Book Review: The Martian

“But really, they did it because every human being has a basic instinct to help each other out. It might not seem that way sometimes, but it’s true.” 

I have a rule.  I cannot go to see a movie that is based on a book until I have read its respective book.  I hadn't read this book yet last month, but was asked on a date to go see the movie.  So, my hand was forced.  I was asked on this date on a Tuesday night for that coming Friday night.  The next morning, I went to a Barnes and Noble and picked up a copy of the book.  I planned it out to read it in three days (a do-able feat, especially on a week off), but got so caught up in it that I actually read it in two!  So here we are, my book review of The Martian.  Movie review to follow.

Here's something that you need to know about me.  I tend to strongly dislike SciFi.  Why--you may rightly ask--would a book-loving, professional scientist ever dislike SciFi? Because I'm a book-loving professional scientist.  A lot of the time, SciFi writers don't know squat about science.   And I would much rather prefer they pass it off as "magic!" than try to embarrass themselves with their pseudoscience.  Two major types of scifi I see: genetics-based scifi and physics-based scifi.  I have fairly intricate knowledge of genetics, so I can call out too many writers on their garbage, and it takes out the fun.  I believe I probably have better-than-average physics knowledge.  I did take two semesters of college physics--and the calculus-based "for scientists and engineers" as opposed to the GE version or the "for pre-meds" version--I was raised by two engineers (one with a master's in theoretical physics), and I do occasionally have to think about physics in my job.  But when my slightly-better-than-average physics knowledge is enough to call bull, you've got a problem.  As such, I don't like a lot of SciFi.  For me to like your scifi, do one of two thing: 1) make it hard-core sciFi.  Explain everything, make it plausible.  Make it realistic.  Be technical, and be right.  2) Gloss it over entirely.  There's another SciFi on my list to review that's genetics-based that I didn't much mind because the characters took an approach of "I don't know how the geniuses did it!"  

Scientists of the world: Be at peace.  This book is good scifi.

Summary:  An astronaut is accidentally left behind on a manned mission to Mars when the rest of his crew rightly believes him to be dead.  Now he has to figure out how to survive long enough to be rescued, contact NASA, and not go insane. And hope that his own human error doesn't kill him first.   And NASA has to figure out how to deal with the PR repercussions, and get their astronaut back.  What follows is a thrilling, TECHNICALLY PLAUSIBLE(!), entertaining  and heart-warming story of survival.  It's kind of a Robinson Crusoe of the 21st Century, but without Friday, who was, quite frankly, a fairly obnoxious character. 

What I liked:

1) The technical intricacy of this book. I don't know that everything he does would work, because, heck, no one really does know until they've tried it on Mars.  But every exploit he pulls, every thing he tries, my mind says, "The theory is sound. "  Sometimes, I also think, "That is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS!" but I guess when it's extremely dangerous or certain death, extremely dangerous takes on a certain appeal. 

2) The wide cast of characters.  Some people are praising this book for the diversity of the characters (especially in the movie casting).  Women, racial groups, etc.  I don't really care about that.  Because I think that there should be one, and ONLY one criteria for who we pick to do a job: are you good at it.  And I say this as a female scientist, y'all.  So, I just appreciated that Andy Weir managed to create so many personalities of characters and so many people who are just genuinely good at their jobs. There are no JarJar Binkses in this cast of characters.  And they are all likable in their own special way. 

3) The character-driven plot.  Never made a secret of the fact that I love me a good-ole-character-driven plot.  Even in this plot that asks for the events to drive the story, the characters never let the circumstances determine the outcome.  What turns out to be an ode to ingenuity, human determination, and never being a victim makes a poignant story for this generation.

What I didn't like:

1) Language.  It f-bombs it up.  I knew I was in for it when it f-bombed twice in the first three sentences.  I suppose, however, that I do have to give him this.  I have spent my science career either at BYU or in Salt Lake City.  The majority of my colleagues have always been Mormon, and when I wasn't at BYU, I have been at a Children's Hospital.  And even I know that scientists swear like sailors.  And NASA is scientists who a lot of them technically ARE sailors (or Air Force, and they swear a lot too). So I can imagine that there would be some foul-mouthery going on. 

So, all in all, a thrilling, mesmerizing, engaging story, and even more engaging science that kept me hooked for the whole book, and then left me with that pit of emptiness when it was over, wanting more and more.  Just be aware of the language. 

5 stars. 

And because I'm a scientist, and this is totally how scientists think, bonus quotes:

“As usual, I’m working with stuff that was deliberately designed not to burn. But no amount of careful design by NASA can get around a determined arsonist with a tank of pure oxygen.”

“They’re not much different from kitchen trash bags, though I’m sure they cost $50,000 because of NASA.”

“Yes, of course duct tape works in a near-vacuum. Duct tape works anywhere. Duct tape is magic and should be worshiped.”

“If ruining the only religious icon I have leaves me vulnerable to Martian vampires, I'll have to risk it.”

“As with most of life's problems, this one can be solved by a box of pure radiation.”

“Also, I have duct tape. Ordinary duct tape, like you buy at a hardware store. Turns out even NASA can’t improve on duct tape.” 

 

“I guess you could call it a "failure", but I prefer the term "learning experience"