![]() Nothing is worse than trying to bottle the same lightning with one’s second book.īoth The Martian and Artemis feature extremely competent protagonists who are happy to explain clever science-based gambits to the reader. ![]() ![]() In achieving difference, though, I think Weir has managed the best possible scenario. I suspect that some people will prefer the former, and some people will prefer the latter. Indeed, I’m going to dodge this discussion by declaring Artemis neither better nor worse than The Martian, merely different. ![]() There is just no way it can live up to that first book. I feel sorry for Weir, because the success of The Martian has heaped impossible expectations upon Artemis. Artemis examines how the economy of a moon colony might work (or not) and its hypothetical relationship with organizations back on Earth, but with reference to semi-rigorous ideas about available resources and actual challenges of life on the moon. That’s not to say that it’s similar in style or to say it’s better-rather, Andy Weir captures some of the themes and ideas that Golden Age SF explored with these tropes. Artemis reminds me a lot in vibe and atmosphere of these books, like what Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress could have been if we had more accurate knowledge of lunar and astro chemistry and physics in the 1950s. You couldn’t swing a cat in a lunar lander without hitting a 1950s moon colony. ![]() One of the hallmark tropes of the Golden Age of Science Fiction is colonies on the moon. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |