What did the New Scientist Book Club think of Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson?
I set an engaging challenge for the New Scientist Book Club this April: reading through Kim Stanley Robinson’s epic novel Red Mars, a detailed 600-page journey into the complexities of colonizing Mars. In just 30 days, our members shared their thoughts on this literary masterpiece during our vibrant discussions on Discord.
There’s a personal element to this as well; Red Mars is one of my all-time favorites. After reading a compelling article by critic George Bass about the story’s beginning in 2026, I was motivated to revisit this captivating world with our passionate community of 25,000 readers. Robinson masterfully captures the vast, alien beauty of Mars, and I loved experiencing the narrative from multiple perspectives, particularly the character Anne — a passionate advocate for preserving Mars’s natural state — and Sacks, who is determined to terraform the planet swiftly. I found the perspective of Nadia, a pragmatic engineer, especially engaging, though I admit the love triangle between John, Frank, and Maya felt somewhat repetitive.
Some members returned to Red Mars for a second read, while others picked it up for the first time, and some were inspired to finally dive into a book they had long overlooked. DavidC reflected on his initial draw to the book, stating, “I found the phrase ‘but it all happened in the mineral unconscious’ really appealing right on the first page. Now I’m ready for the next 600 pages!”
However, Zagosia expressed dissatisfaction with the dramatic opening that resulted in an important character’s demise, stating, “I don’t like the concept of spoiling the ending in the first chapter. You don’t want to know where this is going?” I, along with other members, reassured her to continue reading.
My conversation with Robinson during a video interview shed light on his intriguing narrative choice: “This is a flash-forward. It creates a sense of tension as we learn that John is dead, but we don’t yet understand why. This adds depth to every seemingly mundane detail of the town’s development.” The suspense enriches the story.
Robinson recently reread Red Mars and found it resonated well, apart from some “laughable gaps” in his knowledge of 2026 and beyond. He discussed the current misguided dreams of colonizing Mars, critically stating, “These people don’t think through the implications.” He dismissed Elon Musk’s notion that colonizing Mars would “save Earth” as unrealistic.
Reactions from our readers varied; many praised Robinson’s beautifully crafted writing about Mars while some found it hard to connect with the characters. Zagosia noted, “The portrayal of nature and scale was remarkable, yet I struggled to empathize with the characters and often felt situations lacked logic.”
Annie Greenwood enjoyed the book but craved something more relationship-driven afterward, saying, “I wanted an injection of character complexity after ‘Red Mars.’ I felt the narrative leaned heavily on ideas more than deep interpersonal dynamics.” The high-quality writing is undeniable, yet it lacked the emotional engagement she sought.
Discussions arose about the fragile state of affairs on Mars and whether a better selection of astronauts could have prevented chaos. Barbara Howe noted, “I anticipated a tale of scientific triumph over adversity, but what I encountered was a melodrama rife with human politics and flaws.” Despite personal frustrations with the plot dynamics, she appreciated the vivid descriptions of the Martian environment and found a few characters, like Nadia and Arkady, compelling.
Overall, our book club members enjoyed the rich experience of reading, discussing, and analyzing this classic sci-fi novel. Personally, I was thrilled to rediscover Red Mars as one of my enduring favorites.
Join the New Scientist Book Club today and participate in the conversation! Visit us on Discord.
Topics:
Source: www.newscientist.com
