MARS Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson - Good or Bad
Dominic Buschi
Thanks
---
Dominic Buschi
dbu...@Xblaze.net.au
(remove X before sending!)
Kim DeVaughn
Though I bought "Red Mars" when it first came out in paperback, it was
only within the past 6 months that I actually forced myself to read it
through (I'd started it several times before, but always put it down
after 50-100 pages).
I shouldn't have bothered.
While I imaging mine is a minority opinion, I can't think of much of
anything to recommend it (I've only slogged thru "Red Mars"; haven't
bothered with "Green" or "Blue", nor do I intend to).
One thing that annoyed me alot, is that there is no real plot to the
book, at least not a well-defind one. To my mind, it's just an overly
long collection of miscellaneous disjointed sub-plots, many of which are
more along the lines of a soap-opera that just so happens to be set on
the planet Mars, than any resemblance to a work of Science Fiction, per
se.
Even though I read it only ~6 months ago, I can't really recall much
about the book ... it left that little of an impression on me. With a
very few exceptions, there was nothing memorable in the book ... not the
characters, not the "plot" (such as it may be), not the science, and not
the "action". It was a long, boring, rambling read, with little to
recommend it (IMNSHO) ... not something that I'll be rereading any time
soon, if ever.
I had to literally *force* myself to read it all the way through. I kept
thinking that there must be *some* reason that many people seem to like
it, and speak fairly highly of it, and I kept hoping the I'd run into
that part of the work on the next page. Never happened. The last hundred
pages or so were *really* hard to slog through, since by then, it was
apparent that that just was not going to happen.
I honestly don't know why so many people seem to like it, but so much for
my opinion.
Of course, YMMV ...
/kim
===========================================================================
"Who is the Potter, pray, and who the Pot?" --The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayam
Kennedy, David (EXCHANGE:IRE07:GC42)
>
> In article <3744fd82...@news.mira.net.au>,
> Dominic Buschi <dbu...@Xblaze.net.au> wrote:
> |
>
> Though I bought "Red Mars" when it first came out in paperback [...]
> I shouldn't have bothered.
> I had to literally *force* myself to read it all the way through. I kept
> thinking that there must be *some* reason that many people seem to like
> it, and speak fairly highly of it, and I kept hoping the I'd run into
> that part of the work on the next page. Never happened.
> I honestly don't know why so many people seem to like it, but so much for
> my opinion.
Cheer up, you're not alone, I'm in total agreement.
I too completely fail to see why it was so popular. I didn't like the
plot, the characters, the writing, the style, the science, nothing.
--
David Kennedy, | kenn...@nortelnetworks.com
Northern Ireland Telecommunications | ESN: 6 751 2678
Engineering Centre (NITEC), | Phone: 01232 362678
Nortel Networks | Fax: 01232 363170
Nancy Lebovitz
Kim DeVaughn <ki...@best.com> wrote:
>
>While I imaging mine is a minority opinion, I can't think of much of
>anything to recommend it (I've only slogged thru "Red Mars"; haven't
>bothered with "Green" or "Blue", nor do I intend to).
>
this group really liked the book, and a lot really hated it.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com
Calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Gerry Quinn
>In article <37452567$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
>Kim DeVaughn <ki...@best.com> wrote:
>>
>>While I imaging mine is a minority opinion, I can't think of much of
>>anything to recommend it (I've only slogged thru "Red Mars"; haven't
>>bothered with "Green" or "Blue", nor do I intend to).
>>
>If yours is a minority opinion, it isn't by much--a lot of people in
>this group really liked the book, and a lot really hated it.
>
I read 'Red' and 'Green' so far... haven't bothered with 'Blue' yet. I like
the broad sweep of the story, and the way in which Mars accretes a layer of
'history' over the centuries. But I must say my number of vivid memories per
page is pretty slim...
- Gerry Quinn
Niall McAuley
>Would you recommend it?
No. I only made it halfway through.
>(and why or why not?)
I found myself skimming pages of leaden description
hoping to find a character speaking, only to end up
wanting to choke them.
--
Niall [real address ends in se, not es]
Stefan Raets
Buschi) wrote:
>Would you recommend it? (and why or why not?)
>Thanks
Yes, I would, but many people would not. It's a controversial series
which went through a lot of debate here. The debate mainly focused on
scientific accuracy, political views, and stylistic issues.
I enjoyed the series tremendously, but always get a bit nervous
defending it because almost every word you use to describe it can be
refuted.
I'd like to say I enjoyed the realistic treatment of the subject
matter (the colonization of Mars), but the word "realistic" opens up
the door to someone pointing out scientific inaccuracies. These
didn't bother me in the least, of course, during my first and second
reading of the series.
What you can expect is 3 long novels dealing with life on Mars during
and after its colonization. Some of it is high adventure, some of it
is scientific explanation, some of it is soapy love story. It has a
little bit of everything in it. Not all of it is interesting, and
especially the last novel gets a bit long-winded at times, but all in
all it gives a very clear picture of the subject matter. I enjoyed it
immensely.
Stefan Raets
**************************************************************
Currently reading: "A Second Chance At Eden", by Peter Hamilton
**************************************************************
Remove the spamblocker for personal replies.
Alpern
>Thanks
I've read some real turkeys in my time, but I prided myself on never, ever
giving up on a book. Until I read Kim Stanley's Red Mars.
I found the first half of the book to be excellent. The trip to Mars and the
early days of the first colony were fascinating to read about.
But when the large-scale colonization begins, and debate about the ethics of
terraforming Mars becomes a pivotal subject, and there doesn't seem to be much
of a plot, just the one astronaut flitting about from place to place, it got so
dull that I simply couldn't take anymore. It's just too philosophical for me.
But if you like that kind of thing, maybe this'll appeal to you.
Dave
**************************************************************************
**********************
Alp...@aol.com
Check out the John Steakley fan page!
Http://members.aol.com/Alpern/steakley.htm
Dave Weingart
>Would you recommend it? (and why or why not?)
Yes, but...
You'll need to be prepared for several main characters who have nothing
to recommend them at all.
You'll need to be even MORE prepared for large sections of exposition,
where the only thing that's missing is the Lab Assistant and Professor
having the famous "Professor, is it true that..." "Yes, Smithers, as you
well know...." and all story action stops.
Other than that, they're really good.
--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK Powerpuff Nerds. Saving the
mailto:phyd...@liii.com Net before bedtime
http://www.liii.com/~phydeaux
Douglas Muir
>
> Would you recommend it? (and why or why not?)
I would. I liked them quite a bit, actually.
They're controversial, yes. A lot of people out there just can't stand them
(as you've probably noticed). A significant minority of this group seems to
be made of people who are outraged by the author's political views (apparently
hard SF is supposed to be kept quite strictly a right-wing preserve in these
folks' eyes), but there are also quite a few who for whom these books Just
Didn't Work.
OTOH, they won a bunch of awards and sold like hotcakes.
One possible way to tell if you'll enjoy it: did you make it through _War and
Peace_? If yes, hey, this could work for you. If not, likely not (I've tried
this on half a dozen or so people, and so far the correlation has held).
My recommendation? Invest the seven bucks and start working your way through
_Red Mars_. When you stop having fun, put it down.
Doug M.
Aaron P. Brezenski
I have to add what I thought was the most amusing discussion item from the last
time this topic came up:
REPOSTED WITHOUT PERMISSION; my dull commentary deleted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Overrated SF/Fantasy
Date: 1998/10/29
Author: Ian <iadm...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
Matt Austern <aus...@sgi.com> wrote:
>That was not the way I read the book. I thought Robinson succeeded in
>doing something very difficult: portraying two incompatible and
>violently opposed political philosophies, the Greens and the Reds, in
>such a way that both were sympathetic.
>I know (because I asked him) that Robinson intended both groups to be
>sympathetic. For me, at any rate, he succeeded; I understood the
>emotional appeal of both. Other readers apparently disagree.
>If I thought that one of those two sides was obviously right, I might
>have responded differently; I might have seen a sympathetic portrayal
>of the "wrong" side as slanted.
Um, you're missing the point (perhaps of Robinson, and definitely of the
other poster).
The Greens and the Reds are just different shades of futuristic
communitarian ecotopians. They were both supposed to be sympathetic, yes.
But anyone who _wasn't_ a futuristic communitarian ecotopian tended to be
portrayed as a Soulless Scientist, an Evil Corporate Minion, as some form of
Reactionary, or whatever.
IOW, Green vs. Red, while given center stage, is essentially a bunch of
minor ideological quibbling when taken against the fact that everyone who
isn't green or red is portrayed quite negatively.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Brezenski
"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean there isn't someone out to get me."
Card-Carrying Member of the Illuminati
John Lorentz
>Would you recommend it? (and why or why not?)
I know there are people posting this group that are major fans of
the trilogy, but I'm not.
Page after page of political discussions, no characterization, no
plot, nothing interesting happening. To my knowledge, "Blue Mars" was
the only Hugo-winning novel that I could not force myself to finish.
Stick with KSR's short fiction, it's much better.
--
John
medbh
stack of wet cardboard. Awful, awful book.
Kim DeVaughn wrote:
>
> In article <3744fd82...@news.mira.net.au>,
> Dominic Buschi <dbu...@Xblaze.net.au> wrote:
> |
> | Would you recommend it? (and why or why not?)
>
> Though I bought "Red Mars" when it first came out in paperback, it was
> only within the past 6 months that I actually forced myself to read it
> through (I'd started it several times before, but always put it down
> after 50-100 pages).
>
> I shouldn't have bothered.
>
> While I imaging mine is a minority opinion, I can't think of much of
> anything to recommend it (I've only slogged thru "Red Mars"; haven't
> bothered with "Green" or "Blue", nor do I intend to).
>
> One thing that annoyed me alot, is that there is no real plot to the
> book, at least not a well-defind one. To my mind, it's just an overly
> long collection of miscellaneous disjointed sub-plots, many of which are
> more along the lines of a soap-opera that just so happens to be set on
> the planet Mars, than any resemblance to a work of Science Fiction, per
> se.
>
> Even though I read it only ~6 months ago, I can't really recall much
> about the book ... it left that little of an impression on me. With a
> very few exceptions, there was nothing memorable in the book ... not the
> characters, not the "plot" (such as it may be), not the science, and not
> the "action". It was a long, boring, rambling read, with little to
> recommend it (IMNSHO) ... not something that I'll be rereading any time
> soon, if ever.
>
> I had to literally *force* myself to read it all the way through. I kept
> thinking that there must be *some* reason that many people seem to like
> it, and speak fairly highly of it, and I kept hoping the I'd run into
> that part of the work on the next page. Never happened. The last hundred
> pages or so were *really* hard to slog through, since by then, it was
> apparent that that just was not going to happen.
>
> I honestly don't know why so many people seem to like it, but so much for
> my opinion.
>
GCU Cultural Attache
David (EXCHANGE:IRE07:GC42) <kenn...@europem01.nt.com> asserted
>Kim DeVaughn wrote:
>>
>> In article <3744fd82...@news.mira.net.au>,
>> Dominic Buschi <dbu...@Xblaze.net.au> wrote:
>> |
>>
>> Though I bought "Red Mars" when it first came out in paperback [...]
>> I shouldn't have bothered.
>
>> thinking that there must be *some* reason that many people seem to like
>> it, and speak fairly highly of it, and I kept hoping the I'd run into
>> that part of the work on the next page. Never happened.
>
>> my opinion.
>
>I too completely fail to see why it was so popular. I didn't like the
>plot, the characters, the writing, the style, the science, nothing.
Thirded. Despite all the popular acclaim, I only finished 'Red Mars'
with much effort, and added KSR to my 'avoid in future' authors list.
The book had nothing to recommend it, although if stuck on a desert
island, you could use pages to start a fire (among other things).
>
GCU Cultural Attache:
Peter D. Tillman
In a previous article, dbu...@Xblaze.net.au (Dominic Buschi) says:
>Would you recommend it? (and why or why not?)
>Thanks
I would suggest, for well-known books like these, that you first
have a look at Deja News, and/or plug the title into your favorite
search engine. This particular book has been extensively discussed
here before.
That said -- I liked them, but you'll find that opinions sharply
differ. If you're new to KSR, you might want to try his recent
ANTARCTICA first, as it's quite similar to his Mars trilogy, but
much more compact.
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Book Reviews: http://www.silcom.com/~manatee/reviewer.html#tillman
C. Adam Kuhn
>Would you recommend it? (and why or why not?)
NO I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND IT. It's probably one of the worst series of books
I've ever read. Oh, sure, Red Mars started out promisingly enough, but they
just kept dragging ON and ON and ON until I didn't care about the characters,
what happened to them, or even if I were shot at that very moment. Do yourself
a favor and give these books a wide berth. If you're interested in Robinson's
work, check out his "Gold Coast" books instead.
>Thanks
>---
>Dominic Buschi
>dbu...@Xblaze.net.au
>(remove X before sending!)
C. adam kuhn
nr: Robert Jordan - The Dragon Reborn (p1)
np: Echobelly - Great Things
K. Laisathit
GCU Cultural Attache <G...@quik.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I honestly don't know why so many people seem to like it, but so much for
>>> my opinion.
>>
>>Cheer up, you're not alone, I'm in total agreement.
>>I too completely fail to see why it was so popular. I didn't like the
>>plot, the characters, the writing, the style, the science, nothing.
>
>Thirded. Despite all the popular acclaim, I only finished 'Red Mars'
>with much effort, and added KSR to my 'avoid in future' authors list.
>The book had nothing to recommend it, although if stuck on a desert
>island, you could use pages to start a fire (among other things).
Whew, at least I know I'm not alone. =) It took me a while
to finish Red Mars. I had to literally make myself finish it.
Blue Mars? I couldn't even get pass page 50.
Later...
Wendy Shaffer
(Dominic Buschi) wrote:
> Would you recommend it? (and why or why not?)
> Thanks
I loved _Red Mars_, liked _Green Mars_, and even enjoyed _Blue Mars_
pretty well, although it's by far the weakest book of the three.
One thing I liked about the story was the huge scale of it: it's not
only about the colonization of a new world, but about clashing philo-
sophies about how humans should live in this new world. I also liked
the way Robinson managed to portray these clashing philosophies
effectively - he manages to make all sides sympathetic at least some
of the time. (On the other hand, almost all of the characters also
come across as annoying at least some of the time, which is a bit of
a downside.)
I remember liking the fact that many of the protagonists in the first
book were scientists, and that they behaved pretty convincingly like
real scientists.
The book is, as some have complained, short on action and long on
dialogue, description, and exposition. I found I didn't mind - I
found that the conversations and the descriptions kept me interested,
but if the idea of pages of description of the Martian landscape or
pages of heated political discussion sounds incredibly dull to you,
this might not be the book for you.
_Blue Mars_ goes a bit overboard - huge chunks of it read more like
political manifesto than fiction.
---wendy
--
Wendy A. Shaffer
wsha...@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Htn66
Mars. At least the first two works had at least one character one could like
or be interested in.
The characterization in Red Mars was cliched and bordered on the
offensive: out of 100 best-of-the-best colonists chosen to be sent to Mars,
one turned out to be a cultist (guess who, the exotic Asian one), one a
murderer (the brooding, black hair ruffian), one a manipulative nymphomaniac
(the calculating yet mercurial Russian vamp), one a crazy revolutionary (the
blustery, fiery red-haired Russian male), etc., etc, ad nauseum...
John M. Garth
Douglas Muir <dougla...@yale.edu> wrote:
>Dominic Buschi wrote:
>>
>> Would you recommend it? (and why or why not?)
>
>
>
>One possible way to tell if you'll enjoy it: did you make it through _War and
>Peace_? If yes, hey, this could work for you. If not, likely not (I've tried
>this on half a dozen or so people, and so far the correlation has held).
I've just started reading this newsgroup, so I missed all the previous debate.
I did make it through War and Peace, and enjoyed it more than MARS. But I did
find MARS marginally enjoyable ... I found the description of the colonization
and terraforming far more interesting than any of the characters.
I think the books would have benefited from a bit of editing ... they would have
made a better 1-1/2ology than a trilogy.
Red Mars was the best. I second the suggestion that you buy and try it first
before buying Green and Blue.
--
John M. Garth ga...@garlic.com
"Well as answers go, short, to the point, utterly useless and totally
consistent with what I've come to expect from a Vorlon." - John Sheridan
"The Vorlons are Windows '95." - J. M. Straczynski
Lisa M. Krepel
(Aaron P. Brezenski) wrote:
> The Greens and the Reds are just different shades of futuristic
> communitarian ecotopians. They were both supposed to be sympathetic, yes.
> But anyone who _wasn't_ a futuristic communitarian ecotopian tended to be
> portrayed as a Soulless Scientist, an Evil Corporate Minion, as some form of
> Reactionary, or whatever.
>
> IOW, Green vs. Red, while given center stage, is essentially a bunch of
> minor ideological quibbling when taken against the fact that everyone who
> isn't green or red is portrayed quite negatively.
While I agree in some sense with what you're saying, I'm not sure it tells
the whole story. I don't know that everyone outside of the Greens and Reds
is portrayed negatively as much as they're just not much portrayed. And,
considering that Robinson is telling a story with two main ideological
poles, this makes sense. The majority of people in the middle, who aren't
affiliated with either group, just aren't as interesting to the story.
They're not invested in the political fight, so they're not main
characters.
And while the Greens were clearly communitarian, I don't remember the Reds
being that way -- is there anything in the Red philosophy that prohibited
them from being, say, capitalist (in the "responsible" capitalist way of
not overharvesting natural resources)? It's been awhile since I read the
books, but my memory of Anne, the founding Red, has her leaning toward
social libertarianism. Am I forgetting an evolution in Red thinking here?
On the overall subject of the books, I LOVED Red Mars, enjoyed Green Mars,
and made myself read Blue Mars. I recommend them in that order.
--
Lisa M. Krepel
To contact me by email, remove the "x" from the domain name.
mmcdon
<37457CEA...@yale.edu>...
A lot of people out there just can't stand them
> (as you've probably noticed). A significant minority of this group seems
to
> be made of people who are outraged by the author's political views
(apparently
> hard SF is supposed to be kept quite strictly a right-wing preserve in
these
> folks' eyes),
I agree that for whatever reason hard (or semi-hard) SF has tended to
attract quite right wing authors, Heinlein and Niven to name two of the
more obvious examples. As a Socialist I often find myself irritated by the
right-wing views (implicit or explicit) in much of the SF canon. However
only "Stranger in a Strange Land" annoyed me so much philosophically that I
couldn't see any other merits a book might have. Robinson's "Red Mars"
though, managed to run it quite close. The very *idea* that blatant
eco-mystic gobbledigook about a *lifeless rock* could be taken seriously by
any intelligent human being, let alone become a major issue had me nearly
foaming at the mouth. The sheer stupidity, the total hollowness of the
"Red" argument, combined with it's lack of emotional pull staggered me.
Is mise le meas,
Brian Cahill
Joe Mason
>>One possible way to tell if you'll enjoy it: did you make it through _War and
>>Peace_? If yes, hey, this could work for you. If not, likely not (I've tried
>>this on half a dozen or so people, and so far the correlation has held).
>
>I've just started reading this newsgroup, so I missed all the previous debate.
>I did make it through War and Peace, and enjoyed it more than MARS. But I did
>find MARS marginally enjoyable ... I found the description of the colonization
>and terraforming far more interesting than any of the characters.
I read _War and Peace_. Didn't make much of an effect on me, but I was pretty
young (I was doing it for bragging right). Maybe I'll try it again. I
certainly didn't have any trouble getting through it.
I couldn't get through _Red Mars_ at all. Made it less than half way, I think.
Joe
--
"Think hard and long about what your favorite book is. Once identified, read
it a paragraph at a time. Then after having read the paragraph, read each
sentence. See the way the sentences interrelate. Then, read the words..."
-- Mike Berlyn, on learning to write
Thomas Bagwell
news:3744fd82...@news.mira.net.au...
> Would you recommend it? (and why or why not?)
Well, as all the opposing views have flourished, I'll toss in that I
found the books very enjoyable. I was fascinated with Red Mars all
the way through, enjoyed Green Mars, and finally slowed down a bit on
Blue Mars. The key points of interest for me in Blue Mars were the
views of the rest of the solar system and how the rest of humanity was
adapting.
As others have mentioned, I liked the scope and sense of unfolding
history. By the time you finish the final book, the beginning seems a
long time ago...and I mean this in a good sense...:) It's always been
a sign of a book that I enjoyed that as you get to the end and look
back at the beginning you can see that a lot has changed and
developed.
Anyway, I found it an enjoyable ride.
Tom B.
Thomas
GCU Cultural Attache wrote:
> Bitstring <37452DC...@europem01.nt.com> from the wonderful Kennedy,
> David (EXCHANGE:IRE07:GC42) <kenn...@europem01.nt.com> asserted
> >Kim DeVaughn wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3744fd82...@news.mira.net.au>,
> >> Dominic Buschi <dbu...@Xblaze.net.au> wrote:
> >> |
> >> | Would you recommend [RED MARS]? (and why or why not?)
> >>
> >> Though I bought "Red Mars" when it first came out in paperback [...]
> >> I shouldn't have bothered.
> >
> >> I had to literally *force* myself to read it all the way through. I kept
> >> thinking that there must be *some* reason that many people seem to like
> >> it, and speak fairly highly of it, and I kept hoping the I'd run into
> >> that part of the work on the next page. Never happened.
> >
> >> I honestly don't know why so many people seem to like it, but so much for
> >> my opinion.
> >
> >Cheer up, you're not alone, I'm in total agreement.
> >I too completely fail to see why it was so popular. I didn't like the
> >plot, the characters, the writing, the style, the science, nothing.
>
> Thirded. Despite all the popular acclaim, I only finished 'Red Mars'
> with much effort, and added KSR to my 'avoid in future' authors list.
> The book had nothing to recommend it, although if stuck on a desert
> island, you could use pages to start a fire (among other things).
4æ„’d I actually read the entire series, borrowing each volume from
the library once I forgot how boring the previous one was.
My personal theory is that it owes itæ„€ succes to its absolutely
stunning covers. Certainly I can think of no other redeeming
features which might explain it.
Samuel Paik
> Robinson's "Red Mars"
> though, managed to run it quite close. The very *idea* that blatant
> eco-mystic gobbledigook about a *lifeless rock* could be
> taken seriously by any intelligent human being, let alone become
> a major issue had me nearly foaming at the mouth.
Robinson, right wing?!?
Sam
--
Samuel S. Paik | http://www.webnexus.com/users/paik/
3D and multimedia, architecture and implementation
Solyent Green is kitniyot!
Frank
I would certainly recommend Red and Green Mars. But then I'm a Mars nut. I
would be one of the First Hundred colonists. I loved the long bits of
science and descriptions of the planet. I didn't mind the length, more
Science Fiction should be this length, or longer even. I like a book that
takes me more than a few hours to read.
I especially enjoyed the descriptions of the fantastic engineering which
KSM introduces his audience to like the space elevator, the colony under the
ice, the robot construction units, the moholes, etc.
The politics and the people I didn't mind. The 'Reds' and the 'Greens' came
across as genuine nuts, nothing different from real political movements in
the twentieth century. Their leaders are flawed, real seeming people. They
are neither mad devils or angelic idealists.
Blue Mars got a bit out of hand, perhaps suffering from being the third book
in a trilogy that is attempting to portray the future.
KSM's 'Antarctica' was also pretty cool, if somewhat short. I kept expecting
there to be room left for a sequel but KSM seemed to exclude that
possiblity. The California triology was enjoyable but also somewhat short.
I still do not understand why people don't like the Mars triology.
Regards
Frank
David Given
dbu...@Xblaze.net.au (Dominic Buschi) writes:
> Would you recommend it? (and why or why not?)
I liked them.
One thing that you have to be aware of is that they aren't gripping reads.
They ramble; the overall plot is vague, the characters iffy, the politics
even more so. But I found that the long, slow exploration of Mars and life
on Mars was deeply satisfying.
The main character in the books is Mars, itself. My favourite parts of the
books are the rapturous, oddly dream-like descriptions of Martian
geography and geology. The sequences in _Red_ where Anne goes exploring by
herself; the flight from the flood in the deep gorge [I forget the name]
in _Blue_ where [ditto] drowns; [another blank, I must reread them]'s farm
in _Green_. The human characters merely serve to provide a viewpoint for
us. We see Mars through their eyes, and filtered through their beliefs.
The politics may stick in some people's throughts. Me, I basically ignored
them, I'm not a very political creature (I subscribe to the Cynical
Party). The science is mainly extremely well-researched, you'll learn a
lot about geology, though there are a few major blunders (the windmills,
for example).
The only advice I can give is to find _Red_ in a library and see what you
think. *I* think that Robinson does a superb job of portraying the wonder
and majesty of a world that is, blatantly, not Earth, but as always, your
mileage may vary.
--
+- David Given ---------------McQ-+
| Work: d...@tao-group.com | Eschew obfuscation!
| Play: dgi...@iname.com |
+- http://wired.st-and.ac.uk/~dg -+
<SJKH>
Buschi) wrote:
>Would you recommend it? (and why or why not?)
I thought 'Red...' very good, lots of interesting ideas of how man may
eventually *live* on another planet. It also probably helped that I
was on some sort of mars kick at the time (I'd just done Bova's 'Mars'
and McAuley's 'Red Dust'). However, 'Green...' got boring, and
'Blue...' really pissed me off. All these long passages of people
doing nothing but dancing and hugging each other, then even longer
passages of people going loony, or bitching about each other.
As always, YMMV. Just try it. No one will make you finish it if you
don't like it.
--
Simon
"Time travel is full of paradoxes. The universe runs
on paradox-power." - Sheckley.
Genevieve Marie Ellerbee
: I did finish War and Peace and Ulysses with great enjoyment, but not Red
I read the first Mars book for a class in SF literature not long ago. The
only think that kept me going through it was that I was required to. I
can't remember anything about the book...not even the stereotypes listed
above. It makes no dramatic impact whatsoever. Never even considered
picking up the next two.
--
*Genevieve Ellerbee*wgmu.gmu.edu/geni* "The last refuge and surest
*remedy...when no other means will take effect, is, to let them go
*together and enjoy one another...Aesculapius himself cannot invent a
*better remedy...than that a Lover have his desire." - Burton
*"It's love that's holding back the weather." - King's X
Dominic Buschi
Finally started RED MARS, and after 200 pages, love it: Especially how
KSR goes into the technical details of setting up camp, how he
describes his protagonists as "normal" people with all there flaws (no
towering heroes) and the descriptions of Mars itself.
Hope he's able to keep it on this level.
Can't understand people saying that it's not a gripping read!
Asia2000
: In article <3744fd82...@news.mira.net.au>, dbu...@Xblaze.net.au
: (Dominic Buschi) wrote:
: > Would you recommend it? (and why or why not?)
: > Thanks
: I loved _Red Mars_, liked _Green Mars_, and even enjoyed _Blue Mars_
: pretty well, although it's by far the weakest book of the three.
: One thing I liked about the story was the huge scale of it: it's not
: only about the colonization of a new world, but about clashing philo-
: sophies about how humans should live in this new world. I also liked
: the way Robinson managed to portray these clashing philosophies
: effectively - he manages to make all sides sympathetic at least some
: of the time. (On the other hand, almost all of the characters also
: come across as annoying at least some of the time, which is a bit of
: a downside.)
: I remember liking the fact that many of the protagonists in the first
: book were scientists, and that they behaved pretty convincingly like
: real scientists.
: The book is, as some have complained, short on action and long on
: dialogue, description, and exposition. I found I didn't mind - I
: found that the conversations and the descriptions kept me interested,
: but if the idea of pages of description of the Martian landscape or
: pages of heated political discussion sounds incredibly dull to you,
: this might not be the book for you.
I thought the geographical [areograpahic] descriptions of the Martian
landscape made the book (Red at least). I looked up Mars maps on NASA's
web site to follow it. (The map included in the book is mediocre.)
Unloveable characters, true. Plan to read Green and Blue. Makes Mars into
a real place. Reminds me a bit of "Prairy Erth" in its evocation of
landscape and geology as plot elements.
The science is much too convenient, eg the biological researchers
discovering immortality, when all Earth's science got nowhere, evidently
with the plot purpose of letting the protagonists live through the whole
book and have an active sex life. And it seemed strange that Earth would
send untold billions of dollars of hardware to Mars, and that the
colonists then made up their plans as they went along. With that
investment, there would have been much, much tighter control from the
beginning, and not the freedom to innovate. After the landing the
colonists go around turning on "jetliner sized" air factories that have
been sent up in advance. My God, how could that be done within a century?
KSR wrote an entertaining collection of stories, humorous and slightly
fantastical, set in Nepal, something like "Escape from Kathmandu". Also
great evocation of landscape.
Just heard that after last year's asteroid movies, the next big thing is
Mars. There are apparently two or three Mars colony movies in the works,
one by James Cameron supposedly loosely based on Red Mars.
Dennis Versteeg
>Would you recommend it? (and why or why not?)
Re Mars was very good I think. Especially the early days of Underhill.
Very vivid descriptions of the landscapes and science.
The politics got a bit boring.
Green Mars is a nice continuation of Red Mars, featuring some great
events.
Blue Mars went into too much trivialities in my opinions, eg Nirgal
dealing half a chapter with a potato disease is not something I cared
for a lot..
All in all, I must say that I enjoyed reading the trilogy, although
it's definately flawed. It was my first 'Realistic Mars Colonization'
book and it definately sparked my interest for similar books, like Ben
Bova's Mars, Stephen Baxter's Voyage, Greg Bear's Moving Mars and
William K. Hartmann's Mars Underground (or something liek that).
dennis
----
Kuu Kuu
(Nits 1994)
mercu...@my-dejanews.com
kir...@u.washington.edu (K. Laisathit) wrote:
> In article <oiIHzNAL...@quik.demon.co.uk>,
> GCU Cultural Attache <G...@quik.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
much for
> >>> my opinion.
> >>
> >>Cheer up, you're not alone, I'm in total agreement.
> >>I too completely fail to see why it was so popular. I didn't like
the
> >>plot, the characters, the writing, the style, the science, nothing.
> >
> >Thirded. Despite all the popular acclaim, I only finished 'Red Mars'
> >with much effort, and added KSR to my 'avoid in future' authors list.
> >The book had nothing to recommend it, although if stuck on a desert
> >island, you could use pages to start a fire (among other things).
>
> to finish Red Mars. I had to literally make myself finish it.
> Blue Mars? I couldn't even get pass page 50.
>
> Later...
>
i hated this book.Couldnt read more then 100 pages,and even that was
too much.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Michael Himsolt
> Re Mars was very good I think. Especially the early days of Underhill.
> Very vivid descriptions of the landscapes and science.
> The politics got a bit boring.
>
> Green Mars is a nice continuation of Red Mars, featuring some great
> events.
>
> Blue Mars went into too much trivialities in my opinions, eg Nirgal
> dealing half a chapter with a potato disease is not something I cared
> for a lot.
Each of the three books has its own flavour.
From my personal view, Red Mars is the most technical one, Green Mars
deals a lot with environmental and ecological issues, and Blue Mars is
more about individual people and sociology. Politics plays a big role in
all three.
Of course, these distinctions are quite vague; all books deal with all
aspects of the above.
Michael
--
Michael Himsolt, http://www.fmi.uni-passau.de/~himsolt
Simon O'Toole
thread. Having re-read all three books several times, I suppose you
could consider me a fan. This is not because of any brilliant science
(there are definitely flaws), the politics (even though I tended to side
with the Green argument), or the characters (I would suggest that the
reason that so many people hated/disliked the characters was that they
were too close to the bone). Basically, I thought it was well written,
with well defined characters. Almost all of the characters reminded me
of someone I know. I thought that it was a terrific social and political
commentary. If you are reading any of the books (particularly Red Mars),
and are finding that you don't really like the characters, ask yourself
how many people in this world that you have met do you actually like? I
read Wuthering Heights in high school and hated every main character in
it, but I would still class it as one of the best books I've ever read.
So I guess what I'm saying is, (I think someone has already said
something along these lines), remember that this book is about Mars, its
colonisation, and the political and social ramifications, not just a
bunch of people on another planet.
Simon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
When people run around and around in circles we say that they are crazy.
When planets do it, we say they are orbiting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
JBassior
>The very *idea* that blatant
>eco-mystic gobbledigook about a *lifeless rock* could be taken seriously by
>any intelligent human being, let alone become a major issue had me nearly
>foaming at the mouth.
Well, eco-mystic gobbledigook has been taken seriously in Earthly history a few
times. Though one has to wonder if eco-mystic idiots would be heavily
represented in one of the first interplanetary colonizing ventures.
My real problem was Robinson's naivete in her depiction of how a revolution
works. Revolutions are organized by a "vanguard" (to use Lenin's term for it),
they do not just happen spontaneously. (When they appear to, it usually means
that the organization of it was covert). Reading her story, I was left with the
impression that she'd focused on superficial details (riots and police
brutality) and ignored the meat of the political events.
*The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress* is a MUCH better portrayal of a sf revolution.
And somehow seems more up-to-date, oddly.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
Aaron P. Brezenski
JBassior <jbas...@aol.com> wrote:
[stuff deleted]
I don't dipute any of your assertions, but Kim Stanley Robinson is an XY
person. The pronouns "she" and "her" are probably not appropriate.
HTH,
Aaron Brezenski
"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean there isn't someone out to get me."
Card-Carrying Member of the Illuminati
MollyMolo
(JBassior) writes:
>My real problem was Robinson's naivete in her depiction of how a revolution
>works. Revolutions are organized by a "vanguard" (to use Lenin's term for
>it),
>they do not just happen spontaneously. (When they appear to, it usually means
>that the organization of it was covert). Reading her story, I was left with
>the
>impression that she'd focused on superficial details (riots and police
>brutality) and ignored the meat of the political events.
Jordan: FYI: Kim Stanley Robinson is a man, not a woman.
--
Molly
Coyu
>My real problem was Robinson's naivete in her depiction
Um, KSR usually goes by 'Stan'. Think Kim O'Hara or Philby.
James Nicoll
jbas...@aol.com "JBassior" writes:
> Mmcdon said:
>
> >The very *idea* that blatant
> >eco-mystic gobbledigook about a *lifeless rock* could be taken seriously by
> >any intelligent human being, let alone become a major issue had me nearly
> >foaming at the mouth.
>
> Well, eco-mystic gobbledigook has been taken seriously in Earthly history a few
> times. Though one has to wonder if eco-mystic idiots would be heavily
> represented in one of the first interplanetary colonizing ventures.
More than half of Canada is uninhabitable[1] [although not
uninhabited] wasteland. From the POV of someone from the southern
regions, there is no reason not to brutally exploit the north [and
from time to time we have] but we still have significant, non-Northern
inhabitant numbers of people who think paving the north would be a pity.
It should be possible to do Red Martians who put forth a reasonable case
for not terraforming MArs.
In the real world, where tforming takes millenia, all they'd have
to do is point out how much cheaper in the short run exploiting MArs as
is is. Why go to the expense of tforming when genetic engineering the
workers would prbably be cheaper?
1: No offense to the natives of the North. Many southerners can't deal with
the isolation: my brother's predecessor lasted 8 days before having a nervous
breakdown.
--
James Nicoll
Phil Fraering
> More than half of Canada is uninhabitable[1] [although not
>uninhabited] wasteland. From the POV of someone from the southern
>regions, there is no reason not to brutally exploit the north [and
>from time to time we have] but we still have significant, non-Northern
>inhabitant numbers of people who think paving the north would be a pity.
>It should be possible to do Red Martians who put forth a reasonable case
>for not terraforming MArs.
The exploitation in this case would actually be hurting the ecosystem.
Currently Mars does not have an ecosystem.
I think there would be a difference.
Phil
Who remembers Ambrose Bierce's phrase about "The whole of the inhabitable
Earth and Canada."
--
H: If a 'GOBLIN (HOB) waylays you, Phil Fraering
Slice him up before he slays you. p...@globalreach.net
Nothing makes you look a slob
Like running from a HOB'LIN (GOB).-- The Roguelet's ABC
Gerry Quinn
> More than half of Canada is uninhabitable[1] [although not
>uninhabited] wasteland. From the POV of someone from the southern
>regions, there is no reason not to brutally exploit the north [and
>from time to time we have] but we still have significant, non-Northern
>inhabitant numbers of people who think paving the north would be a pity.
>It should be possible to do Red Martians who put forth a reasonable case
>for not terraforming MArs.
>
> In the real world, where tforming takes millenia, all they'd have
>to do is point out how much cheaper in the short run exploiting MArs as
>is is. Why go to the expense of tforming when genetic engineering the
>workers would prbably be cheaper?
>
Just a few more decades generating CO2, and the next phase will commence!
- Gerry Quinn
James Nicoll
> Ja...@bluejo.demon.co.uk (James Nicoll) writes:
>
> > More than half of Canada is uninhabitable[1] [although not
> >uninhabited] wasteland. From the POV of someone from the southern
> >regions, there is no reason not to brutally exploit the north [and
> >from time to time we have] but we still have significant, non-Northern
> >inhabitant numbers of people who think paving the north would be a pity.
> >It should be possible to do Red Martians who put forth a reasonable case
> >for not terraforming MArs.
>
> The exploitation in this case would actually be hurting the ecosystem.
>
> Currently Mars does not have an ecosystem.
>
> I think there would be a difference.
I appreciate your point but there are people who would find the
barren wilderness of MArs as worthy of protection as that of Arctic Canada.
Perhaps not as many but they would exist.
Me, I like ecopoesis rather than terraforming, since it's probably
easier to make life forms adapted to making a MArtian ecology than it is
making Mars earthlike enough to support Earth life.
--
James Nicoll
James Nicoll
ger...@indigo.ie "Gerry Quinn" writes:
> In article <928050...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>, Ja...@bluejo.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> > More than half of Canada is uninhabitable[1] [although not
> >uninhabited] wasteland. From the POV of someone from the southern
> >regions, there is no reason not to brutally exploit the north [and
> >from time to time we have] but we still have significant, non-Northern
> >inhabitant numbers of people who think paving the north would be a pity.
> >It should be possible to do Red Martians who put forth a reasonable case
> >for not terraforming MArs.
> >
> > In the real world, where tforming takes millenia, all they'd have
> >to do is point out how much cheaper in the short run exploiting MArs as
> >is is. Why go to the expense of tforming when genetic engineering the
> >workers would prbably be cheaper?
> >
>
> Just a few more decades generating CO2, and the next phase will commence!
>
> - Gerry Quinn
>
Heh. Any particular reason you're expecting the cold trap at Mar's
poles to not continue solidifying CO2 as effectively as it does now? What
I 'd expect if we dumped CO2 on Mars is thicker caps, not a thicker
atmosphere.
Anyone remember the timescale in Fogg's book?
--
James Nicoll
Del Cotter
James Nicoll <Ja...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Just a few more decades generating CO2, and the next phase will commence!
>
> Heh. Any particular reason you're expecting the cold trap at Mar's
>poles to not continue solidifying CO2 as effectively as it does now? What
>I 'd expect if we dumped CO2 on Mars is thicker caps, not a thicker
>atmosphere.
>
> Anyone remember the timescale in Fogg's book?
_Terraforming_, page 327
"A synergic, technocentric, approach permits us to envision the
complete terraforming of Mars in <10,000 years, a timescale
roughly equivalent to that separating the dawn of urban
civilization from the present day" [1]
--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk
[1] Martyn Fogg "Terraforming: Engineering Planetary Environments", Society of
Automotive Engineers (1995)
Gerry Quinn
>>
>> Just a few more decades generating CO2, and the next phase will commence!
>>
>> - Gerry Quinn
>>
>
> Heh. Any particular reason you're expecting the cold trap at Mar's
>poles to not continue solidifying CO2 as effectively as it does now? What
>I 'd expect if we dumped CO2 on Mars is thicker caps, not a thicker
>atmosphere.
>
I was talking about Canada!
- Gerry Quinn
Frank
James Nicoll wrote in message <928174...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>...
>
> Heh. Any particular reason you're expecting the cold trap at Mar's
>poles to not continue solidifying CO2 as effectively as it does now? What
>I 'd expect if we dumped CO2 on Mars is thicker caps, not a thicker
>atmosphere.
Gaseous CO2 is a greenhouse gas, not a very good one but a green house gas
all the same. Seeing as you need pretty serious power inputs to smart
evaporating serious quantities of the stuff you are presumably going to put
enough back into the atmosphere to start up a 'positive feed back loop' in
other words the solar radiation trapped by the atmosphere will be sufficient
to keep it gaseous and to cause solid CO2 or sequestered CO2 to start
sublimating.
Most terraforming schemes recognise that CO2 isn't going to be enough and
call for the inclusion of CFCs and other superior green house gases. Getting
the water cycle going again is a big part of the process because water vapor
is a highly efficient greenhouse molecule and because erosion is an
effective method of returning sequestered CO2 back to the atmosphere.
> Anyone remember the timescale in Fogg's book?
Fogg tends to talk in multiple thousands of years to a hundred thousand
years. That doesn't mean you can't make a start in your spare time once
you've gotten your green house and ore refinery going.
>--
>James Nicoll
>
Regards
Frank Scrooby
Mars Nut
(frank _AT_ microgaming _DOT_ com)
SPAM...@HATE.COM
William December Starr
Ja...@bluejo.demon.co.uk said:
> Me, I like ecopoesis rather than terraforming, since it's probably
> easier to make life forms adapted to making a MArtian ecology than
> it is making Mars earthlike enough to support Earth life.
Yes, but let's face it: terraforming is just plain way cooler.
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Frank
William December Starr wrote in message <7j0b7d$i...@crl2.crl.com>...
>In article <928135...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>,
>Ja...@bluejo.demon.co.uk said:
>
>> Me, I like ecopoesis rather than terraforming, since it's probably
>> easier to make life forms adapted to making a MArtian ecology than
>> it is making Mars earthlike enough to support Earth life.
>
>Yes, but let's face it: terraforming is just plain way cooler.
And probably a lot easier to achieve. Nothing based on our terrestrial CNHO
DNA type life is ever going to do anything more than barely survive on Mars
as it is today. Even the hardiest microbes known to man would require large
scale reengineering to live on Mars. The atmosphere is thin and poisonous,
it is very cold (Antarctica is like the tropics by comparison) and the
planet is subjected to considerable UV radiation.
We are going to need at least 50 millibars more atmosphere before free
standing lifeforms will be able to survive on the surface. If I remember my
Mars Terraforming correctly (my books are all in a box after my recent
change of address) 50 millibars is the equivilent of melting the CO2 on both
the poles. That gets you bacteria and simple plants on the surface.
Unprotected humans and higher mammals are going to need at least 250
millibars even if heavily modified.
Achieving the melting of the poles is a foreseeable planable operation. We
know how to do nuclear reactors or fusion bombs or orbitting solar
concentrators or mass distribution of carbon powder. The gene engineering
needed for creating life forms viable in the current environment is still
beyond us.
>-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
>
Frank Scrooby
Mars Nut
frank _AT_ microgaming _DOT_ .com
Jorj Strumolo
> it is making Mars earthlike enough to support Earth life.
wds...@crl.com (William December Starr)
WDS> Yes, but let's face it: terraforming is just plain way cooler.
Certainly ecopoesis as seen in Geoff Landis's title of that name
was just depressing, where you saw that life was going to wipe
itself out because the short-term-profitable old ways weren't
going to be long-run-sustainable on so different a world.
Sheffield's _Martian Rainbow_, though it was not a good novel
and it had to cheat and use conveniently available demigod
biobots to achieve ecopoesis (though there was discussion of
humans brute-forcing it alone over a much longer timescale), did
manage a nicer form of it, IMO. Still, I'd like to think that,
even if life didn't naturally evolve to fit a habitat, something
could be designed that could survive there, and an ecosystem put
in place that was capable of modifying Mars to a more Earthlike
form and maintaining it there without necessarily self-destructing.
James Nicoll
wds...@crl.com "William December Starr" writes:
> In article <928135...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>,
> Ja...@bluejo.demon.co.uk said:
>
> > Me, I like ecopoesis rather than terraforming, since it's probably
> > easier to make life forms adapted to making a MArtian ecology than
> > it is making Mars earthlike enough to support Earth life.
>
> Yes, but let's face it: terraforming is just plain way cooler.
On one hand, a world with a knock off of an already established
ecosystem, like a Canadian branch of a US company. On the other, something
brand new, nver seen before. You think the first is cooler?
--
James Nicoll
James Nicoll
>
> We are going to need at least 50 millibars more atmosphere before free
> standing lifeforms will be able to survive on the surface. If I remember my
> Mars Terraforming correctly (my books are all in a box after my recent
> change of address) 50 millibars is the equivilent of melting the CO2 on both
> the poles. That gets you bacteria and simple plants on the surface.
> Unprotected humans and higher mammals are going to need at least 250
> millibars even if heavily modified.
Actually I assume ecopoesis would include a little tforming.
Just not enough to let HSS mark 1 walk around in tshirts.
> Achieving the melting of the poles is a foreseeable planable operation. We
> know how to do nuclear reactors or fusion bombs or orbitting solar
> concentrators or mass distribution of carbon powder. The gene engineering
> needed for creating life forms viable in the current environment is still
> beyond us.
>
Yes but we aren't going to start tforming Mars anytime soon,
probably not in my lifetime and maybe not in the next century. Advances
in genetic engineering are ongoing as we type.
--
James Nicoll
William December Starr
Ja...@bluejo.demon.co.uk (James Nicoll) said:
>>> Me, I like ecopoesis rather than terraforming, since it's
>>> probably easier to make life forms adapted to making a Martian
>>> ecology than it is making Mars earthlike enough to support Earth
>>> life. [James Nicoll]
>>
>> Yes, but let's face it: terraforming is just plain way cooler.
>> [wdstarr]
>
> On one hand, a world with a knock off of an already established
> ecosystem, like a Canadian branch of a US company. On the other,
> something brand new, nver seen before. You think the first is
> cooler?
Not the result, the _accomplishment_. Rebuilding a whole fucking
*planet* compared to twiddling around in a lab somewhere pushing
molecules around to make a species that probably won't even be able to
appreciate Baywatch 2830? No contest! Besides, we're Homo sapiens
sapiens, man -- we change the universe to fit _us_, not the other way
around!
Seriously, bigger may not always be better, but it's usually got a good
chance of being more impressive...
Martin Wisse
wrote:
>In article <19990529110232...@ng-fh1.aol.com>
> jbas...@aol.com "JBassior" writes:
>
>> Mmcdon said:
>>
>> >The very *idea* that blatant
>> >eco-mystic gobbledigook about a *lifeless rock* could be taken seriously by
>> >any intelligent human being, let alone become a major issue had me nearly
>> >foaming at the mouth.
>>
>> Well, eco-mystic gobbledigook has been taken seriously in Earthly history a few
>> times. Though one has to wonder if eco-mystic idiots would be heavily
>> represented in one of the first interplanetary colonizing ventures.
>
> More than half of Canada is uninhabitable[1] [although not
>uninhabited] wasteland. From the POV of someone from the southern
>regions, there is no reason not to brutally exploit the north [and
>from time to time we have] but we still have significant, non-Northern
>inhabitant numbers of people who think paving the north would be a pity.
>It should be possible to do Red Martians who put forth a reasonable case
>for not terraforming MArs.
You cannot ruin an ecology where there isn't one, of course.
> In the real world, where tforming takes millenia, all they'd have
>to do is point out how much cheaper in the short run exploiting MArs as
>is is. Why go to the expense of tforming when genetic engineering the
>workers would prbably be cheaper?
There's a limit to genetic engineering. I doubt if it would be up to the
task of adapting humans to live unprotected on Mars.
A better way of preserving Mars or at least part of it would be to,
instead of terraforming, just encapsule the pieces of Mars you want with
pressure domes et all. Over time, Mars would be covered up and
inhabitable for humans, while still keeping part of its original
terrain.
Martin Wisse
Stephen Taylor
> Besides, we're Homo sapiens
> sapiens, man -- we change the universe to fit _us_, not the other way
> around!
Please can't I have better designed knee joints and teeth that don't
decay? Pretty please! Oh - and no appendix either.
> -- William December Starr
S.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Taylor st...@afs.net.au
Applied Financial Services
Phone: +61 3 9670 0233
Fax: +61 3 9670 5018
Asia2000
: William December Starr wrote:
: > Besides, we're Homo sapiens
: > sapiens, man -- we change the universe to fit _us_, not the other way
: > around!
We don't need to genetically adapt ourselves, but skin suits as in John
Varley's Eight Worlds stories seem closer to reality than either adapting
us to the Mars or vice-versa.
: Please can't I have better designed knee joints and teeth that don't
: decay? Pretty please! Oh - and no appendix either.
If you're around 40, munch on some tree-of-life.