/sci/ - Science & Math

what is a book

I don't fiction books.

Well he is a botanist and a mechanical engineer

Well it isn't that hard to grow potatoes

>>7455200
Is that hard science fiction? Because /lit/ doesn't like hard science fiction

>>7455200
blue mars is better

>>7455902
it makes me hard. yea real physics maths and plausible scientific answers to how things work in a story line... no lightsabers... i came are you happy

>>7455200
Are you saying it implies every basic NASA engineer is this resourceful? Because I think the idea is just that he is a resourceful dude, with knowledge in many useful areas.

I heard the whole book was the protagonist frantically trying to fix life-support systems. /lit/ has shit taste btw.

/lit/ hates everything but Vonnegut. Also, they hate Vonnegut.

I liked it. I don't know any astronauts, but I saw the trailer for it before I read it, so I can imagine Matt Damon being that resourceful and also an astronaut.

>>7455920
Most of the time I see threads about it, its getting shit on.

>implying mars atmosphere is dense enough to be able to create forces large enough to fuck up a lander...

Its a fine book, i liked it

>>7455200
Just got done reading it this morning actually.

As far as hard scifi goes, it was pretty convincing. I don't think the average NASA engineer would be that knowledgeable but, you know, if they were selecting astronauts to travel to Mars they'd pick the best guy they could find.

I dunno that much about physics, all the orbital dynamics stuff seemed a bit of a stretch but I went with it. Also at one point he is trying to grow like thousands of potatoes indoors using lights powered by a solar farm, and I really do not think he would be able to get anywhere near that kind of power into his lighting on Mars to grow on that scale, certainly the regular lighting for visibility would not be putting off that kind of power. Other than that though, it was pretty much believable, assuming he knows how all the equipment works starting out he doesn't do anything too crazy.

>Also /lit/ found this book cringeworthy and said it reminded them of why all STEM majors are borderline aspies. What do you make of that?
Well, it was just pretty clear from the writing style that the author is a genuine STEM nerd who happens to be a good writer, rather than an English nerd who likes getting stoned and looking at pictures of space like most scifi authors. The social interactions were just a little bit awkward, fortunately >>7455920 pretty much nailed it, most of the story centers around the guy doing his own thing on Mars.

I think, we need to prepare ourselves for the inevitable martian threads when the movie comes out, it will be interstellar all over again

>>7455200
>What did you guys think of this book?
I really liked it, but I'm afraid the movie will be quite different since it needs to be enjoyable to people who are not that interested in science too
>Was the science accurate?
I think so.
>Is the average NASA engineer really this knowledgeable and resourceful across multiple disciplines or is that completely exaggerated?
Well, he is described as being particularly creative and good at finding solutions, that's why he was chosen in the first place.
Apart from that, he doesn't seem to have that much strange knowledge. All he uses is botany (since he studies that), basic highschool science and knowledge of the machines and equipment for the mission (astronauts are trained in being able to repair them in the case something goes wrong and anyway he needed Mission Control support for particular tasks).

>>7455902
Is there anything more autistic than hard science fiction?

I liked it. Apparently the science is quite accurate (well I didn't check) apart from a few things (>>7457164 for example).

>>7457187
>all the orbital dynamics stuff seemed a bit of a stretch
The author said he made all the calculations for orbital dynamics

btw, an interview of the Weir https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SemyzKgaUU

>>7457246
*of Weir

/lit/ is right to hate it. The scence stuff is great, but everything else is incredibly cringeworthy. There were a few times when I had to put it aside for a few days. Pirate ninja, jesus fuck

>>7455200

But /lit/ is garbage and no one gives a shit about anything they are discussing.

>>7457187
>who happens to be a good writer
That's the thing, he's not a good writer. You just know nothing about literature.

/lit/ doesn't know good books then, i remember picking that book up along with Ready Player One. They really had video, escapism, vibes which I liked. /lit/ probably didn't like it because it's not boring

>>7457187
>a genuine STEM nerd who happens to be a good writer

jej, this board is pathetic.

>>7457318
>/lit/ doesn't know good books then, i remember picking that book up along with Ready Player One.
please be real duude

>>7457318
You couldn't be embodying a stereotype more if you tried. Actually, I'm just going to assume you're parodying an aspie and move on, for my own sake.

>>7457334
I am real what do you mean? English is not my first language sorry if I made a mistake

>>7457325
>jej
I love e/lit/ist autism.

>>7457317
Bro. I read it and was entertained.

If you are so caught up with rigid concepts of what makes "good" writing you can't appreciate anything that doesn't match your preconceived ideas then you are too autistic to really appreciate literature, you're just being an internet book hipster.

>>7457318
>/lit/ probably didn't like it because it's not boring
I've never understood where ""high literature"" got this impression of being boring. Fucking Ulysses is about a Jewish cuck who masturbates in public and has a dream about being turned into a woman and dominated by a shemale. The Brothers Karamazov has a story in it where an Inquisition priest imprisons Jesus Christ and threatens to burn him at the stake, not to mention parricide and Russian whores. Even contemporary shit is anything but boring. 2666 has literally 300 pages of rape and murder reports. Etc etc., the point being that some of the best lit is still really interesting and exciting.

>>7457356
Saying you were entertained by something doesn't make it not garbage

>>7457362
Yeah but that doesn't mean they're full of boring parts or parts that try to sound smart. I'd rather read a book like the Martian that doesn't try to be arty than some boring shit like Catcher in the Rye.

>>7457370
Theyre not*

>>7457356
So having standards of good and bad writing is autistic? If so, then whatever I'm autistic congrats. I never said you weren't allowed to be entertained by it, and I personally am entertained by things I recognize aren't of the highest quality, but being entertaining doesn't automatically qualify something as 'good'. I'm entertained by the Transformers movies, for instance, but I'll be damned if they aren't horrendous pieces of shit.

>>7455200
>Is the average NASA engineer really this knowledgeable and resourceful?
THE REPLY:
>>7455918
>Are you saying it implies every basic NASA engineer is this resourceful?
great posting, guy.

>>7457187
>Well, it was just pretty clear from the writing style that the author is a genuine STEM nerd who happens to be a good writer, rather than an English nerd who likes getting stoned and looking at pictures of space like most scifi authors.
/lit/ BTFO

>>7457356

The Martian is the kind of shit that will entertain you as you read it, and nothing more. Good literature helps us deal with stuff, expands our minds and helps us in so many ways, and once you are caught in the web, "boring literature" could not be anymore exciting. Min Kamp, for example, is just about a dude and his life, quite an ordinary life, really, but the way he writes about it; it feels like someone reaching out for your hand, someone who has felt the exact same thing as you, which you thought nobody else has ever felt. But you understand in that moment that you are not alone.

The Martian CANNOT do that, it is a book that appels to the lowest denominator.

>>7457292
This applies to literally everything on this site. What exactly is your point?

>>7457292

ad hominem

>>7457424
It's too bad sci-fi sucks

Genius work, beats the shit given at school if you ask me. (I had to read fucking shakespeare)

the martian is a pleb book and if you like it you should be ashamed of yourself.

>>7457441

Poor baby, you had to read some of the best literature available.

Grow up.

>>7457441
:^)

>>7457443
I have grown up. That's why I don't read pretentious shit like McBeth

>>7457452
>McBeth
This is bait, abandon ship.

>>7457441
Lit counterb8
Pls dont

On topic: horrid book, wouldnt be surprised if sci liked it

>>7457428
so... textbooks and self help books?
>>/lit/ faguette

>>7457452

Yeah, why don't we all go to NASCAR, eat some junkfood burgers, down loads of cheap beer and read shitty novels. God forbid one might have some standards.

>>7457457
Macbeth I meant dude. Okay that one wasn't 'too' boring, but fucking hell he could atleast try to cut on the masturbationary dialogue

>>7455200
As a botanist, I think it's shit. You don't have to be a humanities major to realize when someone can't write. I mean, Pirate Ninjas? That bit about D&D? That shit's pure Reddit. I'm afraid /lit/ is right about this one

>>7457469
Having standards doesn't mean you have to be pretentious dude...

>>7457370
>try to be arty
great literature doesn't try, it is.

the martian is a cool ranch dorito

>>7457476
Look up the definition of the word 'pretentious'

>>7457476

The bar has dropped too low. James Cameron needs to come save us.

>>>/lit/6957175

>You can't enjoy a best-seller if you are not stupid/autistic/insertinsultofyourchoice

seriously "real" literature isn't always good.
take fyodor dostoeyovsky's The Idiot for example.
pic related. mfw reading that "book"

>>7457468
weak bantz

>>7457489
I quite liked it. What didn't you like about it?

>>7457489

Admitted; nobody is going to like 100% of "high lit". But if you seriously care about literature, you will understand its importance and what makes it good, whether or not you enjoy it. I fucking hated reading Infinite Jest, but I know it left me with something with which I would not like to go without.

Sometimes you have to push yourself through a challenging or boring book, because it does more for you than just short term gratification.

>>7457504
infinite jest really is shit though

>reddit: the book
Le pirate ninjas XD I play DnD
Imma science the shit out of this :P

You don't have to be an English major to recognize bad writing.

>I LIKE LE BOOKS
>I DONT THINK PHILOSOPHY IS DEAD
>IM SO SMART EVEN THOUGH NOTHING I SAY CAN BE PROVEN EMPIRICALLY

/lit/ in a nutshell. Its a great book and its divinely written.

/lit/ doesn't like anything that isn't le 2deep4u pynchon

>>7457516

This has to be b8.

>>7457516

Too autistic to realise that not everything can be proven empiriclly, and too autistic to realise that the scientiific method is just basically the result of philosophers' work in philosophy of science.

>>7457528
go back to >>>/lit/ retard

>>7457516
B8/8

>>7455200
It was a great book but I didn't read it for scientific accuracy, its a fictional story.

/lit/ doesn't know what they are talking about, they find it to hard to grasp that science/maths is more reliable and objectively true then some made up words by some kind of continental charlatan

>>7457539
Beight

>>7457539
>/lit/ doesn't know what they are talking about
>meanwhile /sci/ are experts on literature
lol?

>>7457539

>objectively
>true

hmm...that sure sounds like two philosophical subjects that STEM can't say anything about.

>>7457489
this, I also read dostoyevsky and found it boring as fuck. While the Martian might not be "real literature" it is definitely more fun to actually read. Its not about using a book as a way of parroting your mundane philosophical concepts it should be about entertaining the reader.

>>7457549

Who are you to determine what literature is to be used for.

Even though I find some books boring, I would 1000x rather read them than The Martian or equal crap.

Some people are actually able to put themselves beyond instant gratification...

>>7457549
Did you find him better than Tolstoj?

>>7455200
>Reading storybooks.
Please return to your containment board, /lit/.

>>7457548
>hurr durr, 2 + 2 = 8 in my subjective opinion therefore ur wrong

>>7457545
not claiming to be experts on literature, just at explaining the world accurately. Perhaps we will be one day be advanced enough to program computers to writer better stories then authors and then we will see who is laughing.

'The Martian' is a great book. In my opinion its only defect is that it isn't longer -- the story could go on indefinitely if it was up to me.

What /lit/ fails to understand is that not only 'philosophy' is dead but their so called 'literature' is dead as well.

This is exactly why I think 'The Martian' is a ground breaking book. Its a scientifically precise bestseller. When did that happen before? Never.

'The Martian' is the first of a new generation of books that will blend quality literature and scientifically accurate facts.

'The Martian' was such a success that my guess is that from now on all books will try to blend these two sides of the same coin: science and art.

every poster past >>7457504
is likely a /lit/ poster that came here to troll

>>7457501
dry and painful to read. it didn't flow well. I'm sure if I read it in Russian and not a translated version it would've been better but it was painful regardless, good story when you look back on it after you've read it and consolidated and streamlined it in your head, but while reading... holy fuck it's worse than Tom Clancy novels

>>7457574

What else have you read? Of course you are not going to like all literature. If you gave up after one book that is considered good, you really are autistic.

seriously though, reading peter F. hamilton's naked god series was great, expanded my thought and consideration WHILE being entertaining and not dry as the dead sea in your mouth.
same with alastair reynolds' revelation space series.

space is literally the most stupid thing there is

Literally one of the greatest books of all time.
It's up there with all of the great classics like Ready Player One and Everybody Poops.

>>7457574
I do agree that afterwards it flows better. I guess I just really liked it because that the idiot was the only truely decent person in the book. Didn't care much for the ending.

>>7457587

much b8, i r8 8/8

>>7457587
A close second to Atlas Shrugged if you ask me

>>7457488
>reading best sellers
yes, you are an idiot.

>>7457504
>This is what pretentious litposters actually believe.

The thing about literature fags is that they aren't actually interested in story or being entertained. They're interested in being presented with a piece of media and then attempting to deconstruct it in such a way that it says something entirely different in an effort to be "2deep4u". It's essentially the same thing as someone who listens to Slayer's Raining Blood and claims the entire song is a metaphor about the female vagina undergoing menstruation.

Somehow these people have convinced themselves that their really boring books are "actually really deep and interesting after you start taking them apart" while not realizing that obsessing over this shit is autistic as fuck. Seriously, fuck all of those pretentious pseudointellectual retards who sit around obsessing over literary devices and other such garbage instead of actually learning something about the world.

this thread

>>7457164
Dialogue and characterization are horrible. Not to say that the main character is an insert of the author.

>>7457604

>learning something about the world

How great the world would be if nobody gave a shit about art and were STEM and le super objective and scientific and don't concern ourselves with le feelings.

Fuck of fedora tipper.

Also, good analyses of books do not state anything that cannot be shown without substantiating from the text or author's life. Bad meme is bad meme.

The world is going to go to shit if people want entertainment and entertainment only.

Fuck art, right?

>>7457614
Death of the Author.

Also, why would the author write the colour of the curtains if it meant nothing, and why did he chose blue instead of red?

Hate this fucking meme everywhere, where High Schoolers think they are so much smarter than their teachers that "over analyse" a text.

What the writer meant doesn't mean fuck all. If the writer is good, he/she will not throw out random information like in the picture.

Shit meme

>>7457343
>implying The Martian isn't an autism purée
>implying you yourself aren't an autistic STEMfag

>>7457621
Fuck art?
Art was the reason we had the enlightenment, science did fuck all

>>7457563
this tbh

>>7457616
whats wrong with that? he thinks like a layman, normal people can relate to the book. a book doesn't have to have some complex thinker to be enjoyable

>>7457621
The two are not mutually exclusive, you halfwit. Obviously people should partake in both. Unfortunately it has become ingrained in the culture of literature to automatically have an adverse reaction to anything that actually uses any science/math and requires the reader to become more knowledgeable about an academic subject in order to appreciate it. Unfortunately this means that the bulk of art literature is children's storybook tier when it comes to academic content.

>>7457370
>Catcher in the Rye
>bad
I'm sorry that you were too autistic to understand Catcher in the Rye Anon.

>>7457614
I don't remember my English teacher ever giving opinions and stating they were objective. It mostly happened as a brainstorm by the class or just writing down your personal opinion. No one said the meaning was set in stone.

>>7457639
the main character was a cry baby, he should have taken control of his life. Id rather read about an optiministic "never give up" protagonist like Mark Watney.

>>7457632

It was sarcastic, should be pretty clear from the rest of what I wrote.

>>7457646
Guess not. But I'm glad you feel that way.

>>7457424
>/sci/ user block quotes the most autistic post in the entire thread
>uses said post to claim victory over /lit/
>>>/lit/6957400

>>7457645

>I didn't like the protagonist
>Therefore I don't like the book

...

>>7457640
I don't think it's restricted to just English teachers but people who analyse literature in general. For a well known example of this bullshit refer to

>After the publication of The Lord of the Rings these influences led to speculation that the One Ring was an allegory for the nuclear bomb.[72] Tolkien, however, repeatedly insisted that his works were not an allegory of any kind.[73] He states in the foreword to The Lord of the Rings that he disliked allegories and that the story was not one.[74] Instead he preferred what he termed "applicability", the freedom of the reader to interpret the work in the light of his or her own life and times.[74] Tolkien had already completed most of the book, including the ending in its entirety, before the first nuclear bombs were made known to the world at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

Many people still support this claim.

>>>/lit/6957400
>we're not losing the argument.
>you are. you just don't understand, because we're 2deep4u.
>nevermind an actual argument for that.

>>7457563
saved

>>7457657
>implying /sci/ has any defense of the literary value of The Martian beyond 'I enjoyed it'
>implying that /lit/ isn't ripping you aspies to shreds

>>7457656

Again, Death of the Author.

Literary critics stopped giving a shit about author's intentions long ago. Why the fuck should we care? It is only a limiting factor if you want everything that you interpret approved by the writer.

That's why McCarthy is so great; pretty fucking recluse and never says much about his books, he let them speak for themselves, and they thrive because of the many interpretations of his works.

>>7457563
This has to be a joke, saved for /lit/ cringe threads in the future

>>7457563
nice i like it

main difference between /sci/ and /lit/:

Science: focused on the real world and studying it through sound logic that is self evident. built around skepticism and always self questioning and improving where we go wrong leading to a more refined system.

philosophyfags: focused on imaginary concepts that can't be falsified. not based on common sense (the more insane and hard to understand the theory is the more likely the gullible are to believe it. (see nietzsche) ). Each new philosophy has nothing to add or prove wrong to a previous theory because they can't be proven in the real world to begin with. So rather than doing the logical and stop they just keep dumping more toxic waste into the big heap of impractical ideas

>>7457629
>Also, why would the author write the colour of the curtains if it meant nothing, and why did he chose blue instead of red?
>If the writer is good, he/she will not throw out random information like in the picture.
Are you for real?
If you're a good author you aren't allowed describe the scene? Every single word must have a "deeper" meaning? Why should I name this character? It's not like their name mean something.
Describing the scene helps with immersion, it makes the reader "see" the same thing the author is seeing. Adding "useless" information can make the narrative flow better; a little insignificant detail, unnecessary for the purpose of the plot or the deeper message of the book, can make the story come to life.

>>7457318
Bait?

>>7457679
Butthurt STEMfag detected.

>>7457679
Absolutely pleb m80, you're just too autistic to understand that not everything can be proven, that things involving the mind, spirit, etc have nothing to do with science so tell your empirical evidence to go fuck itself

every poster in both threads are embarrassing and I'm ashamed to be a regular user of /lit/. i agree with the sentiment that the book is shit and sci has shit taste but the way these people are trying to articulate their arguments is pathetic and I doubt any of the people in either thread are above an undergraduate position

>>7457679
>built around skepticism and always self questioning and improving where we go wrong leading to a more refined system.

Guess who invented the verification and the falsiification principle, right, philosophers.

>sound logic

Logic is literally a branch of philosophy and has nothing to do with STEM


>Strawman-ing philosophy this hard

>>7457666
>Why the fuck should we care?

Because otherwise it's just masturbatory and you lose all justification for restriction this sort of analysis to art literature. I mean if you don't care whether or not the author intended something or even had any intentions then you may as well start "deconstructing" every body of text that's presented to you into it's 2deep4u components.

>This XBox 360 instruction manual is actually about the emptiness that inhabits modern man. The section on game disk care and handling is a telling exploration into sexual gratification and how it has become almost mechanical in nature. The constant warnings about a well ventilated enclosure and the proper use of a regulated power supply are there to show that man has constant needs but only gets just enough to keep him complacent. The warranty represents our hopes and promises, note how it expires so easily and quickly and the many things it does not cover. The red ring of death does not indicate physical death but rather spiritual death for that is the only death that truly matters.

>>7457666
who actually reads a book without knowing at least some context behind it though? If you read someone like Mishima there is always the specter of his suicide looming over his works. If his works were under an anonymous name your interpretation might be a whole lot different

>>7457703
Analytic philosophers are the scientists

continentals are the philosophyfags I was talking about

>>7457690
>you're just too autistic to understand that not everything can be proven
yeah, thats the point. if it can't be proven then the question should be thrown in the garbage rather than wasting time.

>>7457604
Accurate post.

>>7457563
Marvelous b8, anon. 10/10.

>>7457696
Can't tell if /sci/ false flag or filthy /lit/ quisling. Either way, you've missed the point of interboard wars. This isn't about well thought out, intelligent arguments, it's about who can meme harder.

>>7457722
>Analytic philosophers are the scientists

>>7457734
they are generally open toward science, logic and math yes

>>7457452
>MacBeth
>pretentious
wot

>>7457708

Can you substantiate that shit from the fucking manual? No you fucking cannot.

Have you actually read any readings or are you just pulling shit out of your arse?

>>7457666
>Literary critics stopped giving a shit about author's intentions long ago.
And there's a reason why non-sperglords stopped giving a shit about literary critics.

>>7457747
>Can you substantiate
that was what made me think this guy >>7457708
was trolling hard. I mean, this is /sci/, right?

>>7457747
Why of course, anon. I specialize in postmodern and contemporary user manuals. In my opinion you have to evaluate the text within it's proper intended mode of consumption (i.e. the reader being in the "exciting" and "fulfilling" process of engaging in entertainment culture by setting up their XBox 360). With this in mind it's easy to see how one can draw these conclusions. In fact, I'd argue that the conclusions are unavoidable.

>>7457666
>Literary critics stopped giving a shit about author's intentions long ago. Why the fuck should we care? It is only a limiting factor if you want everything that you interpret approved by the writer.
The book is a way for the author to communicate with the reader. It does have a *right* interpretation, that is what the author wanted it to mean.
I'm ok with interpretations that are against the author's intent, but I think they should be considered separated by the book itself. I can like the book written by Anon and I can like the interpretation of Tripfag of the book written by Anon.
I could write a program that takes random sentences from a database and stitches them together, then find a beautiful interpretation of it. It could be so deep and interesting to be considered on par with Shakespeare's work. But it would be wrong to attribute this beauty to the random text created by the computer, the beauty belongs to my interpretation.
You can't base the literary value of a book based on random interpretations that have nothing to do with the intent of the author, otherwise any crappy writer could be considered "good" if a creative enough critic reads his book.

>>7457777

>Author writes book
>Critic reads it as X interpretation
>It makes total sense, everything is there
>Author reads that reading and realises that it is true and makes sense
>but he didn't intend it, so I guess it's a wrong interpretation.

Seems legit.

>>7457245

Soft science fiction.

>>7457794
>Author writes book.
>World War II happens.
>Book finally gets published.
>Critic argues that the book is about World War II.
>Author calls it bad writing and points out that the book had been written before World War II had even happened.
>The author is wrong and the interpretation is somehow correct.

fixed

>>7457794
Yes, it is indeed a wrong interpretation. I'm not saying it's bad or that it is worthless, but it's still wrong.
In a similar way I could try to say X to you, but you understand Y. I then realise that how I phrased my words was a bit ambiguous and what I said could also be interpreted as Y. Your interpretation is perfectly valid, but wrong: you misinterpreted what I was trying to say.

>>7457809

The interpretation is not "correct", it makes sense, it can be found. The idea of having an interpretation being right or wrong is what makes you think the author's intentions are crucial.

>>7457820
>it makes sense
This is the issue I take with it. It's not very different from proposing an interpretation of one of Shakespeare's plays where said play corresponds to the Cold War between the US and Soviet Union.

>>7457840
>>7457840

You're only proposing allegories.

The more normal thing will be when an author intends to write something about the relationship between man and society, but the interpretation is that it is about something else, like the absurdity of civilization in general, as an example.

Nobody does what you are saying they do

>>7457856
refer to
>>7457656

>>7457708

>/sci/ - Autism posting

>>7457563
best comment in the entire board.

>>7457563
>quality writing is now considered on par with reddit comment section and involves poor "quirky" jokes made by a scientist that doesn't get emotionally effected being stranded on Mars

>>7458847
>STEM people
>emotionally affected

You jest.

>>7455200
All this discussion and its mostly people dicking around trying to be pretentious about each other, sigh.

Anyway. For some actual discussion. The science is super accurate and I really liked the book. If one wants to be trully Aspiful about it, there are at least two huge cop-outs which are well known. One intentional by the writer and one unintentional.

The first one, is how easily the MAV tips. In reality, most realistic designs of MAVs are huge ass cones, their shape largely informed by the heat-shield. That's a rather un-tippable shape, more so in Mars's thin atmosphere, dust or not.

The writer himself had said that this was there for the book to basically exist. Keep in mind, there are ways I think he could have gone around it (ie, the MAV landing over some sort of sinkhole that had already pre-tipped it dangerously), but as is written, it is bollocks.

The second (unintentional) one, is that there is a whole bunch of stuff regarding CO2 management by an atmospheric regulator in the rover, and not wanting to rely on the chemical filters because they are "limited".

In reality apparently someone can just "reset" said chemical scrubbers by heating them up. Which would have simplified a lot of things. (capture CO2 in rover, heat them up outside to release it)

>>7457187
>if they were selecting astronauts to travel to Mars they'd pick the best guy they could find.

Why not the best woman?

Don't you think they'd be considerate of racial discrimination as well? We don't need ANOTHER white man stepping on some rock. It would be better if a black man or a woman went to Mars first.

I just finished reading a book about living on Mars that was, I suppose, hard science fiction. It was all realistic except at the end they find an alien artifact.

What bothered me most about the book was the writer, who is a NASA engineer, and his beta views about women.

For instance the main female character and love interest is attracted to the protagonist because he is aloof and quiet and serious all the time. This is just BS.

Plus she sleeps around and when the protagonist feels used is hurt after discovering this, he winds up feeling guilty for thinking he "owns her" and I, the reader, have to endure the woman lecturing him/me about free love and how she just loves sex with lots of people but still has a husband back home and he's cool with it.

It was just awkward.

I mean, fine, if a woman wants to sleep around a lot that is fine, she has that right, but other people have the right to not want or like that lifestyle and they do have the right to feel used if they sleep with such a person who wasn't upfront about what sex meant to them.

>>7458972
>right to feel used if they sleep with such a person who wasn't upfront about what sex meant to them.
I haven't read this book but I agree with this notion in general. In this case it sounds like the issue is a lack of communication leading to a misplaced assumption that she wouldn't do that kind of thing. Of course, one could argue that he shouldn't have assumed that (I'm not implying otherwise) but that doesn't mean that it can't still lead to broken trust issues.

I suppose maybe it can be accepted it from the perspective that the characters are flawed in this way but I can understand why it would still make for an awkward reading. Like reading a story where a character feels guilty for not suggesting homeopathic medicine to their partner earlier.

>>7458967
If you actually read the book you would know that there were two women and a mexican guy in the crew. I know you are trolling, but at least do it well next time.

>>7459031
I was not talking about the book in the OP. If you read my post correctly you would have realized this.

I just finished it yesterday and I enjoyed it. The science was accurate throughout the whole book. Not an amazing book but it's fun to read.

>>7457190
Let's hope not

>>7457317
>being this closed minded

>>7458941
There are a lot more than two things that are wrong. If you're fairly well informed about chemistry, it's going to slap you around with its nonsense constantly.

I especially cringed at the part where he's "making water" with the hydrazine in the hab. He decides to do it by dribbling hydrazine over a catalyst bed, so it will break down exothermically into nitrogen and hydrogen.

Well, the thing is, hydrazine is fairly volatile and very toxic. So while he's dribbling it on the catalyst bed and watching it sizzle away, a fair amount of it is going to be boiling off, into his living space and potato farm. He would have gotten poisoned with hydrazine.

The thing with the hydrogen was also ridiculous. He had an ignition source lit the whole time he was releasing hydrogen into the hab. The idea that it would fill with an explosive mixture, with the stuff that leaked by his ignition source, without it going off, it ridiculous.

The really dumb thing is that he didn't need to catalytically decompose the hydrazine, and then burn the hydrogen generated. He could have just burned the hydrazine.

The whole story is like this. The talk about how the potatoes were going to grow ("flowering bodies") was goofy. Mixing Mars soil and having no trouble spreading it around the floor and planting crops in it was goofy (it should be outgassing poisonous stuff and reacting strongly with the water). The fact that they were going all the way to Mars, and didn't bring any seeds to experiment with growing plants and add some fresh vegetables to their diet was goofy. The lack of radio backup equipment is goofy. Talking about using supercomputer time to calculate an ion drive trajectory was goofy.

Goofy sci-fi fantasy with bad, dumb banter. But you know... it's sci-fi, so you ignore all the dumb shit and pretend it could be happening, and it's not a bad castaway story.

>>7455200
I liked the general idea/story, but there were some cringe-worthy moments. Shit like you'd see in Big Bang Theory. You know they're going to play that shit up in the movie to get some laughs.

>>7455200

The average NASA engineer? No. The average mary-sue I wish I was this awesome in real life author stand-in? Yep absolutely.

I don't remember the science being atrocious but I was judging it on more of an adventure/fiction standpoint. The writing and dialogue was cringeworthy as fuck, it was very literally the only reason I didn't enjoy the book. I particularly remember one part where he's using an old RTG or something from an early Mars probe and he says something about the solution to his problem being "a big box of radiation!" God, shut up dude.

>>7455200

Absolutely zero literary value. It's like a Boy's Own adventure.

>tfw you will be never able send yourself and your army of robots to conquer the Mars and make it your own paradise, and then come back to take over the Earth.

>>7462075
>mary-sue
A real Mary Sue would have built himself a robot army, flown back to Earth with it, used it to end poverty, and been declared Emperor of Humanity by popular acclaim before being assassinated by an insert of the writer's least favorite school teacher.

The abilities of the main character are fairly unremarkable (suspiciously resembling the abilities of an author with access to wikipedia), except that he has the superpower that dumb shit he gets wrong and tries works anyway.

>>7457656
Funny because what Tolkien calls "applicability" here is in a way a precursor to what people call "Death of the Author". The nuclear bomb allegory isn't bad because Tolkien didn't mean it, it's bad because it's obvious and not that interesting.
>>7457684
>If you're a good author you aren't allowed describe the scene?

If you describe a scene it's always for a purpose. There's a million things you could describe in any single house, why not spend a thousand pages describing the furniture then ?

If the author made the explicit choice of talking about the color of the curtains instead of the hundreds of others details it's for a reason. It's not about "muh deeper meaning" (a meaningless expression mostly, and a meme), it's about things being written for a reason. The blue curtains don't have to be "the character"s sadness", it can also be "the mistress of the house like the color blue", or "this is an allusion to other blue curtains we've seen in the chapter before", or "this is a detail that will only make sense at the end", "this is how the curtains were in that era which is the era I want people to know about", etc.

But in any case "the curtain were fucking blue" is a piss-poor explanation, because they're no reason you'd want to know the color of fictional curtains in a house that doesn't exist unless the author wants to do something with it.

>>7457777
> It does have a *right* interpretation, that is what the author wanted it to mean.

But their own admission many author didn't manage to say what they wanted to say. But the real question is, why do you care ? Do you read a book to analyse X's opinion on some shit, or do you read it because the book is interesting ? If it's interesting, you don't need the author's opinion to be interested.

Now having someone else's opinion on a book is often interesting, but that holds wether that someone else is the author, a famous critic, a friend or you slutty grandma. What matters is wether the opinion makes sense and sheds an interesing light on the book.


That's why >>7457708's caricature falls short, as funny as it is. The point is not to find a dull book and make some extravagant claim about it, it's to read an interesting book and explore why it's interesting.

>>7460297
They don't give a shit what color you are, just how well qualified for the job you are. They did give a shit in the 60's, but we aren't in the 60's, faggot.

>>7457708

>>7457245
>Is there anything more autistic than hard science fiction?
http://www.sidis.net/TransfersContents.htm

bretty gud

>>7457708
>>This XBox 360 instruction manual is actually about the emptiness that inhabits modern man. The section on game disk care and handling is a telling exploration into sexual gratification and how it has become almost mechanical in nature. The constant warnings about a well ventilated enclosure and the proper use of a regulated power supply are there to show that man has constant needs but only gets just enough to keep him complacent. The warranty represents our hopes and promises, note how it expires so easily and quickly and the many things it does not cover. The red ring of death does not indicate physical death but rather spiritual death for that is the only death that truly matters.
Made me giggle

High literature is fucking pretentious shit. Seriously I don't know why /lit/ pretends to like it. The Martian was great fun and that should be the measure of books, fuck shit like steinbeck and shakespeare that have nothing to do with science or teal life.

>>7463008
>teal life
(is it shiny teal?)

>getting book opinions from /lit/

What next, music suggestions from /mu/? Bicycle advice from /n/? Interesting new video games from /v/? What the fuck is wrong with me why do I come here? ;w;

>>7455200

Couldn't finish it, was too bored.

>>7457684
>If you're a good author you aren't allowed describe the scene? Every single word must have a "deeper" meaning?
Economy of words. Good authors describe a scene because it enhances certain ideas and feelings they want to convey in a scene.
A bad author just inserts descriptions because he thinks it looks cool.

Could some nice Anon tell me if it's as good or somewhere near Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson ?

>>7463008
>High literature blah blah blah blah

High literature isn't so bad, most of Hemingway's stuff is good and Catcher In The Rye will always be fun to read. Beyond that if you can get an annotated copy of Moby Dick then you'll be in for an absolute treat.

ITT: /lit/ getting triggered