Sci-fi and Heroic Fantasy discussion

This is the discussion for our chosen Contemporary SF/F Novel read for November:


The Martian by Andy Weir


When entering the discussion, please make sure the air lock is completely sealed. We wouldn't want to let the air out.

Hi everyone! I've already read this a month ago but I'll refrain from commenting until more people have read it for this discussion. I will say that I did enjoy the book although it fell a bit short from my expectations. Also, I still hate potatoes ;)

I too have already read this book, but I must say that for me personally it was my favorite of the year so I'm going to read it again with the group! I think what really makes this book stand apart from most scifi is that it is HILARIOUS! Look forward to the discussion.

Well, I'm still reading this, so as a quick impression of "MacGyver of Mars", it's been an entertaining read and a bit of a page turner. I like that it's geeky on the science while still being an easy, light read. (A welcome contrast after Mirror Empire and Dragonbone Chair.)

I'm still on the waiting list at my local library, so I'll be jumping in late to the discussion:(

I did read a sample on Amazon. Not what I was expecting, but it piqued my interest.

I agree it's a page-turner, I was captivated. The science stuff seems sound and believable to me.
I laughed a lot (I liked "I don't want to sound arrogant, but I am the best botanist on the planet", but I could list a lot a examples).

I did find the changes of POV broke the flow of the book.
Also I have a completely shallow gripe: I read the e-book version and found myself distracted by too many typos ("the" instead of "they", etc.).

G33z3r wrote: "Well, I'm still reading this, so as a quick impression of "MacGyver of Mars", it's been an entertaining read and a bit of a page turner. I like that it's geeky on the science while still being an e..."

That was my exact impression of this book including the MacGyver reference...

I "read" the audiobook edition -- it was amazing. Best audiobook reader ever. And I like the MacGyver of Mars analogy except that now I'm picturing Whatney with a mullet. Dang it.

Aleah wrote: "I "read" the audiobook edition -- it was amazing. Best audiobook reader ever. And I like the MacGyver of Mars analogy except that now I'm picturing Whatney with a mullet. Dang it."

I read the hardback book the first time but this time through I'm listening to it. I couldn't agree with you more! The narrator is perfect, highly highly recommended the audiobook on this one!

Bryan wrote: "I did find the changes of POV broke the flow of the book...."

I noticed the PoV changes, too. I'm used to novels that switch from 1st-person for the main character to 3rd-person for occasional secondary narration (Kristine Kathryn Rusch does that in a lot of her writing), so that per se didn't bother me.

Along about the midpoint (chapter 13) Weir starts interspersing small paragraphs which are I think essentially flashback from the PoV of an inanimate component, AL102 (essentially switching to omniscient PoV.). (view spoiler)[That's part of the Hab airlock explosive decompression chapter (hide spoiler)]. That's a bit of a stylistic change. Weir originally wrote and published The Martian in chapters on his blog, so maybe he was just experimenting with technique for a chapter.

He uses omniscient/inanimate PoV a couple other places, too, though less spread out. (view spoiler)[The failure of the Iris launch and the rollover on Schiaparelli's crater ramp (hide spoiler)]. I think those are because he wants to explain the science behind the events in more detail than Mark or NASA would know (at least at the time.)

And at the end of chapter 24 (view spoiler)[Mark arrives at the MAV (hide spoiler)], Weir switches to omniscient for no obvious reason. (view spoiler)[Possibly to describe a fist pump that wouldn't have made it into Mark's log :) (hide spoiler)]

I don't think any of that really derailed the story. It all provided narration concerning the current time in the storyline. But I did notice the swap. I'll have to think about what the story might've been like without any of the NASA PoV.

There were other structures available if Weir wanted to try them. E.g.: The "compiled report" or "oral history" technique of World War Z or Robopocalypse, an after-the-fact remembrance, with Mark's log as primary source. That would've relieved Mark's narration of the burden of much exposition, e.g. describing the mission structure. But I think Mark's personal narration increases our attachment to the character, which is in the end what really makes The Martian a page turner.

[11:49] JPL: What we can see of your planned cut looks good. We’re assuming the other side is identical. You’re cleared to start drilling.[12:07]

Watney: That’s what she said.[12:25]
JPL: Seriously, Mark? Seriously?

Sorry couldn't help myself.

This novel inspired me to listen to some old BeeGee's albums and get Netflix to send me Robinson Crusoe on Mars, a cheesy 60's sci-fi movie whose title pretty well says it all (apparently this rates a Criterion release.)

(I'm easily influenced. I read the short story SpiderSong last night and ended up listening to Art Garfunkel for "Barbara Allen".)

G33z3r wrote: "...Robinson Crusoe on Mars, a cheesy 60's sci-fi movie..."

Hey, I loved that movie as a kid! I bought that Criterion release (on laser disk!) and the movie held up pretty well. The saddest part: listening to the commentary with the actor, who never did anything before, never did anything after, but for one brief moment had the staring role in a major film... and then spent the rest of his life waiting.

Okay, so yeah, it was cheezy.

Everyone seems very kind to this book and I am glad it has given people so much pleasure...

But do people really not have a problem with the terrible writing, the over obvious lowest common denominator humor, the lack of character development, the rehash of a stock 1950s (and before) "competent man" character, or that whenever the POV shifts from Mark the writing, characterisation, well everything drops down one further gear?

I got so bored, so fed up with Watney I was actively fantasizing how I would kill him off (were I the author) in the most satisfying or ironic way (dies from malnutrition a day before being picked up, has a heart attack just before, or some other way in which he never gets rescued....

And then I got annoyed as well at the crazy amount of money spent trying to save him - more than enough to save many, many hundreds of thousands of people with earthbound problems.

Ben wrote: "And then I got annoyed as well at the crazy amount of money spent trying to save him - more than enough to save many, many hundreds of thousands of people with earthbound problems."

For a while I thought there's no way they'd spend so much to save one guy (also that it would be "funny" if he'd come back just to get in a car crash a few days later), but the fact that Watney's experience may be invaluable for the further colonization of Mars made me manage to suspend my disbelief. Still, I'm not sure it could happen in real life.

G33z3r wrote: "Along about the midpoint (chapter 13) Weir starts interspersing small paragraphs which are I think essentially flashback from the PoV of an inanimate component, AL102 (essentially switching to omniscient PoV.). (view spoiler). That's a bit of a stylistic change. Weir originally wrote and published The Martian in chapters on his blog, so maybe he was just experimenting with technique for a chapter.

He uses omniscient/inanimate PoV a couple other places, too, though less spread out. (view spoiler). I think those are because he wants to explain the science behind the events in more detail than Mark or NASA would know (at least at the time.)"

Yes, reading it I knew it was to explain whatever was going to happen next, but still it just distracted me because I didn't know what the exact point was. I don't know, I think someone from NASA saying something like "you've been overusing the airlock and it has not been designed for such a long period" would have been enough for us to get it.
Also I can't see a reason for the switch to omniscient at the end.

I would have liked to see more of what happens (spoiler for the ending)(view spoiler)[after he's rescued, with his crewmates and then on Earth. As it is, we only know he doesn't want to get back on Mars (duh). (hide spoiler)]

BTW I don't know if it has been mentioned, but they're making a movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3659388
So apparently Matt Damon somehow got back from his planet, just to get stranded on another one.

Ben wrote: "Everyone seems very kind to this book and I am glad it has given people so much pleasure......"

Ben, I read your review when I was about halfway through The Martian. Sometimes I think you feel that any book that's just for fun is a crime against literature. (I, on the other hand, think "literature" is a crime against SF&F. :)

This is a very traditional survival story. Robinson Crusoe, Marooned, Cast Away, Apollo 13, Flight of the Phoenix, or Gravity (without some mysterious force pulling on George Clooney's legs.)

The thin secondary characters didn't bother me because their purpose is just to advance the plot. They're the technicians who usually show up at the beginning of a story who noticed that the asteroid is either going to hit Earth or changing course;they pass the info up the chain of command and then the protagonist takes over. They fulfill their small role in the story and move offstage again.

And yes, Mark is an archetype, too, the wisecracking MacGyver (or "competent man".) He combines a pretty stubborn "solve the problem" mentality with a juvenile sense of humor.

What Weir has concentrated on is imagining an actual manned Mars mission, how it will be structured, what its components would be; and he's clearly put a lot of thought into alternative ways of using much of that equipment to solve a different set of problems. Think of it as a science proposal in fiction form. It's probably the new ultimate in "hard science fiction". (Red Mars without the soap opera :)


Ben wrote: "I was actively fantasizing how I would kill him off in the most satisfying or ironic way...."

You really are a mean person :)

Ben wrote: "I was actively fantasizing how I would kill him off in the most satisfying or ironic way...."

Bryan wrote: "I would have liked to see more of what happens... [after the end]"

Since I am presently re-reading HG Wells's The War of the Worlds, I think the most ironic way to kill him off would be some previously undiscovered Martian pathogen. Bonus points if he infects the entire crew of Hermes. Triple bonus score if he brings it back to Earth. Jackpot if the disease causes zombies — thus giving Bryan his sequel :)

I first thought the money thing was crazy, but then I thought about our society today and how big of an uproar can be created via social media and the news.

Once the world knew he was still alive up there, once people realized that there was another planned mission gearing up already (so a rescue didn't have to start from scratch), it seems inevitable that NASA and the government couldn't afford NOT to try and get him back.

No matter the actual expense and logistics of hijacking/cannibalizing the existing ships and supplies, the expense in goodwill/support of the people who's taxes and such pay for the space program to begin with would tank horribly if they just left him to die.

It's like Kirk risking everything to rescue Spock. We don't watch those movies and scoff at the amount of money blown up by Kirk.

Look at how much time and effort go into rescues and searches when a plane crashes or some other disaster happens here today. People will go to all kinds of lengths to save another person. Because know one wants to be the person left to die.

I am totally a mean person! I dont want to be but I am...

G33z3R - I thought all books were supposed to be fun - For me enjoying the way a book is written, and the character development etc are all part of the enjoyment that a book brings. SF has several development sources and the pulps are an important one but one of my hobby horses is there being a lack of consideration or appreciation for language in SF - e.g. a book can get lashings of praise despite being written very sloppily. Even yourself G33z3r who reads 175 or so books a year can only scratch the surface of everything that is in the field and there are plenty of books that reward the reader with great plot, great settings, interesting characters and great writing I dont see why we should need to settle for anything sub par.

With me there is also the extra personal element because with having ME any activity I do is exhausting and I can do very little in a day and need to do lots of resting etc. if I even ever want to attempt to read anything. If I am going through that with a book then the book needs to feel worthwhile and if it is fairly empty stuff it will just feel a bit like climbing a mountain in heavy rain, extra slog and no reward at the end.

I did appreciate the attention to science that Weir makes and the invention with which he both creates problems and solutions. Even from what is supposedly "hard" SF much of it is either far future so reads more like fantasy or has such wooly or unbelievable set ups it is really best seen as fantasy. I have no problem with non-realistic fiction but having something that gets the science right did make a fairly welcome change although although this was a book that I came really close to not finishing.

G33z3r wrote: "Ben wrote: "I was actively fantasizing how I would kill him off in the most satisfying or ironic way...."

Bryan wrote: "I would have liked to see more of what happens... [after the end]"

Since I ..."
I read The Martian in 1 night and felt that everything in the book was a rewrite of something that had been done previously -- from Robinson course on Mars to Nightline to talking to himself like Gravity.

I did not like any of the characters either. Your solution of Martian Pathogen to kill everyone is a great solution to a less than great book.

Of all the great science fiction novels, this is the one Hollywood will make into a movie is very disappointing, no matter who is Whatney.

Ben wrote: "Everyone seems very kind to this book and I am glad it has given people so much pleasure...

But do people really not have a problem with the terrible writing, the over obvious lowest common denomi..."

OK there's one science thing that was bugging me.

Mark Watney wrote: "Anyway, the reserve oxygen would only be enough to make 100L of water (50L of O2 makes 100L of molecules that only have one O each)."

The thing is, you don't work on chemical reactions directly with liters. So I did the maths and instead of the 250L of water he expects to get every 5 days from 125L of liquid O2, he actually can hope to only get 40L.
So cheer up Ben, turns out Mark didn't have enough water after all and died either of thirst or starvation because the potato plants dried out :)

Well I am glad he died - thanks Bryan.

As for the money - part of the problem Michele was I didnt particularly care for Mark Watney - If he was Spock I would have happily suspended my disbelief.

Sounds good G33z3r - though I dont really feel my darker side should be nourished, more it should be suppressed.

I liked Mark. I thought it was a nice change to have a competent, intelligent scientist who was also funny and a geek, instead of either crazy or a boring infodumper or socially inept and out of touch with life.

I'm also glad he didn't just go crazy like in Castaway.

Welp, that's me. I thought the book was fun and upbeat and a nice change of pace. Sometimes I prefer to spend time with a character who isn't tragic or conflicted or morally gray. I like happy and constructive and positive once in a while.

Michele wrote: "I liked Mark. I thought it was a nice change to have a competent, intelligent scientist who was also funny and a geek, instead of either crazy or a boring infodumper or socially inept and out of to..."

I agree completely!

I just finished the book..
I have to admit this: I'm probably more impressed with it than I should have, but The Martian is the first book of this general type, although I'm quite enthusiastic about astronomy/astrophysics.

While I quite enjoyed the upbeat, cheerful narrative, sometimes I felt like Weir forced it upon Whatney. But at the same time, I wonder whether Weir purposely did this to reflect the typical straightforward and practical mindframe of an engineer, the mindframe that is needed to be an astronaut.

Michele wrote: "I first thought the money thing was crazy, but then I thought about our society today and how big of an uproar can be created via social media and the news...."

Roger that. I think it was last year a big chunk of New York's subway system was shut down so a dozen transit workers could search the tracks for a couple of kittens someone had spotted; became a national story. How much money is being spent searching for Malaysian flight 370? (So far. That search is still ongoing.) If something catches the news media's attention, it becomes a big deal.

The military's "no man left behind" mentality could pertain to astronauts, too?

But I can make a cost-benefit analysis as well: the fictional Ares missions involve multiple pre-supply launches to Mars, starting with the MAV. If 6 astronauts are worth 6 pre-supply launches, isn't one astronaut worth diverting one re-supply mission? I think the biggest fictional leap here is that Americans are willing to spend that kind of money to go to Mars at all. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

As to the Plan B, well that's a bit less probable. The Cold Equations of the monetary worth of a human life is usually calculated out of sight and communicated by just not offering the option to the public. (Which is sort of what Weir suggested NASA was doing.)

This is one of my favourite reads of the year so far. I enjoyed the humour and the unashamed geekiness of it :-)

Interesting discussion. I'm only 20 or so pages into the book. Although it draws me forward, I am like Ben, I'm not happy about the writing. I'll give it a chance, still ... I often abandon a book quickly it it doesn't appeal, but as part of the group exercise I'm motivated to push on. I can't quite put my finger on what it is about the writing that disagrees with me - I get that the book is a survival story and requires a pared-down style, but that isn't it. Maybe I'll get a better idea as I move forward.

I really enjoyed this as well - I found it a surprisingly easy read given the amount of maths, etc. in it. I quite often struggle with "funny" books as if the humour isn't spot on for me I find them quite forced, but I can't remember a book that made me smile as much as this.

I have been listening to The Martian all day while doing my Thanksgiving baking. About halfway through the book and loving it.

Just started reading today and noticed that Log Entry: Sol 16 takes place on Thanksgiving Day. What a coincidence. So I'm thankful to be here on Earth making Thanksgiving dinner with my family and not stuck on Mars turning my own crap into fertilizer.

A bit off-topic but happened to catch this posted by NASA yesterday on Facebook NASA Food Traditions

Anyway, regarding The Martian, I thought the inclusion of potatoes in the Mars mission was exactly the sort of thing NASA might do. On family days for NASA workers, we used to go to the space center to see the behind-the-scene stuff. One time the Life Science guys showed us a compartment they were designing to grow tomatoes in space. I could think of several food plants that would grow faster with all parts of the plant being edible. However, this was also about psychology, growing something familiar and desirable.

While I disagreed with a few things in The Martian, I thought most of details were plausible.

Well, the book grew on me and I ended up enjoying myself. I still think there are downsides to the story. The manic humor got on my nerves for a while, until I got used to it. I did guffaw in a few places, and that is quite rare for me. The excessive recourse to numbers - I both enjoyed that (I am a nerd, too), but even though I see the relevance (survival is about the numbers), I thought it was overplayed. Later in the book Weir seemed to relax that element somewhat - he could have done so earlier. But I'm probably quibbling. Regarding credibility, I had no problem with the initial decision of Lewis et al to leave, but that they didn't check out Watney's status afterwards, until months went by, I thought very unlikely. But it didn't really change the end result. All the characters seemed to cuss and swear a lot. I know there are some people that do that, but nobody I know does much, and reading it tends to bore me. But overall, the book was compelling and interesting. I don't consider this great literature, but it is solid science fiction.

I noticed The Martian was the top SF pick of Goodreads Best of 2014 SF Poll.

And Ben sheds a tear....

Wow, twice as many votes as the next one... as much as I found The Martian gripping and enjoyed reading it, I don't think it qualifies as best SF of the year.

I read this book in the spring and loved it! It was easily a 5 star for me. The humor helped with the hard science parts (which there are a lot of). If I ever have time to reread books, I'll definitely reread this one. I bought it as a Christmas gift for a friend.

At least give Annihilation a try first Jenny - that is a work steeped in tradition (like The Martian) but manages to do something new with it. It is genuinely gripping, creepy and wonderful.

I think the Martian winning the GR awards says more for the GR awards than The Martian. In a just universe everyone would have read and voted for the Vandermeer. In terms of light reading The Madonna and the Starship was far more my cup of tea than the Martian, more exciting (because I didnt want everyone to die) and more funny - although less scientifically credible I will grant.

I disagree Ben. I was not impressed with Annihilation. I found the plot unbelievable, for me at least Weir more than deserved the award this year.

Well Mike, we cannot all like the same things. The Martian takes existing science with minimum extrapolation and turns it into a problem solving survival story - so although I buy none of the characterisations and do not believe characters would act in the way that they do in the story the science is at least credible. Any work of SF that goes beyond that is going to be less realistic.

Vandermeer was not going for realism, instead he is writing in the weird tradition to which the point is for elements to be at least unexplainable if not incredible. I personally found the motivations and actions of the characters to be believable in that story. And the writing didnt make me wince on every page either which was a bonus.

Agreed Ben, different strokes for different folks.

Adam Roberts reviewing a totally different book wrote:-


"My problem is generic, not specific to this novel. That problem is that certain readers, and the writers who supply them, believe that fighting is more interesting than talking, that shooting is more interesting than being, that violence is more interesting manifested physically in the outside world than internally in the psyche (indeed, who believe that the former doesn't really entail the latter at all, though the latter is where all violence actually comes to rest), that explosions are fireworks rather than massively accelerated entropy, that Bond, James Bond is better than Henry James (Henry), and in sum that characters in action are more fun than action in character. Whereas I tend to believe the exact opposite. But that only means I'm probably not the ideal reviewer for this title. Which is fair enough."

on his sibilant fricative blog and I think to a point this sums up the split some of the split of like/dislike of the novel although it does not cover the biggest problem I have with it which is the way it is written (which is exactly ironically enough what some people like about it most).

What I most like about SF is that at its best it simultaneously transports us to a different place and gives us that sense of wonder or just foreignness taking us away from our lives at the same time speaking directly to our current lives in a way that is almost impossible to do with a more realistic novel. Furthermore exploring potential futures can be enjoyable and interesting even if the proposed future is not all that credible.

I do think you get a bit of that sense of place with the martian but it has the problem that most near future SF has in that it doesnt fully tick that sense of foreignness/wonder that other SF can provide.

the FT (uk newspaper) - put both The Martian and the Vandermeer as SF books of the year (along with 2 or 3 others).

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e0c817e2-76...

I ended up liking it more than I thought I would. When I first started reading, I thought the whole book was going to be Watney's log entries and I feared I'd get bored of it. So I didn't mind the change in POV. It was good to get out of Watney's head for a bit, here and there.

Overall, the book was entertaining and hard to put down, especially toward the end. (view spoiler)[I honestly didn't think he was going to make it because of all the complications he went through. Eventually there had to be something that not even he could save himself from. But he didn't get blown up during the MAV launch or end up on an eternal spacewalk. Which is good. I was rooting for him. (hide spoiler)]

The book gets extra kudos from me because it helped me get a Jeopardy question right. Which was something like, "Mars' atmosphere is predominantly made up of this gas."

Jessica wrote: "The book gets extra kudos from me because it helped me get a Jeopardy question right...."

And yet people say that science fiction isn't relevant to real people's lives... :)

(view spoiler)[ I was pretty confident Mark would make it. Given the relatively light tone of "Mark's" writing, a bummer ending would be quite a dissonance. I think this was more about the how than the if.
(hide spoiler)]

I just finished reading this book and overall I really enjoyed it. I liked t h e main character, and as some others said, it was a real page turner. once I started, I didn't want to put it down.

That said there were some problems. I think overall the fact that this is the author's first book showed. The info dump, especially in the first half of the book, was sometimes a bit much. On the other hand, some of the events in the second half of the book seemed a bit rushed. The jumping back and forth from one POV to another might have been done better.

Certainly a creditable freshman effort and I would nit hesitate to recommend this book or rest the author's next book.

I hate autocorrect.

Jessica wrote: "I ended up liking it more than I thought I would. When I first started reading, I thought the whole book was going to be Watney's log entries and I feared I'd get bored of it. So I didn't mind the ..."

I agree. The book was okay from the start, but I was getting a little tired of Watney's day-to-day struggles. With the first point of view shift back to NASA, the real emotional impact of his situation caught up with me. With everyone on Earth looking over his shoulder, the log entries became much more powerful.

I loved the book, but I found myself missing a glimpse of a more human Whatney. The guy went through so much and never broke down or shed a tear. I feel the book needed just a little of this to develop his character. Nobody (even the astronauts) are that emotionless.

I loved this book. I'm a big fan of hard science fiction and it is one of the reasons I loved this book. It appealed to the "geek" in me.