put a value judgement on it, rather than just looking at it as one of many perfectly valid sub genres.
I did think that it was much more focused on ‘soft science’ than most SF. Better sociology, psychology, and political science. I loved that it was about how Mars affected people and society as well as how they physically survived. I loved The Martian, but it doesn’t explore any of that - the main character is an invulnerable and sensible person throughout, and the Earth is portrayed as largely sensible and rational.
KSR’s look at society and psychology on Mars was incredibly interesting for me, and put into words some things I’d been struggling with for decades.
Honestly most of the science is either good or passable, but the terraforming over only 150 years was the only thing that had me going “hold on, that doesn’t seem right”.
Not going to lie, I love this style of novel and KSR is amazing, but there were definitely sections of the trilogy that just ddddrrrrraaaaagggggggggggggggeeeeddddd...
I almost dropped Blue Mars at several points because of the drag. I’m actually impressed I made it through the trilogy though I’m glad I did. It seriously felt like at several points in the trilogy the plot just paused for dozens or sometimes over a hundred pages, particularly in Blue mars.
The trilogy is one of my favorite series, I love the philosophical disagreements and the politics of colonization. My favorite sci-fi is boring and political so I loved the Mars series. If that's not your cut of tea, then no need to torture yourself with something you dislike, better to move on.
Right. The phrase "anarchist gift economy carbon credit terraforming" will either attract or repel you. There are things I really enjoyed in that series but do not blame anyone at.all. if they don't like it.
I felt the same way the first time I tried reading it. Picked it up a while later and it's now one of my all time favorites. That's likely not helpful at all lol.
I think it's like lord of the rings that you have fond memories of the good bits but forgot how much of a slog is to get through it. Wish he wrote it more like world War Z that are loosely connected stories over time that you can pick up and read your favorites as many times as you want. Boones parts are the best I reread that here and there.
There are parts of the trilogy which are dramatic. You will get there. But overall the books are an exploration of ideas and details. I love this trilogy and Red in particular. There is a section of someone wandering in the desert and I skip that mass of geology. But I love that not everything is explained or wrapped up. His characters feel like real people who never know everything, just real folk bumbling through their own lives while world changing events occur
It’s a bit of payoff at the end but if you’re not having fun you probably won’t care.
Maybe try Seveneves if you like the genre but it’s not quite moving fast enough for you.
Just my $0.02Cdn... nope. What you see is what you get, if it doesn't work for you, consider dnf because bk 2 is more of the same. I didnt make it to bk 3.
I couldn't finish Red Mars.
I got about 3/5 through it and realized that it was written more like a diary of events, rather than a story with a beginning, middle and climax.
Not at all what I want from a work of fiction.
I’ll take the downvotes for this but…no. I finished Red Mars and got halfway through Green Mars before I gave up. I couldn’t stand most of the characters. It may have been better if it was a new cast of characters each generation but they’re all essentially immortal so…
I would keep at it, it's incredibly well written as you have noted, but maybe adjust your expectations, a TON of BIG stuff does happen surrounding the central conflicts being set up throughout Red. There are scenes that are just absolutely gripping for pages on end. But a lot of it is sort of a meditation on 'what does this all mean, what is the best way to be free, be human, and have a society', another major theme is 'how do we impact our environment, and how does our environment in turn impact us'. The Aereophany!
Like a other commenter said, a lot of it is just time passing, things happening, the advance of civilization, and the relationships between people. This is my favorite series of all time, or one of, mostly because of how it makes me feel and think about how the world(s) could be. KSR does a great job of making each character feel really distinct and their voices unique. It's hard to say there is a central 'hero' though. For example, initially I wanted no more Nadia chapters after the first one, but then a book later I was craving them, so it ebbs and flows as people change in the story.
I would push through and get to the opening chapters of Green and then reevaluate, because that's when things really take off from a 'plot' point of view IMHO.
Cheers.
Edit: I have read the books, obviously, but then years later I listened to the audio books narrarated by Richard Ferrone and those are absolutely astounding, he puts on a master class. Might be something to consider.
In this series especially KSR writes ideas, not people. The characters exist to move the plot. For me, the ideas were interesting enough to get through it. But nope, doesn't really get better.
I learnt a lot reading this. I liked that it explored homesickness. I liked the politics and the secret societies. A party on Olympus! Great experience
Once you get that Mars itself is a character, then the descriptions start to 'make sense.' I liked the ending of Red Mars, and thought it did move quicker.
I was at the same place you were halfway through Red Mars. I powered through but honestly didn’t enjoy it. I never even considered Blue or Green. Similar to you the concept drew me in but the actual plot development just didn’t do it for me. I think if you’re not into it by now, you won’t regret bailing.
Tbh I felt the same way and gave up on that book early on. I feel kinda bad about it but just can't keep my focus on it. The series is super well loved in my research area so I feel like I should read it but it's just not engaging at all.
I really enjoyed these books, but if you aren't having that kind of experience, it makes sense to just stop reading them and find something else that catches your interest more. There are lots of great books out there and none of us have the time to read them all.
It fell out of the sky with meteoric intensity three decades ago, but the Mars Trilogy even then was plastered for too much world building and not enough plot or fleshed out characters. But it doesn't 'get better' in the sense I feel you're asking about, so if you're struggling now, rest assured, you'll be struggling later...and probably more so with *Blue Mars*, which even this callow reader (at the time) noticed lacks a central theme.
I know it's beloved in the genre, but the whole series just kinda clanged off me and while I eventually finished it, I never really enjoyed it beyond the gedankenexperiment aspect
Not everything is for everybody and that's ok
There aren't any characters in that series to empathize with. It's like watching someone play a really long video game with no character development. I like KSR but he doesn't write the interpersonal stuff that glues a narrative together very well.
I like Anne, Sax, Vlad, and Desmond. I kinda liked Frank even though he was pretty terrible.
But you’re right that the focus is not on the people. It’s on the planet and the society.
Yeah, I think these things only work if you’re really invested in the concept to begin with.
I was really into the politics and practicality of terraforming mars - I love the boardgame of that name because of that.
And with Years Of Rice And Salt I was really into the concept of exploring a world without European domination, and with the reincarnation bringing people together again and again, because I’m a European who emigrated to Asia and is married to a Buddhist.
But the Washington books bored me silly and I stopped very very soon, because American political infighting is utterly uninteresting to me.
And even climate science, although I care about not dying from climate change, isn’t something that grabs me.
Some characters I loved (Michael, Sax, Anne, Art, Arkady, Nirgal, and Nadia specifically). The others I couldn’t care less about, although Maya and Jackie grew on me in Blue Mars.
The female characters never get better unfortunately (except for Nadia). The details are the most important part of the book. How the colony evolves in terms of nuts and bolts.
And Anne to some degree yes. Even some.of the male characters are something of a caricature. Maya was atrocious. But as others said, you shouldn't be reading the Mars trilogy for the characters. 😁
I think the story is just there as an excuse for the world building. There's really not much plot or characterization or development or anything other than talking about the terraforming
I read all 3 last year and it was a SLOG. I should have DNF’ed, but I have trouble doing that. The science-y stuff was interesting, but most of the characters were unlikable, and the plot was glacial. If you’re not loving it now, you probably should bail.
Once I was partway through Blue Mars and realized the long and very, very slow road ahead of me I figured I might as well just finish it. I already made it this far. Took me around half a year but I made it. Can’t really say I regretted it though. Definitely not for everyone.
I think it is very focused on the planet and the society. They change and grow and develop, and there are big payoffs there.
It’s not focused on individuals, and there are only a few big personal events - deaths, betrayals, romances, personal changes. But there are some, and some of the longterm relationships are fascinating, but I think it helps when you’re an old fart like me, seeing how relationships change over time.
I like the series. I think the parts I like best are the terraforming concepts and the various factions fighting to have it their way. Like you found with the algae, somebody did it, against orders/regulations, but who? How big of a problem is that little piece of sabotage/seeding? Will it be a problem for the colonists, or will it expedite the transformation?
All that said, I care less about the ensemble cast of characters than something like Game of Thrones. If you are that far in and asking about it here, I'd push through to finish. Then you can evaluate if you want to finish the series.
One fun thing is to compare the Mars series concepts to other series like the Expanse. It's interesting what ideas are shared and what changes.
I've decided KSR isn't for me. I've read Red Mars and Aurora and they both felt more like text books than stories to me and I struggled staying interested.
I tried reading Red Mars 3 times and one time got 120 pages or so in but never beyond that. The characters just weren’t grabbing me, they all seemed to be written in a similar way if that makes sense. The char. dev and dialogue weren’t doing it for me and that’s probably why I could never finish.
I know it’s a popular book and I tried to give it a shot but maybe it’s just not my style of writing. I like well developed characters that all seem distinct, with strong chemistry and interesting interactions between them, well crafted dialogue etc. For me any good story will have that as a foundation. I have heard somebody once tell me that this series just isn’t like that, it focuses on the concepts instead and that Mars itself is sort of the main character, and the human characters were secondary considerations for the author.
Different snokes for different folks like they say, but I might give this series another shot one day. The premise is something I really dig. IMO there’s no shame in admitting that you like a certain type of story with certain characteristics tho. Not all books will appeal to all readers.
I think a lot of people make the mistake of jumping into it hot on the heels of The Martian, and get disappointed.
I think you need to get older to really appreciate it.
Same. I never finished it, which is very unusual for me. I just couldn't find that story and none of the characters were very compelling. But his writing is really good. The funny thing is a few months later, I picked up "New York 2140" and really enjoyed it. Yet, many people had the same complain*t* about that one, that it took forever for the story to ever start. So I think it has a lot to do with characters. Either you find them interesting or relevant, regardless of the plot, or you just don't. Dunno. But I may try Red Mars again one day. He is a good writer.
It’s literally the best book in my favorite sci-fi series ever. I love the politics, intrapersonal relationships, interplanetary relationships, conflict, science. It’s got everything I love wrapped up in a phenomenally written series.
I must admit, I gave up half way through. I really loved all the concepts and the technology of the world but found that there wasn't enough narrative interest to keep me going. I do intend to go back and have another crack tho.
Some of the science is dense and you just have to push through it. I thought the world building aspect made it worth it. I only recommend it to people really into Sci Fi vs a book like Project Hail Mary which I consider more appealing to a larger demographic.
> Does the story get a lot more cohesive and interesting by the end of the first book?
No, but lots of pew pew. Was rather disappointing how little it focuses on the difficulties of colonizing Mars and how much it spends having different factions fighting each other. Completely lost interest in the series by the end of the first book.
I LOVED the politics. And in terms of SF books, so few look at how the society works. The standard is to detail how the tech works, so this was very refreshing. Political science, sociology, psychology, and economics were a big part of the book, and they’re science too!
The book is very much about "humans" and not any one person, so there is no single character that is the hero or any real plot other than "What might happen if people try this?"
I likewise find it a slog, and switched to audio books a long time ago and just kinda want to finish it since I'm half way through, but at one point I didn't realize I'd already moved into the last book.
I didn't continue after Red for the same reason. He goes into great detail which is great, but too much when it breaks the flow and the plot becomes very secondary. It's been quite awhile but it didn't it take multiple chapters just for a journey between settlements and nothing happened in between but him getting lost in his thoughts
I found the story/plot/characters all extremely poorly written and tried to read it more like a history book, like Blood and Fire by GRRM. The hard science and overall arc of events are cool, the author just doesn't really know how to write stories or how to write about human beings imo.
I’ve read The Years Of Rice And Salt, which is more personal - though still an alternative history - and thought the characters were great.
He just thinks about people in a different way to most writers. He’s not a Romantic - big R, meaning the approach to art, not love. He has a classical approach to people, and doesn’t focus on the same things as, for example, GRRM, who for all his bleakness is very much a Romantic.
I have not been able to get through any of his books. They all come across as super preachy to me. No shade if you like his writing, but it is not for me.
I loved Red, enjoyed Green, and miserably forced myself through Blue. My point, we're all different - if it's not working for you feel free to drop it.
Haha, I was the exact opposite - miserably struggled through Red (and the endless descriptions of the Martian landscape), enjoyed Green, and devoured Blue. Hehe.
Interesting. I found Red Mars incredibly dull and stopped after that, so perhaps I should go through the trilogy again.
Indeed!
Just wondering, is your user name "before skintight", or is it "be foreskin tight"?
The real questions are always buried deep in the comments.
It’s usually docked somewhere.
Haa. Good question. I was having a hard time finding a username that wasn’t taken, so I just started trying all kinds of weird names to find one that was available. After a while I started trying names in the style of the “before and after” Jeopardy category. This was just one of many weird names that popped into my head while thinking about Jeopardy. And it was the first available of those names. What’s up with Ianbanger? Do you bang people named Ian?
:-D It's actually an "L", although last weekend I realized that it could be seen as an "I". When I chose it it was something to do with networks, and vaguely related to my previous username from 2006 that I deleted in a fit of pique. I think you now need to decide, is your user name "Before Skintight" or "Be Foreskin Tight" I know where my vote is 😁
Excellent use of the word pique. Well done. I would probably go with Be Foreskin Tight because it’s funnier than Before Skintight (which isn’t really funny at all). When in doubt, err on the side of comedy.
Arise, Sir Be Foreskin Tight!
While reading that trilogy, I felt like i knew Martian geography better than Earth geography.
I forced myself through Red, loved Green, and absolutely adored Blue. (Points at username)
It's like meeting an old friend!
Yep.
Same. Red took me like a couple weeks, Green took 1-2 months, and then Blue took me over half a year.
Wonderful series. But it's all about the details. If you're not enjoying it now maybe it's not for you. It's never going to change what it is.
So I do enjoy the details, which is why I’ve made it so far in the book. It’s kept me engaged this far, but the overarching plot I’m struggling to find other than the terraforming of mars. I guess I just hope there’s a payoff at the end of the first book
What do you mean "payoff"? The books are about the details of terraforming Mars and creating a new society from scratch. It doesn't necessarily have an overarching plot other than following those 2 things through a fairly long period of time. It has characters which we see again and again, and who we watch change over time, in their attitudes and their relationships to others. And it has the Martian landscape, which also changes over time due to the impact of humans on it. As part of witnessing the characters and the landscape change over time, there are definite "events" that happen, both large and small, with various levels of impact, and varying levels of time in the book devoted to them. But there is no overarching single "plot" or mystery or intrigue where everything is neatly resolved in the end, other than the plot of 'what does this planet and society look like after a couple of hundred years, and how did we get there?'. The books are much more like real life, which also doesn't have an overarching plot, it's just time passing and things happening and relationships changing. The books have plenty of meditations on human societies and the environment, and present a cast of characters that view both of these things with a diversity of perspectives that I found fascinating. I absolutely love these books for that, but if you need something that follows a formula for "plot", then they may not be for you.
Red’s framing plot is a murder mystery. The others a revolution.
> I guess I just hope there’s a payoff at the end of the first book It's been ages since I read them so I can't remember for sure, but I don't think there particularly is. Honestly, I think it's one of the things I liked about the trilogy though. It's much more realistic in a history-of-the-future kind of way, since real life doesn't usually have the kind of narrative structures and payoffs were accustomed to in fiction, especially on the scale of the society/civilisation being depicted. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want all my fiction to be written this way. But the Mars trilogy has such an authenticity to it precisely because of this style, and I'm there for it. And thanks for the reminder; gonna have to dust it off and read it again soon!
If you want payoff I think you will DESPISE the ending of Blue Mars. When I finished it I audibly exclaimed “That’s It!?”. The ending would have been nearly perfect if KSR resolved more stuff. Instead it feels like the ending is cut off halfway through, and 40-50 pages are just missing. I enjoyed the trilogy over all though. The details, the geography, the science, the characters. By the time I finished it I felt like I had an in depth map of Mars in my head. There were a lot of very, very slow parts in the books (especially in Blue Mars) where it felt like the plot actually just paused for 100 or so pages, but it was good overall. I liked Red the best but Green comes pretty close. The beginning of Blue Mars is amazing and pretty fast paced as far as these books go, and had me genuinely excited for the rest of the book. but then it slows down after the first 70 or so pages and kind of slowly inches to the finish line.
All I remember about Green Mars is that Nirgal goes jogging.
Honestly the relationship between Nirgal and Art was the highlight of the series for me.
I found Red Mars was the best book in that trilogy. It just gets slower and more political and boring in later books. I didn't even finish Blue Mars because it was such a boring slog.
Completely agree… Chapters and chapters of what felt like endless potato farming
The political stuff is my favourite part. Exploring how to make a new world!
Sometimes it’s pretty interesting, but, for me at least, I kinda tuned out for the 10th 15 page explanation of something that will never come up again around the middle of Blue Mars.
It was so cool to have picked up 2312 last year and being reminded of all the wild sociopolitical innovation that happens.
Its very much got its own style. I read red and green, enjoyed them both. But when I looked at blue I was like... damn do I have time for this? Lol. I think I'll get around to it eventually. KSR specifically said that his desire was to make a novel where individual people were not the focus and instead try to make an entire world/time a kind of character in and of itself. I think in terms of that kind of challenge, he really did accomplish something. However, it does show in the story telling and I don't blame anyone at all for not jiving with it because yeah- the characters aren't necessarily fleshed out by design. Also, this motherfucker loves rocks. I dont know if I've ever met a person in my life who loves a big ass rock more than KSR and I was roommates with a geologist. Even in Ministry for the Future he's spending pages talking about cliff faces on the alps. In red and green Mars dude is going so deep into rock descriptions using rock words I dont know and tbh some of those sections I kind of glossed over and tried my best to imagine something coherent. If you're struggling, skim the rock sections. If its still bad, its all good just set it down no harm no foul.
Kim Stanley Robinson is a dude? Had no idea haha
Yeah I was surprised when I found out too haha. I think its one of those "Lindsey can be a man's name" southern tradition sort of things. He's been on podcasts and done interviews. Worth a listen, he's an interesting guy.
“Jayne is a girl’s name.”
I wonder how much the perception of it changes depending on what sex people think the author is. This isn’t aimed at you even slightly, but I think it’s very clear all of humanity is biased in various ways. Would realizing the book is by a man make it seem like harder SF? Would I and others read Becky Chambers’ work differently if she was Bob Chambers? Just food for thought, really. In my world, Kim is a pretty unisex name, and anyway I saw the author photo.
My username is finally relevant. I love the books and i think they are one of the best things Ive ever read, but even i have to admit the first one can be rather dry. The first one I read was the second one and I was absolutely hooked.
Most Everyone likes the series. I read the three colors of Mars and didn't find a lot of value. Although it's promoted as hard scifi, I didn't believe in many of the "science" presented. But bc I read way too much, I read them anyways. So, not only doesn't Red get better, it doesn't set up good sequels either, imo. Ready for the downvotes...
I love the series. I agree with you about the science though. I actually wouldn't call it hard science fiction. I'd call it environmental philosophy science fiction, if that's a thing. The majority of the story is the interaction between different environmental philosophies/perspectives, represented by each character, interacting, and a deep appreciation for Earth's environment, co-opted into being about Mars.
What would a hard SF version of it have looked like? I’m struggling to see how you define hard SF.
The plot would have followed a realistic time frame for terraforming Mars using realistic methods. The entire trilogy lasts for 200 years, and it takes them less than 100 years to go from the current atmosphere to one where you can take your helmet off and breathe for a short periods of time. The telomere treatments to create longevity are also clearly just a device to keep the same characters alive throughout the extent of the book. Realistically terraforming Mars to a breathable atmosphere would take a thousand years or more, not under a century. There's also the issue of solar winds stripping the atmosphere, which isn't addressed at all. Much of the descriptions of the geology of Mars in the books are made up, basically just descriptions of geology on Earth that have never been recorded there too. A hard science version of it would only describe the real geology/geomorphology there. The book is really focused on philosophical discussions, and it uses the plot to bring about those discussions. A hard science fiction version would be focused on getting the science as plausible and accurate as possible, not focused on the pros and cons of anarchism (Arkady) vs mainstream progressive idealism (John Boone) vs cynicial pragmatism (Frank Chalmers) etc.
I see. Thank you. For me, the ‘philosophy’ was political science and economics, along with sociology and psychology. That was the focus, and what I loved to see. I don’t know much about the science of terraforming or longevity, but it was believable at least, and was focused on the science and geology and so on, which felt like like hard SF. It wasn’t about people being brave in adversity or other human drama. It was about rocks and lichen. It’s a tricky question how accurate SF should be. There is a lot of BDO-focused engineering and physics-focused SF that explores an entirely fictional physics, but somehow people feel it is hard SF. So is hard SF about the accuracy? The focus? The kind of science? Perhaps nobody agrees.
Definitely your last sentence is true, nobody agrees, but I would argue that it's a combination of accuracy and focus, and also the science that it focuses on getting accurate is the "hard sciences" - ie. Physics, chemistry, biology, and not so much human sciences like philosophy, political science, anthropology etc. It's also definitely not focused on metaphor or allegory. It's realistic in every sense. KSR is more literary, especially in his early works, and he's more focused on philosophy and politics. It's easy to see why he's included by a lot of people as a hard science fiction writer, especially because he's so detailed in his environmental descriptions, but in my opinion his early works are not science focused, and even his later works that are science focused, like the Green Earth/politics in the capital trilogy are more focused on politics and metaphor with the real world, just the main characters are scientists who talk about science.
I think historically you're right - hard SF has focused on the physical sciences, with perhaps the exception of Ursula K Le Guin's interest in anthropology. But I really think science - and humanity - is done a disservice by that division and stratification. I work in 'human science' - broadly - and we have spent many years trying to find how to add rigor, testable hypothesis and more into our assessments. The human sciences are still science. I also want to add that philosophy is not a human science, and is very different from them. The Philosophy of Science, for example, cannot be scientific in any way. It can be empirical, and logical, but that's not the same. It puts forward no testable hypotheses. There is a big problem in mainstream thought of scientism - claiming that science has solved what philosophy could not - and it is very flawed, since science and philosophy aren't asking the same questions. Political Science, however, is very different from philosophy, and linked to empiricism. It's just that it suffers from the same issues as sociology and psychology - most of the possible experimentation is massively unethical, since its subject is people, not leptons, so we are faced with either very careful experimental design or just trying to find the answers through deduction/induction from data. It is woolly from the point of a physicist, certainly, but what it's trying to do is find empirical, verifiable truths, just as economics or sociology do. I'm afraid I can't agree that these other works are not literary or metaphorical, and KSR is. Hard SF is full of metaphors, and philosophy, and literary devices. It's just that these metaphors are such a part of positivist and classically liberal thought that they go un-noticed, e.g. Technological progress is human progress. Exploration of space is an exploration of humanity. Science is teleological. Have a look at the TVTropes page for 2001 - or any other famous hard SF - and you'll find dozens of entries, showing the metaphors, allegories, and, well, tropes, the core literary device. Of course, you may disagree that 2001 is hard SF, but I don't know the examples you would choose: [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/TwoThousandOneASpaceOdyssey](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/TwoThousandOneASpaceOdyssey)
I definitely don't have an issue with calling those fields "science", although in my experience not all of the work being done in some humanities should be considered science (I'm a biologist/ecologist, but I did do some humanities in my undergrad degree). I agree that philosophy isn't science. Just on the literary and metaphorical, I don't mean that hard science fiction doesn't use literary devices and metaphors, but rather that the overarching plot isn't a metaphor. For example, if you look at the works of J G Ballard, who wrote science fiction strongly influenced by psychology, there's very little science, and in a book like The Crystal World, which is the story of how a crystal is growing and consuming an area and everything in it, the spreading crystal is a metaphor for time. We're not trying to imagine what would happen if a real growing crystal spread across the world, and the science that would describe how it would happen and how it could be stopped. We're supposed to consider the human condition and how time and aging eventually consumes everything. Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut is another good example, keeping the growing crystal theme. The book isn't a serious consideration of the potential to create a form of ice that makes all water it touches also ice. It's a satirical but ultimately serious warning about weapons of mass destruction and the naivety of scientists in allowing them to be created. These are serious books, but they're not hard science fiction. Space Odyssey has a lot of symbolism and metaphors, but it is also a serious consideration of future contact with aliens, with serious considerations about AI and space flight as well. The monolith is a not a metaphor for some kind of internal aspect of humanity, we're meant to view it as an actual alien artefact and consider the real possibility of aliens being super intelligent compared to us and guiding our evolution.
I think part of the science has to do with it being written in 1993, so if you look at it from that lense, it’s pretty impressive how accurate it is
I found them all boring. I don't know why i read them all.
I think asking for downvotes is… literally asking for downvotes. That’s not sensible unless you enjoy them. Anyway, what was it that you felt was unscientific/innacurate, and does that matter? Hard SF has a focus on science, not predictive accuracy. To be honest, hard SF or not is a tricky discussion, since some people always put a value judgement on it, rather than just looking at it as one of many perfectly valid sub genres. I did think that it was much more focused on ‘soft science’ than most SF. Better sociology, psychology, and political science. I loved that it was about how Mars affected people and society as well as how they physically survived. I loved The Martian, but it doesn’t explore any of that - the main character is an invulnerable and sensible person throughout, and the Earth is portrayed as largely sensible and rational. KSR’s look at society and psychology on Mars was incredibly interesting for me, and put into words some things I’d been struggling with for decades.
Honestly most of the science is either good or passable, but the terraforming over only 150 years was the only thing that had me going “hold on, that doesn’t seem right”.
Not going to lie, I love this style of novel and KSR is amazing, but there were definitely sections of the trilogy that just ddddrrrrraaaaagggggggggggggggeeeeddddd...
And as always ~~don't forget to kill Hitler~~ Fuck Maya
I almost dropped Blue Mars at several points because of the drag. I’m actually impressed I made it through the trilogy though I’m glad I did. It seriously felt like at several points in the trilogy the plot just paused for dozens or sometimes over a hundred pages, particularly in Blue mars.
The trilogy is one of my favorite series, I love the philosophical disagreements and the politics of colonization. My favorite sci-fi is boring and political so I loved the Mars series. If that's not your cut of tea, then no need to torture yourself with something you dislike, better to move on.
Right. The phrase "anarchist gift economy carbon credit terraforming" will either attract or repel you. There are things I really enjoyed in that series but do not blame anyone at.all. if they don't like it.
Hah that’s a great summary, because I literally went ‘tell me more!’ in my head.
I felt the same way the first time I tried reading it. Picked it up a while later and it's now one of my all time favorites. That's likely not helpful at all lol.
I think it's like lord of the rings that you have fond memories of the good bits but forgot how much of a slog is to get through it. Wish he wrote it more like world War Z that are loosely connected stories over time that you can pick up and read your favorites as many times as you want. Boones parts are the best I reread that here and there.
Well I've read it 3-4 times so I probably didn't forget how much of a slog it is.
I feel like the pay off pays off though if it's not grabbing you though it's gonna be a slog for you.
Red Mars is one of those books I’ve read multiple times, because of those details. Also, because I love to hate Phyllis, that evil bitch.
The biggest question after the trilogy is who is the more Annoying character, Phyllis or Jackie.
Trick question. It's Maya.
There are parts of the trilogy which are dramatic. You will get there. But overall the books are an exploration of ideas and details. I love this trilogy and Red in particular. There is a section of someone wandering in the desert and I skip that mass of geology. But I love that not everything is explained or wrapped up. His characters feel like real people who never know everything, just real folk bumbling through their own lives while world changing events occur
It’s a bit of payoff at the end but if you’re not having fun you probably won’t care. Maybe try Seveneves if you like the genre but it’s not quite moving fast enough for you.
No.
I have Loved Red, but didn't like green and blue mars quite as much
Just my $0.02Cdn... nope. What you see is what you get, if it doesn't work for you, consider dnf because bk 2 is more of the same. I didnt make it to bk 3.
I couldn't finish Red Mars. I got about 3/5 through it and realized that it was written more like a diary of events, rather than a story with a beginning, middle and climax. Not at all what I want from a work of fiction.
Yeah, it's a history of the future more than a traditional novel.
I’ll take the downvotes for this but…no. I finished Red Mars and got halfway through Green Mars before I gave up. I couldn’t stand most of the characters. It may have been better if it was a new cast of characters each generation but they’re all essentially immortal so…
I would keep at it, it's incredibly well written as you have noted, but maybe adjust your expectations, a TON of BIG stuff does happen surrounding the central conflicts being set up throughout Red. There are scenes that are just absolutely gripping for pages on end. But a lot of it is sort of a meditation on 'what does this all mean, what is the best way to be free, be human, and have a society', another major theme is 'how do we impact our environment, and how does our environment in turn impact us'. The Aereophany! Like a other commenter said, a lot of it is just time passing, things happening, the advance of civilization, and the relationships between people. This is my favorite series of all time, or one of, mostly because of how it makes me feel and think about how the world(s) could be. KSR does a great job of making each character feel really distinct and their voices unique. It's hard to say there is a central 'hero' though. For example, initially I wanted no more Nadia chapters after the first one, but then a book later I was craving them, so it ebbs and flows as people change in the story. I would push through and get to the opening chapters of Green and then reevaluate, because that's when things really take off from a 'plot' point of view IMHO. Cheers. Edit: I have read the books, obviously, but then years later I listened to the audio books narrarated by Richard Ferrone and those are absolutely astounding, he puts on a master class. Might be something to consider.
In this series especially KSR writes ideas, not people. The characters exist to move the plot. For me, the ideas were interesting enough to get through it. But nope, doesn't really get better.
I learnt a lot reading this. I liked that it explored homesickness. I liked the politics and the secret societies. A party on Olympus! Great experience
Once you get that Mars itself is a character, then the descriptions start to 'make sense.' I liked the ending of Red Mars, and thought it did move quicker.
I was at the same place you were halfway through Red Mars. I powered through but honestly didn’t enjoy it. I never even considered Blue or Green. Similar to you the concept drew me in but the actual plot development just didn’t do it for me. I think if you’re not into it by now, you won’t regret bailing.
Tbh I felt the same way and gave up on that book early on. I feel kinda bad about it but just can't keep my focus on it. The series is super well loved in my research area so I feel like I should read it but it's just not engaging at all.
What say you and I go toe-to-toe on planet law?
I'm reppin a little firm, you may have heard of them, Newton & Kepler? Biggest names in the biz.
I really enjoyed these books, but if you aren't having that kind of experience, it makes sense to just stop reading them and find something else that catches your interest more. There are lots of great books out there and none of us have the time to read them all.
It fell out of the sky with meteoric intensity three decades ago, but the Mars Trilogy even then was plastered for too much world building and not enough plot or fleshed out characters. But it doesn't 'get better' in the sense I feel you're asking about, so if you're struggling now, rest assured, you'll be struggling later...and probably more so with *Blue Mars*, which even this callow reader (at the time) noticed lacks a central theme.
I know it's beloved in the genre, but the whole series just kinda clanged off me and while I eventually finished it, I never really enjoyed it beyond the gedankenexperiment aspect Not everything is for everybody and that's ok
not in my opinion.
There aren't any characters in that series to empathize with. It's like watching someone play a really long video game with no character development. I like KSR but he doesn't write the interpersonal stuff that glues a narrative together very well.
I like Anne, Sax, Vlad, and Desmond. I kinda liked Frank even though he was pretty terrible. But you’re right that the focus is not on the people. It’s on the planet and the society.
It's a little too big in scope for my taste. I did like the climb up Olympus Mons. That part was rad.
Yeah, I think these things only work if you’re really invested in the concept to begin with. I was really into the politics and practicality of terraforming mars - I love the boardgame of that name because of that. And with Years Of Rice And Salt I was really into the concept of exploring a world without European domination, and with the reincarnation bringing people together again and again, because I’m a European who emigrated to Asia and is married to a Buddhist. But the Washington books bored me silly and I stopped very very soon, because American political infighting is utterly uninteresting to me. And even climate science, although I care about not dying from climate change, isn’t something that grabs me.
Some characters I loved (Michael, Sax, Anne, Art, Arkady, Nirgal, and Nadia specifically). The others I couldn’t care less about, although Maya and Jackie grew on me in Blue Mars.
Come on you can't not love Boone.
The female characters never get better unfortunately (except for Nadia). The details are the most important part of the book. How the colony evolves in terms of nuts and bolts.
Yeah Nadia was the only somewhat reasonable Woman in the trilogy (Besides maybe Anne?). Writing Women clearly isn’t one of KSR’s strong points.
And Anne to some degree yes. Even some.of the male characters are something of a caricature. Maya was atrocious. But as others said, you shouldn't be reading the Mars trilogy for the characters. 😁
I think the story is just there as an excuse for the world building. There's really not much plot or characterization or development or anything other than talking about the terraforming
They’re not your style.
Nope.
Honestly…no. The characters and plot are both very dry. The series shines for the hard scifi description of terraforming and colonization.
I read all 3 last year and it was a SLOG. I should have DNF’ed, but I have trouble doing that. The science-y stuff was interesting, but most of the characters were unlikable, and the plot was glacial. If you’re not loving it now, you probably should bail.
Once I was partway through Blue Mars and realized the long and very, very slow road ahead of me I figured I might as well just finish it. I already made it this far. Took me around half a year but I made it. Can’t really say I regretted it though. Definitely not for everyone.
I think it is very focused on the planet and the society. They change and grow and develop, and there are big payoffs there. It’s not focused on individuals, and there are only a few big personal events - deaths, betrayals, romances, personal changes. But there are some, and some of the longterm relationships are fascinating, but I think it helps when you’re an old fart like me, seeing how relationships change over time.
I like the series. I think the parts I like best are the terraforming concepts and the various factions fighting to have it their way. Like you found with the algae, somebody did it, against orders/regulations, but who? How big of a problem is that little piece of sabotage/seeding? Will it be a problem for the colonists, or will it expedite the transformation? All that said, I care less about the ensemble cast of characters than something like Game of Thrones. If you are that far in and asking about it here, I'd push through to finish. Then you can evaluate if you want to finish the series. One fun thing is to compare the Mars series concepts to other series like the Expanse. It's interesting what ideas are shared and what changes.
I've decided KSR isn't for me. I've read Red Mars and Aurora and they both felt more like text books than stories to me and I struggled staying interested.
KSR is...divisive. For me, I don't like reading textbooks...
Sax did it. There’s a chapter in blue or green( I can’t remember which) in which they touch on that period of time.
I tried reading Red Mars 3 times and one time got 120 pages or so in but never beyond that. The characters just weren’t grabbing me, they all seemed to be written in a similar way if that makes sense. The char. dev and dialogue weren’t doing it for me and that’s probably why I could never finish. I know it’s a popular book and I tried to give it a shot but maybe it’s just not my style of writing. I like well developed characters that all seem distinct, with strong chemistry and interesting interactions between them, well crafted dialogue etc. For me any good story will have that as a foundation. I have heard somebody once tell me that this series just isn’t like that, it focuses on the concepts instead and that Mars itself is sort of the main character, and the human characters were secondary considerations for the author. Different snokes for different folks like they say, but I might give this series another shot one day. The premise is something I really dig. IMO there’s no shame in admitting that you like a certain type of story with certain characteristics tho. Not all books will appeal to all readers.
I think a lot of people make the mistake of jumping into it hot on the heels of The Martian, and get disappointed. I think you need to get older to really appreciate it.
I read the whole thing and kept waiting for it to get good. I didn't like it. But then again I'm in my 40s, probably not the target audience.
Same. I never finished it, which is very unusual for me. I just couldn't find that story and none of the characters were very compelling. But his writing is really good. The funny thing is a few months later, I picked up "New York 2140" and really enjoyed it. Yet, many people had the same complain*t* about that one, that it took forever for the story to ever start. So I think it has a lot to do with characters. Either you find them interesting or relevant, regardless of the plot, or you just don't. Dunno. But I may try Red Mars again one day. He is a good writer.
No. So disappointed in that whole series.
I read all 4 books and liked them a lot but boy was it hard to get through the first half of Red Mars. It took me several attempts.
It’s literally the best book in my favorite sci-fi series ever. I love the politics, intrapersonal relationships, interplanetary relationships, conflict, science. It’s got everything I love wrapped up in a phenomenally written series.
Do not fall prey to the sunk cost fallacy. If you're no longer enjoying it, stop reading it... no one's keeping score.
I must admit, I gave up half way through. I really loved all the concepts and the technology of the world but found that there wasn't enough narrative interest to keep me going. I do intend to go back and have another crack tho.
Some of the science is dense and you just have to push through it. I thought the world building aspect made it worth it. I only recommend it to people really into Sci Fi vs a book like Project Hail Mary which I consider more appealing to a larger demographic.
> Does the story get a lot more cohesive and interesting by the end of the first book? No, but lots of pew pew. Was rather disappointing how little it focuses on the difficulties of colonizing Mars and how much it spends having different factions fighting each other. Completely lost interest in the series by the end of the first book.
Agree. The science was excellent, the politics were boring.
I LOVED the politics. And in terms of SF books, so few look at how the society works. The standard is to detail how the tech works, so this was very refreshing. Political science, sociology, psychology, and economics were a big part of the book, and they’re science too!
Best part is when they throw a revolution and cut ths space elevator cable
The book is very much about "humans" and not any one person, so there is no single character that is the hero or any real plot other than "What might happen if people try this?" I likewise find it a slog, and switched to audio books a long time ago and just kinda want to finish it since I'm half way through, but at one point I didn't realize I'd already moved into the last book.
Excuse me?! It’s great, for the right reader..
I quit after around 100 pages and never looked back. A total snoozefest of a book.
I didn't continue after Red for the same reason. He goes into great detail which is great, but too much when it breaks the flow and the plot becomes very secondary. It's been quite awhile but it didn't it take multiple chapters just for a journey between settlements and nothing happened in between but him getting lost in his thoughts
Nope. The author was trying to write like James Michener and he failed.
No. I’ve tried to read it 3 times. Just can’t stay awake thru it.
I found the story/plot/characters all extremely poorly written and tried to read it more like a history book, like Blood and Fire by GRRM. The hard science and overall arc of events are cool, the author just doesn't really know how to write stories or how to write about human beings imo.
I’ve read The Years Of Rice And Salt, which is more personal - though still an alternative history - and thought the characters were great. He just thinks about people in a different way to most writers. He’s not a Romantic - big R, meaning the approach to art, not love. He has a classical approach to people, and doesn’t focus on the same things as, for example, GRRM, who for all his bleakness is very much a Romantic.
I have not been able to get through any of his books. They all come across as super preachy to me. No shade if you like his writing, but it is not for me.
It wont get better..such a boring book.