Red Mars

My reaction to reading this book in 1994. Spoilers follow.

I’ve liked some of Robinson’s work (“The Blind Geometer”, his alternate histories “Remaking History” and the strange history/hoax story “Vinland the Dream”) but found others (particularly “Down and Out in the Year 2000” and “A Pictorial History of the 20th Century”) pointless. Still, Robinson has always struck me as a very intelligent writer who is fascinated by historical processes (which certainly links up to his avowed Marxism). With Red Mars, Robinson proves not only that he can write a very hard sf novel but also plot a very compelling story. Robinson’s research notebook must be huge. Not only does he cover theories of life – or its lack thereof – on Mars, but Mars geology – past and terraformed future – topography, the physics of a sky elevator into Martian orbit, metallurgy, ecology, automated factories, the materials and techniques for developing Martian cities – and destroying them, space travel, air mining (taking elements out of the thin Martian air), and, for good measure, medieval humor psychology.

When the story opens with John Boone’s murder being plotted by Frank Chalmers (both members of the legendary “first hundred” of Martian colonists) at the festive opening of another Martian city, we realize that things have progressed far since the international expedition of cross-trained scientists first landed on Mars. This progress of Mars not only being terraformed but becoming a battleground – literally in a compelling section on warfare against Martian cities and Phobos – between different political visions of what Mars should be. There are those who want Mars left a pure wilderness and those who want it terraformed just enough to help create a new social/political order on Mars, and there are those who want it fully exploited for mineral resources and living space for Earth’s masses.

Robinson has written the nearly perfect sf novel.

There are splendid travelogue sections of Mars in its native and terraformed forms.

There is future warfare sf in the war on Mars.

There is sociological sf in the distantly seen effects of longevity vaccines on Earth’s culture.

There is industrial sf (to use critic John J. Pierce’s term) in the terraforming of Mars, building of Martian cities, and construction of a sky elevator.

There is exploration of Mars.

There is a sort of Gothic Romanticism in the love of geologist Ann Clayborne for desolate Mars and ecologist Hiroko's mystical rites of “aerophagny”.

All that’s missing is aliens.

This is also a very political novel as evidenced by the manipulative administrator and American Frank Chalmers (though he was, at times, murderous, I was sorry to see him killed in an accident) being contemptuous of naïve scientists who think they can ignore politics as if a fish can ignore the sea they swim in. Other scientists – namely Arkady Bogdanov and some ecologists/biologists -- speak of a new political order to go with a new world. While Bogdanov denies his vision is socialism/communism, it is communal and egalitarian – a plan for a new order based on rationalism a lá the French Revolution. Yet, to his credit, Robinson clearly does not buy in to the notion that scientists are uniquely qualified to create a new, rational, enlightened order. He shows us scientists that are as petty and irrational as anyone else. They splinter into violent factions.

I liked the character of John Boone – a man with a great deal of power despite having no official position. His power stems from personal charisma and the aura from being the first man on Mars.

The one flaw in the book comes from what I took (given Robinson’s Marxism) to be propagandizing for what I suspect is Marxism new face in the real world: Robinson’s notion of “eco-economics”. The model, the underlying paradigm and analogy, for this notion is ecology. The efficiency of a person is measured by the ratio of calories consumed versus calories “created” (Thus a strange sort of equality lies at the base of the system where humans are seen as being “six or seven kilocalories per gram”.) Of course, as the proponents of this idea acknowledge, this rating of people’s economic contribution favors people who build power plants and other types of infrastructure. To grant that other people -- like artists – are contributing members of the economy, they are also assigned a value. (Thereby the basic caloric efficiency measure of economics is contradicted.) The proponents acknowledge assigning values to certain kinds of work is arbitrary and subjective (which it is of course) and that certain kinds of “parasitical jobs … add nothing” so would not be given a rating (jobs like “advertising, stock brokerage”, “some politics”, lawyers) since they are unnecessary (given smart administration via expert software programs – it’s a plausible argument) or remnants of capitalistic inefficiency. However, this model is severely flawed in its fundamental premise, reasoning, and contradicted by empirical experience.

First, using an ecology model assumes a small, closed system. Obviously capitalism does face the prospects of a closed system – ultimately the universe – but can draw on more resources than just what’s on a planet as often assumed by ecologists – though not, necessarily, the ecologist characters here. Second, this model assumes economics is based on a predator-prey relationship where only one side benefits in a transactions. The ecologists don’t mention mutualism or symbiosis. Real economics is a voluntary transaction by both parties where each benefits. (Trade is based on buying where cheap, selling where dear. Obviously there are caveats where we’re not talking about open markets – for instance, a tyrannical government forcing citizens to only buy food, a necessity, from one source.). Presumably, prey does not volunteer to be eaten. This is essentially another riff on the idea of central planning. Here, the value of labor is defined by a central agency rather than the fluid, chaotic, self-organizing forces of market. Central planning hasn’t worked well in the real world. Also, in Western, capitalistic civilization the advent of “parasitical” jobs like stock brokering (I’m thinking in particular of Dutch merchant companies inventing the notion of shared risk via stocks) fostered more wealth. Advertising, for instance, increases market efficiency. In strictly caloric terms, the energy spent in generating and broadcasting a radio ad is probably more than offset by consumers quickly finding a cheaper product. Of course, there are also totalitarian implications in letting a group of people judge your professional worth without market feedback. Robinson also forgets that capitalism creates wealth and helps resources to be efficiently managed.

Still, I’ll forgive the propagandizing for an already failed idea. It’s just over two pages in an otherwise great novel. Also, Robinson, like every good political propagandist, knows how to encase his propaganda in an exciting story. Lastly, in terms of character, it makes sense that scientists would come up with such a notion – they often have a totalitarian streak coupled with too much faith in rationality, a faith untempered by consideration of man’s historical record of political and economic experience. ( )

I can't get through this although I deeply respect KSR. If you want it, shoot me an email & I'll send it to you. Somewhat beat-up mass market paperback edition.

I finished this last night in the car and I am still in awe. This book takes Mars from its formation in the solar system to our colonization and terraforming of the planet. The author takes great care to present things from diverse points of view, we see through the eyes of both a character for whom our very presence on Mars is destroying it and who wants nothing more than to be alone with the planet exactly as it is and a character whose ideas for terraforming Mars are too radical even for the UN. ( )

This was probably the first 'hard' sci-fi book I ever read, almost 10 years ago now. It was bloody awesome then, and is even better now that I'm older and able to understand the politics and such better.

This book opens up a very real and tangible universe, ours, and adds the colonization of Mars as a way of exploring human society and culture. Without spoilers, I can't say all that much more about how it does this, but suffice to say you'll learn about tech, about Mars, and even about us. There are love stories, tragedies, betrayal, and all the rest. ( )

SF selection for August 2011 at the SciFi and Fantasy Book Club. Join in the discussions here.

I will post my review at the end of the month. ( )