Long ago, humanity fled Earth for Mars as a cataclysm eventually ravaged the planet. Now, they are heading back to find a far more primitive culture living there, as well as some dark remnants from the past…
Eh, that’s the hyper quick rundown of the plot. The book is good, if you like science fiction then you should read it. Of course, the fact that I enjoyed the story doesn’t mean I found it flawless.
The writing, I can honestly say, was a pleasant surprise. The story established a character and followed mainly him throughout the whole story, building the world around the character through dialogue and events. This is definitely the style of story I enjoy, as the reader feels more grounded and less like everything is being narrated to them.
However, in terms of quality assurance, I was flipping through my notes from when I read this awhile back and I remembered that at the time I spotted several typos, strange sentence structures, and other formatting quirks. I’m just going to state this right now, for future reference in the IMHO series; I won’t be talking about grammar, typos, etc. unless I found it to be a truly substantial problem. Frankly, it’s possible to find typos within professionally published work if you look hard enough, so I only think this is a real problem if the typos are so rampant that they take the reader out of the story. For the most part, that didn’t happen for me, so I’ll say for all intents and purposes that any such clerical errors are negligible.
As is the modus operandi of my critiques, I’m usually focused on internal consistency. I’ll accept all kinds of crazy rules for a fictional world, even one tenuously based in a scientific reality, as long as they are consistently applied. One such thing I found off was the technology and how it relates to the culture.
So, in an attempt to not give away too much of the plot, I’ll say this… the people from Mars have space faring technology, and all the caveats required to properly use it. They can grow meat in a test tube, recycle air indefinitely(I don’t know if they use plants, I guess it doesn’t matter too much…), generate enough resources for interplanetary expeditions, etc. Oddly enough, though, there is not much in terms of neural implants and mental manipulation, despite that technology being acknowledged as both possible and actually used in the distant past.
I’m treading dangerously close to the plot here, so I won’t go into much more detail. But the point I’m making is that the Martians did not develop any form of this technology at all for their entire two century stay on Mars, as it is antithetical to their ideology. I found this one particular aspect…
Hard to accept.
Sure, it’s very difficult to predict technological advancements. But in an Anarchist society built around generally leaving people alone, I find it all but certain that a criminal empire would work on using what is fundamentally mind control technology for their nefarious ends. The author, to their credit, does not paint this society as a utopia, so there are indeed still criminals committing heinous acts. But even assuming that this criminal element might have developed this technology, and might have simply kept it under wraps…
Surely the more upstanding citizens as well would have pushed for advancements in this technology simply for the purpose of creating countermeasures to it?
The mere existence of technology that can directly mess with a person’s mind is a threat to the very existence of humanity, even more so than nuclear warheads in my opinion. The only way to defend against such a weapon is by understanding it and its capabilities. What is the range? What equipment does it require? How much power is used in operating it? Most importantly, what can be used to render it useless? Ignoring an arms race is a good way to get your entire civilization wiped out. Perhaps that was the author’s goal in a later installment? Showing the folly of an overly idealistic society when inevitably faced with totalitarian evil, in the end being forced to compromise these principles simply to survive? I don’t know, that’s just speculation.
At one point, the main character, Jack, brings up the Trolley Problem in reference to a terrible choice that had to be made. A large numbers of variants to this thought experiment exist, but the general premise is as follows:
Two groups of people, let’s say a group of two and a group of five, are both in the path of a train. The person being asked this question is control of the train, but cannot stop it. Either they can do nothing and let the group of five die, or they can switch the rails and have the group of two die instead. The operative moral principle at play here is the question about whether a lack of action that causes greater damage is as morally culpable as a deliberate action that causes lesser damage. Being that this is a moral dilemma, it’s difficult to say with absolute certainty which is the truly moral action.
The reason I pick this part specifically in the story to bring up is that the characters both agree that the answer to the dilemma is that the person who put both groups in danger is to blame. While this is… technically true… it was never the point of the Trolley Problem. In fact, justifying terrible actions by saying one’s enemies are far worse is how conflicts escalate rather than de-escalate.
I don’t know if the author realized this, and thus also understands that Jack is almost purposefully misunderstanding the whole point of the Trolley Problem in order to justify actions of someone he agrees with, or if this was a genuine oversight. It’s a very small detail in the grand scheme of the whole story, but I found it thought provoking enough to bring up.
Last of all, I think I need to end by quickly addressing the… overtly promiscuous elephant in the room. This story has quite a bit of sexual innuendo. It varies in intensity, though I can say that there is at least one part where things get really crazy. There is also a certain squick factor to this, as it’s not always… well, let’s say “traditional intercourse”. The existence of edgy sexual content might by considered a plus by some, and I have no problem with that. I just wanted to warn those who are sensitive to such content.
Overall, I would say this book is worth the read. Consider it recommended.
Link to Red Eden: Homeworld Bound
Same post on Minds