Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Hello everyone, time to move on a bit so that we avoid revealing spoilers - I apologize that I've been so lax with The Martian. I promise I am now going to put Halloween aside until later, and come back to The Martian.

Okay, so... let's confine our comments in this thread, up to the end of Chapter 6, in which we start to move a little beyond the "logs only" format.
I'll be back soon, but please go for it in the meantime!

He said boobies.

:) A week later and that whole scene still makes me smile.

Before the end of chapter 6? I never even noticed.

Just checking if anybody would notice. ;) Shall I make the scope for this thread a bit longer?

Well, I'm still only to chapter 8 :-)

I haven't had time to get to it at all. I had, stupidly, at the start of the year made a lot of commitments on that Woman's group, and I haven't even gotten to participate in half of my commitments there. Seems I was a bit too enthusiastic when signing up - oops!

Six seemed the perfect place to break to me because if it hadn't shifted POV right then I think I would have given up. Far beyond that now and glad I am :)

Ruth wrote: "Six seemed the perfect place to break to me because if it hadn't shifted POV right then I think I would have given up. Far beyond that now and glad I am :)"

Oh, I'm excited you are glad, Ruth. I think about the halfway point is where it turned into almost pure fun for me. I shall sit on my hands until more people have finished it.

Other Amy has had plenty to say about the science in the movie. Mostly, I liked it: there was little (until the end) to point at as UNscientific, though a fair bit was glossed over to avoid having to be unscientific.

In the book, otoh (I've discussed the initial sandstorm, elsewhere):

"…the space suits have to be portable, so they use a simple chemical absorption process..."

Dammit! That's ADsorption.

"…I'll lose half a liter of water per day to breathing until the humidity in the Hab reaches its maximum and water starts condensing on every surface. Then I'll be licking the walls."

On the plus side, it's metric. Way too many American space stories insist on using some antiquated system of measurement.

On the negative, even if his water reclaimer fails, it's really simple to extract water from humid air (basically, you need to create a cold surface, water will condense on it and then you drip it into a collection basin). He's a mechanical engineer, he really shouldn't have a problem preventing humidity getting that high.

"Being completely desiccated, this particular shit didn't have bacteria in it anymore�"

I didn't think that sounded believable, and Professor Google found a pretty legitimate sounding paper about it in no time: "In the air-dried state some bacteria survive only for seconds whereas others can tolerate desiccation for thousands, perhaps millions, of years" Bacteria are tough! I really didn't think that drying, even freeze-drying, could guarantee there were none in the shit. Perhaps no usable bacteria, but it's hardly likely to be sterile.

otoh, "the Toilet of Doom" might have actually sterilized the waste: NASA currently has procedures to ensure that human microbes do NOT migrate to Mars.

More criticisms for the next thread :-)

Lest I sound too critical, I think this is a fantastic record, considering what passes as "hard" SF sometimes.

Right, then it is certainly time to go on to spoiler thread 3. It's here: /topic/show/...

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Other Amy has had plenty to say about the science in the movie."

:) I am a chatterbox when excited. It's been a while since I had people to geek out over a movie/book combo obsession with! I will mostly follow along with others in the limited threads, though, because I am lousy at remembering which chapters things happen in.

And the bacteria...I raised my eyebrows at that too. Bacteria are resilient. They laugh at desiccation, I'm pretty sure. Interesting that the Toilet of Doom would have killed the potato plot. (He could have gotten around that directly, but I don't recall now if he mentioned anything like that.)

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Other Amy has had plenty to say about the science in the movie. ..."

LOL, you almost say that as if it was a bad thing. I love chatterboxes like Derek and Amy. :D

I think Traveller was referring to "I am a chatterbox when excited" :-)

Yeah, you go! Even when we don't agree, actually being excited about a story is way more important than what any one person thinks of it. I had been "mildly" interested in The Martian for a couple of years, now, but nothing had really triggered enough interest to get it. Now, I'm really glad i did. It has problems, but if I compare it to some of my favorite hard SF authors� not many. He's no Greg Egan. If there are any science errors in Egan, it would take somebody with a very specialized doctorate in physics to find them; but there aren't many Egans. I'm a fan of Robert Sawyer, who usually does pretty good hard SF—and his latest Martian epic, Red Planet Blues, isn't anywhere near as good as this.

As for being lousy at remembering what chapters things happen in� that's why I almost always try to get hold of an e-book when we're discussing anything on GR. Then I can just highlight a passage, and refer to it in the discussion. I can never remember details about a book once I've finished.

Ah, I found that Robert J. Sawyer has some good concepts, but the first two of his that I had read, being the first two out of the Neanderthal Parallax series, I felt that the (clumsy?) writing style was a bit off-putting. Also, I felt that some issues and characters were not tackled with as much finesse as I would have liked.

I hope all of this has improved, because as I say, despite that, his work tends to be thought-provoking, and I'd like to try out more of him sometime.

Oh, btw, Amy, I usually actually read books with the group and/or someone who has read the book "leads" the discussion, so that that person can actually just shortly summarize the parameters of what happened in the book in the section to be discussed. ...but The Martian was a flash decision, and I never got around to reading it, so we are flying by night and by the seat of our pants a bit here, sorry!

Will improve soon, I promise...

Traveller wrote: "Ah, I found that Robert J. Sawyer has some good concepts, but the first two of his that I had read, being the first two out of the Neanderthal Parallax series, I felt that the (clumsy?) writing style was a bit off-putting. Also, I felt that some issues and characters were not tackled with as much finesse as I would have liked."

Much as I like Sawyer, I'd agree with all of that. I read him for the science, not his dazzling ability as a writer. Egan, otoh, is a fine novelist and gets into really difficult science.

Mm, can you recommend anything by Egan?

It depends what you like: Distress for near-future Earth and a universe that follows the laws that we know; Incandescence, in a universe a little like Iain M. Banks Culture novels, focuses on mathematics (particularly geometry); or The Clockwork Rocket which is set in a universe that doesn't even obey Einsteinian rules, but is self-consistent.

It all requires a lot of brain work.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "It depends what you like: Distress for near-future Earth and a universe that follows the laws that we know; Incandescence, in a universe a little like [author:Iain M. B..."

Those all sound interesting, indeed yes! In fact, they sound like fodder for discussion here on Paths...

Man, I let GR go for a weekend and I am all behind on discussions!

Traveller wrote: "I love chatterboxes like Derek and Amy. :D"
Aw, you are sweet!

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "I think Traveller was referring to "I am a chatterbox when excited" :-)

Yeah, you go! Even when we don't agree, actually being excited about a story is way more important than what any one person thinks of it."

:) I am firmly in the "thorough discussion is more important than harmonious agreement" camp on personality tests. I am really enjoying these discussions, and I think we've learned more and uncovered more angles by testing these things than we ever would have by politely nodding. I'm really glad I joined this group.

Traveller wrote: "Oh, btw, Amy, I usually actually read books with the group and/or someone who has read the book "leads" the discussion, so that that person can actually just shortly summarize the parameters of what happened in the book in the section to be discussed. ..."

No need to apologize at all. I really should do as Derek suggested and get out my e-reader. I don't think the discussions have suffered any at all. (Honestly, I was starting to wonder if any groups on GR actually discussed the books they were currently reading; so many groups seem to get nowhere past people popping in, giving their opinion of the work, and disappearing. We are doing great here!)

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "It depends what you like: Distress for near-future Earth and a universe that follows the laws that we know; Incandescence, in a universe a little like Iain M. Banks Culture novels, focuses on mathematics (particularly geometry); or The Clockwork Rocket which is set in a universe that doesn't even obey Einsteinian rules, but is self-consistent."

Thanks for the recommendations, Derek. I will throw both of those on the stack. I've not read anything by Sawyer, either. Is there a particular place that is good to start?

Sawyer's work would make VERY good fodder for discussion material, if one can handle the bad writing. :P

Amy (Other Amy) wrote: "I was starting to wonder if any groups on GR actually discussed the books they were currently reading;"

Yeah, I have a couple of groups that I need to drop, because they're nothing more than suggestion lists. They have no conversation outside of polls to pick books.

Unlike traveller, I loved the Neanderthal Parallax: Hominids. Also Calculating God

I also loved Calculating God (makes me want to go to the ROM again!), and Rollback. His series I haven't liked as much after some time passes.

I wouldn't mind at all if we discuss Homonids. There's material for lively discussions in there!

I'm game for Calculating God, if you like, or, we could also tackle one that nobody has read yet - up to you. :)

....or, we could do a poll. *winks at Derek*

Who needs discussion when you can have POLLS?!?!? ;)

Traveller wrote: "Sawyer's work would make VERY good fodder for discussion material, if one can handle the bad writing. :P"

:) I actually can ignore bad writing altogether if the story is good or the ideas are carrying me along. (I'm always worried about recommending things to people because I think 'Was this good good, or just me good?') But I find I cannot slog through if I'm not enjoying the book. I am lousy at eating my vegetables, book-wise.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Unlike traveller, I loved the Neanderthal Parallax: Hominids. Also Calculating God "

Thanks, I will throw Calculating God on the stack.

Puddin Pointy-Toes wrote: "I also loved Calculating God (makes me want to go to the ROM again!), and Rollback. His series I haven't liked as much after some time passes."

And Rollback. Thanks!

Puddin Pointy-Toes wrote: "Who needs discussion when you can have POLLS?!?!? ;)"
:)

Puddin Pointy-Toes wrote: "Who needs discussion when you can have POLLS?!?!? ;)"

Yeah! Cuz polls rock! (view spoiler)[ (hide spoiler)]

Amy (Other Amy) wrote: "I am lousy at eating my vegetables, book-wise. "

I'm lousy at eating my vegetables, vegetable-wise :-)

Amy, I have that problem as well, or something similar:

Them: "Was this a good book?"
Me: "Yeah, it's great!"
* Some time later *
Them: "That was a terrible book!"
Me: "Well, the good parts are good..."

I tend to turn a blind eye to flaws, and just get wrapped up in the story, and often I forget the flaws were there at all.

Puddin Pointy-Toes wrote: "I tend to turn a blind eye to flaws, and just get wrapped up in the story, and often I forget the flaws were there at all."

This, exactly. And I tend to be very excited about the good stuff, and very bad at gauging other people's taste in good. (Surely it's something like color blindness, as personal defects go, yes? I'm going with that.)

Puddin Pointy-Toes wrote: "I tend to turn a blind eye to flaws, and just get wrapped up in the story, and often I forget the flaws were there at all."

Yeah, I really liked The Hunger Games (though not enough to read either of the sequels) until Cecily pointed out the flaws. Thanks, Cecily :-(

Oops, sorry.

But if your suspension of disbelief was so easily punctured, maybe it's not entirely my fault?

Well, I know! But I was doing fine until you pricked the bubble :-)

LOL!