HRC Ravenclaw Common Room discussion

A place to note first impressions as reading through the first few chapters.

I'm glad you posted this, this book is very thought-provoking. Last night I read about the first 100 pages. It's funny how old-school Twilight-zone-ey it feels. I kind of picture it in a 60's tv mode, but in color. It's pretty morose but in a thought-provoking way, reminding me of that story 'The Lottery'.
Another first impression is that Martians are jerks. Lol.

I love the first story, where the rocket thaws everything out. It's like the quote at the beginning - "space travel has again made children of us all"

But then everything gets heavy. The Martian couple at the beginning are so human in their bad relationship, and then invasion, and murder, and accidental genocide, and destruction / romanticization of Other culture- I can't read these as straightforward stories because I can't separate them from human history.

I think they are human history. The book does sort of get lighter. The events don't, but I feel like there is a touch more humor in the later stories.

Whether or not Bradbury intended it this way (though I tend to believe he did), it certain read as a thinly-veiled critique of humans on Earth to me. It dovetails with the recent "simplicity" trend in a very meaningful way for me. And reading it in an election year with a bit chilling.

Did the Third Expedition scare anyone else?

Martians aren't the jerks, keep reading.

I do love Bradbury's descriptions of Mars. It's very creative.

Is that the one with Mr. Iii and all of the other three letter names? Yes, it was terrifying!!!

So, it's such a tiny thing, but I loved the mention of Ylla's scarf. How cool is that?!

I also loved the descriptions of Mars. I feel like it's a strongpoint of the author. I don't remember the scarf.

Ok I'm only on page 17, which while being 10% isn't a huge chunk, but I need to post here that I know I will love this book. There is a quote on page 4 that is something I've always geeked out on and I am so happy that Bradbury made the point all those years ago when astro science was in its infancy! I am posting here with it so I don't forget when I finish the book. The quote is:

"The third planet is incapable of supporting life," stated the husband patiently. "Our scientists have said there's far too much oxygen in their atmosphere."

This is so important to me in the science world. We regularly hear how a planet can't support life. But they never add the remainder of that sentence which is, as we know it. Pluto can't support life AS WE KNOW IT. That is our biology, oxygen and carbon rich beings, etc.

The criteria for having life would boil down to four main factors:

1. Be visible in some form (You can see humans, or dogs, or plants)

2. Be able to create and expend energy (We eat food to be able to move, plants use the sun to create energy etc.)

3. Be able to reproduce

4. Be able to communicate

So why is it that we get stuck on life being impossible on Jupiter? Why can't there be dense gaseous clouds that breathe in nitrogen which they expend to float around while communicating via morse code esc light signals?

Sorry for the geeky rant there, but it is such an overlooked part of our science community that we seek life in the universe based on our criteria without remembering that our criteria isn't the only way to have life!

Its weirdly amusing in a scary kind of way.

And I agree, it certainly does seem like a representation of humanity, especially the point of feeling like we're the only ones and only importance.