Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

This will be our last spoiler thread, in which ending spoilers can be included.

Who liked the ending?

I thought the homilies were a little cheesy (but now I reread, it's less so than I remembered). I wished the ethics of the rescuing him had been alluded to earlier on in the book (I think it was only about half way through that it first arose).

I do like the fact it ends on Hermes. We assume they'll make it back to Earth, but we can't be 100% certain. None of the unnecessary guff they appended in the film.

I like that it was ended on Hermes as well. It started with the crew and ended with the crew. The movie ending was fine. It was expected I suppose.

I'm pissed about the loss of Pathfinder for communications. Yeah, I'm aware that this may be because I saw the movie first, but it just seems too contrived: and probably irrelevant. Once they had established communication, NASA would tend to try to cover all bases. They'd worry about the possibility that they could one day lose communication again. So they'd first establish a way to send datadumps, so that Mark didn't have to be watching the terminal every time messages came in (that's just a variation of the method they used to bootstrap the rover's comms in the first place). Then as soon as they established that he had to get to Schiaperreli, they'd send him a tentative route map. And every time they had an idea for the mods to the rovers, they'd send that too. So, losing Pathfinder shouldn't have made a huge difference to what actually happened, only to Mark's personal well-being, as he lost the chance to talk to others.

The trek across Mars is very reminiscent of The Left Hand of Darkness

Cecily wrote: "Who liked the ending?

I thought the homilies were a little cheesy (but now I reread, it's less so than I remembered). I wished the ethics of the rescuing him had been alluded to earlier on in the book (I think it was only about half way through that it first arose).

I do like the fact it ends on Hermes. We assume they'll make it back to Earth, but we can't be 100% certain. None of the unnecessary guff they appended in the film. "

I liked the ending except that it was so very abrupt. But I love that it ends on Hermes. There was no need to bring it back to Earth. (I also agree the time to discuss the ethics of the mission was much earlier in the plot. I do love the trade offs of the mission that are brought out by the Chinese scientists losing their project.)

Jennifer wrote: "It started with the crew and ended with the crew."
Agree.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "I'm pissed about the loss of Pathfinder for communications. Yeah, I'm aware that this may be because I saw the movie first, but it just seems too contrived: and probably irrelevant." Here is where being ignorant of communications protocols is bliss. The last sections of the book were deliciously suspenseful for me due to the continued problems, especially that one.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "The trek across Mars is very reminiscent of The Left Hand of Darkness"
Le Guin has been on my bucket list for a while. (I should be reading instead of commenting!) Will try to move this one up.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "The trek across Mars is very reminiscent of The Left Hand of Darkness"

But this was far more interesting, exciting, and enjoyable. Other than that, yes, much the same. ;)

Cecily wrote: "But far more interesting, exciting, and enjoyable. Other than that, yes, much the same. ;) "

Yeah, Amy, don't be reading The Left Hand of Darkness for the sled trip!

Cecily wrote: "But this was far more interesting, exciting, and enjoyable. Other than that, yes, much the same. ;)"

and

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Yeah, Amy, don't be reading The Left Hand of Darkness for the sled trip!"

Gotcha! *moves book back down TBR stack*

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Cecily wrote: "But far more interesting, exciting, and enjoyable. Other than that, yes, much the same. ;) "

Yeah, Amy, don't be reading The Left Hand of Darkness for the sled trip!"

It would not be a good trip book. It requires a great deal of attention. At least for me it did.

Ha ha ha. I'd actually blocked that part out of my brain.
We can always do a different Le Guin right here, like The Lathe of Heaven, for example.

This also seems like an interesting Le Guin The Dispossessed .

Final quibble (at least from my notes): "The cost for my survival must have been hundreds of millions of dollars." I think he's off by a couple of orders of magnitude. Tens of billions, I'd think. The two supply boosters, alone, would have cost hundreds of millions.

And more important than the financial cost was the risk to lives of others - even though they chose to do so. If they all died, think of the recriminations!

Traveller wrote: "We can always do a different Le Guin right here, like The Lathe of Heaven, for example."

Love this book! A short read, and I'm game to read it again.

Another voice heard from! I can do that...

But not until after the Jays win the World Series! (yeah, my fellow Brits don't get that, but it's the only American sport worth following, imo).

Cecily wrote: "And more important than the financial cost was the risk to lives of others - even though they chose to do so. If they all died, think of the recriminations!"

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Final quibble (at least from my notes): "The cost for my survival must have been hundreds of millions of dollars." I think he's off by a couple of orders of magnitude. Tens of billions, I'd think. ..."

It's staggering to think of the financial cost. Common sense would say that it would be best in this regard if space travel was a world enterprise, but currently there are of course too many politics involved. (...and previously the control of space was of course closely with a country's military might)...which makes me really like the fact that The US and China eventually decided to work together in this story. it's such an optimistic story, and i love it for that.

Bill wrote: "Traveller wrote: "We can always do a different Le Guin right here, like The Lathe of Heaven, for example."

Love this book! A short read, and I'm game to read it again."

A friend recommended it to me ages ago, and I've been looking for an excuse...

Traveller wrote: "which makes me really like the fact that The US and China eventually decided to work together in this story. it's such an optimistic story, and i love it for that. "

I agree—the director of the CNSA points out that all this focus on rescuing one man is a net loss for science, because they've lost an important inner-system probe, but I'm not sure he's right. Anything that encourages nations to do co-operative projects is a good thing. And maybe the next thing (after the Chinese-astronaut-goes-to-Mars-with-NASA photo-op) would be a joint NASA-CNSA inner-system probe.

I like the way the CNSA director is clearly a political animal—he knows that what he does has to be able to be spun in a way that the Party will like—but he's a scientist first and foremost (which neither the book or the movie convinced me was true of Teddy), and so he knows that he needs to make the cooperation work with NASA scientists before presenting a fait-accompli to his political bosses.

Traveller wrote: "A friend recommended it to me ages ago, and I've been looking for an excuse..."

All kinds of four and five star reviews on Lathe of Heaven from the crew I follow. (With the glaring exception of Lois McMaster Bujold. What up with that?) I'm in if we do it.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "I agree—the director of the CNSA points out that all this focus on rescuing one man is a net loss for science, because they've lost an important inner-system probe, but I'm not sure he's right. Anything that encourages nations to do co-operative projects is a good thing. And maybe the next thing (after the Chinese-astronaut-goes-to-Mars-with-NASA photo-op) would be a joint NASA-CNSA inner-system probe."

I think this is a very good point which I hadn't considered. The loss of the probe is poignant in the book, but might open the way to something better that isn't considered at the time.

I also liked the CNSA director (and his approach to politics) better, but that is not hard to do. Both the book and the movie portray Teddy as a traditional bureaucrat: a spineless one in the book and a pragmatic one in the movie. He never rises above the system to show the devotion to science or principle that the other players are willing to put out there.

Traveller wrote: "It's staggering to think of the financial cost. Common sense would say that it would be best in this regard if space travel was a world enterprise, but currently there are of course too many politics involved....it's such an optimistic story, and i love it for that. "

"Currently" - you're an optimist as well. ;)

Bill wrote: "Traveller wrote: "We can always do a different Le Guin right here, like The Lathe of Heaven, for example."

Love this book! A short read, and I'm game to read it again."

Yes, please, a big favourite of mine :)

Amy (Other Amy) wrote: "Both the book and the movie portray Teddy as a traditional bureaucrat: a spineless one in the book and a pragmatic one in the movie. He never rises above the system to show the devotion to science or principle that the other players are willing to put out there. "

Did I misunderstand something in the movie, or did Scott really move the blame for not informing the Ares III crew that Mark was alive? I thought not informing them, in the movie, was Teddy's idea, and Kapoor had rather reluctantly gone along—but then Teddy turned around and blamed Vince. But in the book, it's Venkat's idea in the first place. Teddy goes along readily, but then when Venkat is blamed it's not a matter of throwing him under the bus.

Yes, the movie never makes Teddy out as "spineless", while in the book, if it wasn't obvious enough already, Annie says so! "You are a fucking coward. If you had balls, we might be able to save Watney."

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "But in the book, it's Venkat's idea in the first place. Teddy goes along readily, but then when Venkat is blamed it's not a matter of throwing him under the bus."

Yikes; I had remembered it being Teddy's idea in both. I have clearly hit the point of needing to reread to separate book and film. (No time now. But I will probably read it again at a later date. It was a good book!)

Actually, we never really get to see whose idea it was in the book.
Annie asks "Why not talk to Lewis?" (about where she left the rover that appears to be moved from where the logs say it was parked: the first indication that Watney's alive)

Rather than answer, Venkat looked to Teddy knowingly.
"Because," Teddy said, "if Watney really is alive, we don't want the Ares 3 crew to know."
�
Annie looked to Venkat. "You're on board with this?"
"It's a no-brainer�"

Later:
[Mitch] "How long are we going to keep this from the Ares 3 crew?"
Teddy looked to Venkat.
"Mitch," Venkat said. "We discussed this�"
"No, you discussed it."

Followed by Teddy saying "I'm with Venkat on this one."

So, it's not clear whose idea it was, but I think there is an implication that it was Venkat who initially didn't want to inform the astronauts, and scientifically that makes more sense. Teddy is too far from the operational details to even be thinking about the effect that the news would have on them (and I have to say that I totally got why they wouldn't want to tell them—it seems cruel to keep it from them, but when there's nothing they can do, you really don't want them beating themselves up for leaving him: especially when not leaving him would definitely have meant that all six were stranded on Mars).

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Actually, we never really get to see whose idea it was in the book."

You're right, now that I read it again. I think I had assumed Teddy was calling the shots and Venkat knew that was how it was going to go, but the "looked to Teddy knowingly" on second read makes it sound like they had discussed it already and come to a decision. Still makes Teddy vile, but pulls Venkat into it.

Well, I actually think it makes Venkat more vile than Teddy. Teddy is the "big picture" guy. If somebody tells him the Hermes crew has a better chance of all making it back if they never tell them about Mark, or at least if they're not told until there's a plan to rescue him, I can reasonably see him deciding that it's better for them not to know. Venkat, otoh, is closer to them, and should know that they'd rather have the truth.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Well, I actually think it makes Venkat more vile than Teddy. Teddy is the "big picture" guy. If somebody tells him the Hermes crew has a better chance of all making it back if they never tell them ..."

Agree. Also, it was Venkat in the beginning angling about using Watney's death to fund more missions. (Totally believable and I thought blameless at the time, but it reminds you he has a sharky side.)