Robinson Crusoe and The Martian

[kev67]

I am quite enjoying Robinson Crusoe. At first I wondered whether it was going to be any good. Something dramatic would happen to Crusoe, then something else, then something else. I wondered whether its reputation was mainly the result of being first English novel. It got better after he was shipwrecked. Daniel Defoe based the story on the experiences of a Scottish castaway called Alexander Selkirk.

I am reading it now because I recently read a sci-fi book called The Martian, which was described as like Robinson Crusoe on Mars. One of the reviews said it was like Robinson Crusoe written by someone much smarter, which irked me. The Martian is a good sci-fi book and should make a decent film. It is very strong on the science and is plausible except for the sandstorm at the beginning which cuts him off from his crew. However, I would not call it great literature. I think the writing in Robinson Crusoe is better. They are both hard working. Mark Watney is a much more capable person than Crusoe, which is partly why I find it easier to relate to Crusoe. For example, Crusoe spends a long time trying to make a wheel barrow, but has to give up because he can't make an axle for it, so he makes a builder's hob instead. Another example is he spends hours making a table, but he is not very happy with it. Mark Watney otoh works out how to make water from hydrazine rocket fuel, and how to get a transmitter from a decades old probe working. I reflected on that rather bitterly on a day when I could not unscrew the pedal on my bicycle or unblock my sink.

[kev67]

The quote that irked me was by Larry Niven, who wrote,"Gripping... shapes up like Defoe's Robinson Crusoe as written by someone brighter." I read quite a number of Niven's sci-fi books when I was younger. I think Mark Watney is more intelligent than Robinson Crusoe. Crusoe spends weeks making a boat that he suspects will be too big to get down to the sea, but thinks he will sort out that problem when he gets to it. Once he builds the boat, he discovers he cannot get the boat to the shore and has to abandon it in the forest. Watney from The Martian, otoh, does not do anything without mathematically working out whether it will work.

Nevertheless, Larry Niven wrote: 'as written by someone brighter.' Looking at Defoe's Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Defoe), I pretty much doubt Andy Weir was any brighter than Defoe.

[Pompey Bum]

Unfortunately many have been convinced by interested parties that technological ability (a handy thing in itself) trumps all other kinds of intelligence. This too shall pass (but not for a while). In the meantime, I managed to reattach the steering wheel that for fell off of my lawnmower yesterday. Okay Houston, we are go. :alien:

I read very little science fiction, by the way, but I've heard great things about The Martian. Would you recommend it? (As a point of reference, I can't stand Neal Stephanson).

[kev67]

re The Martian, yes I think I would recommend it. I don't think it is great literature, but it is an extraordinary book. It is almost not science fiction, because the science is so strong that the plot is plausible. Most sci-fi contains either good or bad science, but mostly as a means to getting to another world where the drama happens. Usually the science is not the point (pedantically you could say it was technology rather than science, although Watney does both). Andy Weir wrote the book in blog format for free, and his geeky fans effectively peer reviewed it. According to a YouTube interview I watched of him, there are two bits where the science falls down. One is that the storm that strands Mark Watney on Mars could not have been so powerful because the atmosphere is so thin. Weir knew about this but could not think of a better device. The other is a mistake in Watney's attempt to make water from hydrazine fuel. That reaction is very exothermic and Watney could not have survived it at the rate he was producing water. A chemist told him this after checking the mathematics.

Mark Watney is a very much less reflective person than Robinson Crusoe. He is generally more chipper. He always concentrates on the next big problem. Crusoe sometimes embarks on grand projects because he wants to. Watney embarks on projects because he has to.

[Pompey Bum]

Thanks. I can't imagine the hydrazine issue being a problem for me, but the chipper, unreflective personality (something I've heard astronauts are selected for) might be. Still I can get through and usually enjoy and learn from anything as long as the writing isn't trashy (which was my problem with Stephanson). If it is, I suffer, since I make a point of finishing every book I start (some do get better). But thanks for the recommendation; it sounds like a good book. I'll get to it eventually.