|
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Challenging and thought provoking, 6 Mar 2000
By A Customer
In contrast to the above review I really enjoyed White Mars, almost for the same reasons that the previous review disliked. Firstly, I can honestly say that the central idea of this book, viz. what we do with Mars when we get there is powerfully realised. While reading Robinson "Red Mars" I couldn't really identify with the "Reds", or the eco-terrosists. They reminded me of old-fashioned environmentalism, and "Greenpeace" type pretentiousness. I don't believe you need to be a hippie, extreme nature lover, mystical "mother godess" or just anti-authority and "anti-western" type to want to protect a natural environment. This is a stereotype that needs to be put to rest. However, the appeal for a "White Mars" along the lines of the Antartic Treaty ( an Ayers Rock in the sky- to quote the book) I found persuasive and quite moving. This book change my point of view in the way that Robinsons "Reds" never could. In White Mars it is democracy that is the force behind the planets protection. I believe this is a point that is worth noting. " ecotage" is not required. Secondly, I quite liked the characters in this novel, especially Jeffries. The character is well realised, and when you learn his motivations you like him even more. Aldiss brings a great sense of compassion and humanity (and humility) to this character. This alone makes White Mars a much more pleasurable experience then Red Mars. Who can say they really liked any of the characters in Red Mars? It is that novels weakness. Thirdly, the science in this novel is top rate. I come from a scientific background and few SciFi novles challenge me as much as this one. Penrose's influence shines through. Alot of the ideas a very original, especially on the biological side. For example, I have never read a novel where the whole biosphere on a harsh planet learns to survive by continued co-operation and symbiosis. This is a nice evolutionary thesis that I'm sure will be copied.I've argued with friends that no large scale intelligent life could live on Mars for the same Darwinian reasons reasons that Aldiss characters use. Yet as we all know, natural selection though the most dominant mechanism for evolution ( on Earth at least.) it is not the only one. The physics is alos very interesting as is another reason why I'll be coming back to this novel. Lastly, the Utopia which the first reviewer took such a large issue with. Quite frankly I didn't have any problem with it. Yet again I found I could identify with it alot more than in the "Mars" books. I don't see how it could be "chilling". Though I realise that a "utopia" based on science and reason is probably not fashionable, as opposed to old fashioned. It probably has more to do with HG Wells (Shape of things to come, etc) than anything else. Obviously, the 60's and 70's killed these visions off. Now, they all become horrible dystopias where everyone loses their freedom and humanity. Still, runnig around naked in the forest, singing with the birds, while taking tonns of drugs and engaging in love ceremonies will probably seem just a out as date as the above eventually. I think which side of the political spectrum you belong to will dictate if you like Aldiss' utopia. Personally, I like it as I would never want someone else forcing there religion or mysticism on me. I liked the democratic way the utopia cam about in this novel.The characters also have a choice to take or leave whatever elements of it they want. That's more than what you can say for with Mars series. All up, this is a good novel. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
