On Paths Unknown discussion

Hello, by popular demand we will be reading The Martian by Andy Weir and in a separate thread, we'll compare the book with the film. In yet another 2 threads, we will discuss spoilers - one for mid-book impressions, and one for ending spoilers.

This thread is just for getting together and and posting our initial impressions and feelings about the book. :)

Have fun!

PS. Although the "official" starting date of the discussion proper is October 4 to give those who have not read it yet a chance to catch up, please feel free to clock in already with non-spoiler-ish comments.

I am in. Loved the book. I left a review, perhaps that would serve as an initial contribution from me? Love to chat about it.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Mark wrote: "I am in. Loved the book. I left a review, perhaps that would serve as an initial contribution from me? Love to chat about it.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show..."

Oh good! Will respond to your review a bit closer to our "official" starting date.

I'm in, too. I'm listening to the audio book while I exercise. So far, so good, about 50% through. Looking forward to discussing it.

I read it. Loved it. Hope the movie holds up. I am bummed that it has a PG-13 rating. The colorful language was used so well. I was surprised that people were upset with it when they read the book. I mean..WTF your stuck on Mars and not going to drop some curse words?? Here is my review:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Good, good, guys, we're gaining traction. Yeah, I noticed the novel starts off in medias res with a colorful exclamation or two. :)

How do you people feel about the first-person "journal" format of the book?

(Keep in mind that there's a special thread for the movie, btw - here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... )

When I am grabbed by a story and characters I tend to really forgot the format of how a book is written. For instance, I had no idea that The Road lacked punctuation. No idea.

Traveller wrote: "Good, good, guys, we're gaining traction. Yeah, I noticed the novel starts off in medias res with a colorful exclamation or two. :)

How do you people feel about the first-person "journal" format..."

I think the journal format is perfect for the story. If he dies, he is leaving a log that will be useful for scientists, and it gives him a chance to reach out to his family. Interior dialogue would not have had the urgency, or the admission of embarrassment when he messes up. The voice is good too.

Yes, I remember when we started to discuss We by Yevgeny Zamyatin on another group, how everybody groaned about the journal format: but one soon grew used to it, like Jennifer says, and like you say, Chance - it overcomes many of the problems of a first person narration, one of them being that a first-person narration takes away some of the suspense in that the narrator still has to be alive in order for them to narrate.

Suzanne Collins inadvertently highlighted many of the potential hiccups of a first - person narration in The Hunger Games.

For one, realistically speaking, you can only see the world out of the eyes of the narrator, and sentences can often come out pretty clumsy if your narrator is saying things like :

This is an okay place to die, I think. My fingertips make small swirling patterns in the cool, slippery earth. I love mud, I think.

That’s mine, I think. It’s meant for me.
It’s the smoke, I think. It’s sedated them.
It’s now or never, I think, and begin to saw.
Better, I think, to sneak up here at dawn and send the nest into my enemies.
Each time I wake, I think, At last, this is over, but it isn’t.
And suddenly, I’m not thinking of Gale but of Peeta and . . . Peeta! He saved my life! I think.
Water first, I think. You can hunt along the way now.

In the case of The Martian, though, the style seems to fit the situation quite well.

Jennifer wrote: "I read it. Loved it. Hope the movie holds up. I am bummed that it has a PG-13 rating. The colorful language was used so well. I was surprised that people were upset with it when they read the book...."

Agreed - McGyver on Mars. Couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I didn't. I think I said the same thing. :-)

Traveller wrote: "Good, good, guys, we're gaining traction. Yeah, I noticed the novel starts off in medias res with a colorful exclamation or two. :)

How do you people feel about the first-person "journal" format..."

I liked it - that is how I got into his head. I loved the character's ingenuity and brilliance, which was contrasted by a juvenile streak and a good dose of irreverence in the face of authority. The I-narrative was also checked by third-person narrative when the scene switched to Earth, a device that I thought kept the story fresh.

Traveller wrote: "Yes, I remember when we started to discuss We by Yevgeny Zamyatin on another group, how everybody groaned about the journal format: but one soon grew used to it, like J..."

Good point on the limitations of I-narrative. I know we are not discussing this here, but I thought Us by David Nicholls is an excellent example of how to overcome this limitation. Although the reader never escapes from the main character's subjective view, we get to know him pretty well during the course of 400 pages. Discussions with his family are given from the perspective of the I-narrator, but they clearly illustrate Douglas' personality, and allow the reader to make up his own mind.

The journal is a different way to achieve a similar effect, I thought.

I really enjoyed the book. I had a list of "faults" that would in general put me off, but somehow Weir had me hooked.

I've written a spoiler-free review here (in a slight departure from my usual style):
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Jennifer wrote: "When I am grabbed by a story and characters I tend to really forgot the format of how a book is written. For instance, I had no idea that The Road lacked punctuation. No idea."

I noticed, but it didn't bother me at all; it felt like a prose poem, rather than an unpunctuated novel. Brilliant, painful, beautiful.

Chance wrote: "I think the journal format is perfect for the story. If he dies, he is leaving a log..."

It also means you're never sure if he will survive, which keeps you turning the pages.

Mark wrote: "Good point on the limitations of I-narrative. I know we are not discussing this here, but I thought Us by David Nicholls is an excellent example of how to overcome this limitation. Although the reader ..."
Us sounds interesting! Will have a look at it.

Cecily wrote: "Chance wrote: "I think the journal format is perfect for the story. If he dies, he is leaving a log..."

It also means you're never sure if he will survive, which keeps you turning the pages."

Yep, exactly - as opposed to a "live" narration in which you know the person must still be alive...

I read this too! i saw a few people from here commenting and liking my review from a while ago.

i say i read it but i actually listened to it. there's a great audiobook version of this that, imho, really does the story justice since you get taken on a ride in this dude's mind.

Annelien wrote: "I read this too! i saw a few people from here commenting and liking my review from a while ago.

i say i read it but i actually listened to it. there's a great audiobook version of this that, imho..."

I'm listening to the audio book now. The narrator is doing a fantastic job. I'll have to see the movie too, for comparison, but I'm enjoying the book version very much.

Okay, the general gang have given the okay to move a bit faster with this: we can discuss the first chapter in detail here, and then we can move on to later chapters by the weekend, by which time some of us will be watching the film, so that we can also add our 2c about that. I think that in order to avoid spoilers for those who are not able to see the movie yet, we should rather comment on the film here https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... I don't know if I'm being over-cautious with that?

Yes, please! You are not being too cautious. The soonest I'll probably get to see the film is when the DVD shows up in a thrift shop.

Okay then, members please; I know it's a bit of extra trouble, but I keep posting the link so that all you have to do, is to click on the link:
Film to be discussed here:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Thank you, Traveller! Your work is much appreciated! :D

Right! So now the scienc-y people can start talking science! XD Heheheheheheh.

What do you think of the means of locomotion, of the ion engine?

read it, gave it a three- which means yes I liked it- but the science stuff was fun, sounded real, sounded plausible, btw there is a critical perspective that suggests all early sf are 'robinsonades', that is structured, plotted, meaning as romances following Robinson Crusoe, and really cannot think of a current sf novel that exemplifies that better than this...

There's just one thing on the science I am struggling with: In chapter one, a massive dust storm is threatening to topple the landing craft, and hurls some metal object into Watley's side, causing him to lose consciousness.

That, I do not think, could happen on Mars. Mars' atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth's, so to get to hurricane-force storms (~75mph for the weakest hurricane), you'd need a Martian wind moving at 7500 mph. That just does not exist on Mars.

But of course, I could just file that away under "artistic licence" - no biggie. The problem I am having is that towards the end of the book, the thinness of the atmosphere plays an explicit, and crucial, role in allowing Mark to get off the planet.

So basically, the plot is inconsistent in the way it makes use of scientific facts. Well, at least in that instance. The rest seems to work fine (not that I am in any way able to judge any of it, of course). Just to be clear - this is a minor niggle for me, but has been bothering me a bit ever since I read it.

Nobody interested in Weir's obvious bit of showing off with "Hermes is powered by ion engines. They throw argon out the back of the ship really fast to get a tiny amount of acceleration. The thing is, it doesn’t take much reactant mass, so a little argon (and a nuclear reactor to power things) let us accelerate constantly the whole way there. You’d be amazed at how fast you can get going with a tiny acceleration over a long time."?

I wish my rocket science was good enough to really understand what he is saying there, compared to how spacecraft are currently driven forward. I know that orbital variables are carefully plotted, and it kind of goes without saying that once you are past the pull of gravity, that you won't need much to propel you forward - but... anyway, i suppose I'll have to try and read it up somewhere. Coz' i'm not just prepared to take his word for it - hoo boy, this might end up being a long read for me... XD

the gift wrote: "read it, gave it a three- which means yes I liked it- but the science stuff was fun, sounded real, sounded plausible, btw there is a critical perspective that suggests all early sf are 'robinsonade..."

Interesting, indeed. Have you read Railsea by China Miéville? A fun skit on the "adventure novel" genre. Hmm, I'll have to think carefully about my HG Wells and Jules Verne reading background to see if I agree. Of course, from a structuralist perspective, all folk tales revolve around a quest, as Vladimir Propp will tell you in his book Morphology of the Folk Tale. :)

Mark wrote: "There's just one thing on the science I am struggling with: In chapter one, a massive dust storm is threatening to topple the landing craft, and hurls some metal object into Watley's side, causing ..."

Good catch about the winds and atmosphere there, Mark. Don't go away, you seem quite jacked up on your cosmology...

Mark, I've read somewhere (can't remember where, and don't have time to check right now), that Weir acknowledges the sandstorm isn't realistic, but also that it's the only such thing.

For me, sci-fi is allowed one implausible element, as long as the rest of it is enjoyable and plausible enough (which this was for me).

Weir had a lot of input from when he first published the story for free on the Internet. I'm surprised he didn't rewrite the sandstorm scene. He could have come up with something else more plausible. The rest, though, seems pretty realistic to my untrained eyes.

Traveller wrote: "Nobody interested in Weir's obvious bit of showing off with "Hermes is powered by ion engines. They throw argon out the back of the ship really fast to get a tiny amount of acceleration. The thing ..."

Ion engines are very real, practical devices, and indeed very cool. If I remember my own rocket science correctly (which might be dicey, because I believe they're not rockets), his description is quite accurate: low acceleration, but extremely high fuel economy. This has made then useful for deep space missions in the 21st Century, and Earth satellites use them for station keeping as well. Today deep space missions are not powered by nuclear reactors, but by radioisotope thermoelectric generators, which use the heat of radioactive decay to generate electricity to propel the ions. A hypothetical manned mission might have to use a nuclear reactor, but to reach Mars photovoltaic arrays might be enough, too.

I love space science. Can you tell? ;)

Puddin Pointy-Toes wrote: "Ion engines are very real, practical devices, and indeed very cool. If I remember my own rocket science correctly (which might be dicey, because I believe they're not rockets), his description is quite accurate: low acceleration,..."

Yaye! I found someone! Now I can be lazy and just sponge off your brain, Puddin! XD (You're sounding suitably smart. ;) )

Next thing I'm wondering, is how realistic 124 days from Earth to Mars would be in today's terms.

I've had an idea! Shall we put all the "science" into a separate thread?

How long a transit takes depends on the relative position of Mars from the Earth, of course, but also a lot of other factors including available fuels, yadda, yadda. The Interplanetary Transport Network can get you anywhere in the Solar System using remarkably little fuel, but takes a long time. So if a Mars-bound person's ship has a nuclear reaction and lots of xenon as fuel (and Mars is as close as it can possibly be.).. Maybe?

According to NASA 54.6M km is the closes approach of Mars, and the record speed for an ion thruster is 10km/s. My calculator says you could get there in 63 days. So 124 days sounds realistic.

Thanks, Puddin! (I love calling someone puddin... XD)

Just in case we bore all of these non-sciencers, how about we go somewhere more suitable? Like here for example: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

(A thread for those inclined to discuss the S part of SF)

Traveller wrote: "Mark wrote: "There's just one thing on the science I am struggling with: In chapter one, a massive dust storm is threatening to topple the landing craft, and hurls some metal object into Watley's s..."

... more of a windbag, really... ;-)

Oh, we can all be windbags together, then. :)

Cecily wrote: "Mark, I've read somewhere (can't remember where, and don't have time to check right now), that Weir acknowledges the sandstorm isn't realistic, but also that it's the only such thing.

For me, sci..."

Cecily wrote: "Mark, I've read somewhere (can't remember where, and don't have time to check right now), that Weir acknowledges the sandstorm isn't realistic, but also that it's the only such thing.

For me, sci..."

Cecily - yes, he does. In a youtube interview. He is very charming about it, too. Just to be clear: This does not bother me hugely. The bit that does bother me is not that he (deliberately) ignores the science. It is that he is inconsistent in his use of scientific fact:

In the opening chapter, he ignores the thinness of the atmosphere to dramatic effect.
In the terminal chapters, he uses the thinness of the atmosphere to dramatic effect. I am making a point about the writing, not the science.

But I love the book. Not a huge issue. Just saying - he could have used some other disaster, for example an earthquake, and everything would have been beautifully consistent.

Chance wrote: " The rest, though, seems pretty realistic to my untrained eyes."

I have a friend who's a real rocket scientist (as is her husband) and they watched a private screening at JPL (NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory), where it went down really well, apparently.

Mark wrote: "It is that he is inconsistent in his use of scientific fact"

Yeah, I get that. And now I can't forget that. Grr.

;)

I am very very sorry. Please forgive me. ;-)

Cecily wrote: "Chance wrote: " The rest, though, seems pretty realistic to my untrained eyes."

I have a friend who's a real rocket scientist (as is her husband) and they watched a private screening at JPL (NASA'..."

My husband is an astrophysicist. I've offered the book to him, but he hasn't had time to read it yet. When I mentioned the sandstorm, he didn't have a problem with it. Perhaps we will see the movie and he can bring up scientific issues--something I usually discourage, by the way.

Having seen the film, I now realise why there was a private screening at JPL: I lost count of the number of times their name or logo was shown!

Mark wrote: "There's just one thing on the science I am struggling with: In chapter one, a massive dust storm is threatening to topple the landing craft, and hurls some metal object into Watley's side, causing ..."

Please watch the spoilers..., thank you! :)

Hmm, maybe we should go on to a spoiler thread - my bad! (I've been neglecting The Martian, my apologies).

Okay, here is a thread where we can post spoilers up to the end of Chapter 6 : https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Btw, just in case anybody is new to GR, one does spoiler tags like this: < spoiler >
type spoiler text here </spoiler>

The result will be: (view spoiler)[ spoiler text BLEH BLOO BLAH! (hide spoiler)]

Ruth wrote: "Mark wrote: "There's just one thing on the science I am struggling with: In chapter one, a massive dust storm is threatening to topple the landing craft, and hurls some metal object into Watley's s..."

Oops yes good point. Will do.

I'm in. I finally got a copy. Have to read it tonight, as I'm off to see the movie tomorrow. So much to do, so little time…

Ruth wrote: "Please watch the spoilers..., thank you! :) "

Well, it _was_ chapter one :-)

I've heard the same criticism of the movie. Well, actually it was a terrible criticism. Somebody saying that you wouldn't get a hurricane-speed storm on Mars because of its thin atmosphere. aiui, you actually get storms with phenomenal speed (many times the speed of a hurricane), but they can't have much force.

Jennifer wrote: "For instance, I had no idea that The Road lacked punctuation. No idea. "

Yeah—I'm betting you and I learned that in the same GR thread :-)

Cecily wrote: "It also means you're never sure if he will survive, which keeps you turning the pages"

I've never felt that first-person precludes the narrator dying. It's given in the narrator's "present", which means the narrator has to be alive to the last word, but I'm sure I've read more than one first-person novel where that last word was … final.