I have to say, Antartica is me coming back to Kim Stanley Robinson after I gave up on him midway through his Washington Trilogy (at the end of Fifty Degrees Below for those of you keeping score at home). Like the Mars trilogy and the Washington trilogy, Antartica has themes of ecology, scientific advance and social organization. While it would be foolish to assume that every author's views match his or her subject matter, one starts to sense a pattern. Antarctica is that blurry line between contemporary and science fiction that makes it hard to classify. There are some minor tech advances -- face masks that can reproduce a high-def image taken from goggle cameras while getting a narrator's soundtrack, wrist phones*, laser ice borers, and photovoltaic clothing that can keep people alive as they walk through 50 degrees below, by using sunlight to add extra heat and melt water for drinking. (Though really, it would be more efficient to not bother with converting the sunlight to electricity, and convert it to heat directly.) The US government hasn't yet acknowledged anthropogenic climate change in the novel, which puts it a tiny step behind ours (but not by much). On the other hand, politics remains identifiable as turn-of-the-millennium, and aside from a few new toys, it feels like modern Earth. * Okay, given the size of the average cellphone, we could do this now if people wanted. We follow four main characters. X (nicknamed for the size of his parka -- he is Very Tall) is a slacker-academic, the kind of bright kid who could have made it in academia except for the inability to get through college without going crazy, who ended up taking a job doing scut-work in Antarctica for the adventure and staying because he fell in love with the place. Val, X's ex-girlfriend, is a trail guide down there, who loves the outdoors, but doesn't care much for showing idiots around a very dangerous place. Wade is the aide of Senator Phil Chase, a kind of Obama-figure, if Obama got his start in the California suburbs instead of inner-city Chicago -- kind of funny, as Obama had yet to appear on the national radar when the book was written. Phil (and Wade, IIRC) show up again in the Washington trilogy as a character's boss -- guess Robinson didn't want to let a good minor character go. The last POV isn't so much a character as a POV; Ta Shu is a Chinese geomancer, poet and nature host, and he is filming down in Antartica, and we get his narration as well. The big conflict of the book is centered around environmental issues -- the Antarctic treaty is being held up by the US government because There's Oil Down There, and some Southern Hemisphere countries are trying to get a slice of the pie. Here Robinson wins a brownie point from me. The environmentalists aren't always good -- in that they blow up some oil stations and jam communications, causing Val's trail group (already with an injured member and lost supplies from a previous problem), and a party containing X and Wade to get stranded in a spring storm. It's made clear that at least one person would have died except for good luck, despite the saboteurs' best attempt to do it non-violently. And, Carlos, the one oil station worker we get to know, isn't some Captain Planet Villain, out to make money on oil with no concern for the environment. He is legitimately concerned with the fact that the G8 nations have a big chunk of the pie and want to shut down the developing world, and does care about the environment (in that he wants to use technology to keep things clean while they drill). I found him sympathetic, to the point where X is watching Carlos and the saboteurs' lawyer* talk and realizing that both were angry at the same people, but were arguing with each other. * Who is perhaps the one character who Robinson could get away with writing a page-long speech without sounding like he was talking to the audience, since later, everyone tries to shut him up before he gets going again. Still killed me to read it -- too long, and too much of a rant. As always, I liked some of the themes of the book, and the setting work (Robinson spent some time in the Antarctic. It shows, in a good way), and the characters were likable. It was a bit slanted towards social and ecological politics, but not enough to impair the story of X and Val's attempts to make homes on a continent they have fallen in love with, the mystery of where the equipment has gone, Val's bad trail trip, and surviving a sabotage attempt in a place where the Environment is not your friend.
This review also appeared on Joe Follansbee's blog.I’ve been a fan of master science fiction author Kim Stanley Robinson ever since the Mars Trilogy, which dealt with terraforming the Red Planet. Now that humanity is engaged in an accidental terraforming experiment on its own world, it was the right time for me to read Antarctica, one of Robinson’s lesser-known novels. I was curious how he treated the changes sure to come to the South Pole, because I’m looking at a similar scenario in my own current project, The Princes of Antarctica.Published in 1997, Robinson’s story takes place more than 50 years later, just after the expiration of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. The treaty and several other agreements set aside the entire continent as a nature and science reserve. But the politics of preservation versus wealth creation stalls renewal of the treaty, and a series of unexplained incidents sparks an informal investigation by an aide of an influential senator with progressive leanings. Robinson weaves his trademark mix of science, history, politics, and human aspiration into a sprawling narrative. Climate change overhangs the novel, making it an early example of the climate fiction / nature fiction genre.Much of the novel’s material derives from Robinson’s experience as a 1995 participant in the National Science Foundation’s Artists and Writers Program. In his book, Robinson has worked out every possible way to describe ice, ice fields, glaciers, mountains covered in ice, and being buried in ice. The ice-related words “firn,” “sastrugi,” and “nanutuk” are burned into the reader’s vocabulary. Robinson makes geology the marquee science of Antarctica, rarely mentioning the penguins and seals that dominate other fictional and non-fictional treatments of the South Pole.His characters are workmanlike: the lonely bureaucrat, the amazonian mountaineer, the misfit jack-of-all-trades, and the get-r-done administrator. How Robinson got one major character’s name past the editor–just “X”, nothing more–escapes me. At critical moments, some characters make single-paragraph speeches that go on for a page or more (in my EPUB edition) using language no human would use in formal conversation, much less casual conversation. Robinson explains too much and shows too little, at least when it comes to the human-on-human dynamic.Robinson leaves the best part of the story until the novel’s last third: a conflict between factions of “ferals,” an emerging culture of emigres from the capitalist north determined to make a new start in a fresh land. It’s a redux of Plymouth Colony and a hundred other utopian visions that Americans love. But he wastes an opportunity. Here’s the question Robinson should have asked: How does a warming world treat the last wild land on earth? Instead, he makes the fighting ferals one bit of a puzzle whose pieces don’t fit very well. And as one of the factions goes about destroying property and endangering lives, Robinson appears to suggest that the tactic might be okay to save the seventh continent from exploitation, as long as nobody gets hurt. Of course, somebody will get hurt or killed eventually, if we turn a blind eye to extremists using dynamite.Nonetheless, the idea of people going to huge lengths to “start over” in a wild environment is compelling. Robinson’s ferals are more than fantasy; there’s a small but vocal anarchist faction calling for “re-wilding,” expressed in part by learning and practicing stone age skills and beliefs. In The Princes of Antarctica, I’m using these ideas in a group of Antarcticans I label “primitives” or “prims” (a derogatory term in the dominant Antarctic culture) of a 22nd century South Pole. I like it as a way to explore how some humans might pioneer a new land where night and day are divided into six-month intervals. The way things are going, it’s definitely a possible scenario.
What do You think about Antarctica (1999)?
Robinson erzählt die Geschichte der Antarktis aus einer Perspektive, die er schon in der Mars-Trilogie verwendet hat, nämlich aus der Sicht eines Einheimischen, man verliebt sich unweigerlich in die Landschaft - und in die Menschen dieser Landschaft.Philosophisch-politische Abhandlungen über die Zukunft der Landschaft und ihrer Menschen, verbunden mit Geschichten aus der Vergangenheit machen das Lesevergnügen unvergeßlich.Die Verarbeitung der Antarktis-Expeditionen von Scott, Amundsen und Shackleton sind ein besonderes Bonmont dieses Buches.
—Reinhold
"Antartica" is a great read. I loved the descriptions of the land, the interactions of the various characters from one who has actually spent time there. The book is fabulous almost right up to the end. Then Mr. Robinson gives way to a desire (common to those who write about the environment) to lecture the reader on what should be done to 'save' the Earth. Now I don't say the environment isn't a critical concern for us as a species but there are venues for that sort of thing (and he doesn't even grapple with the elephant in the room, overpopulation. He just assumes that problem will somehow be taken care of- don't we wish) and talks about how we need a different social structure, etc., etc. Well, there is a long history of writers using fiction as a convenient soap box for their favorite hobbyhorse, from Robert Heinlein to Michael Crichton, but it is a little tedious for the reader and detracts from the number of stars we assign their books. That said, "Antartica" is still a great book for anyone who is fascinated with the continent and its history. I loved all the historical references and would have loved to be part of the discussion of Roland Huntford's biography of Robert Scott and whether it was fair or not. If you're not familiar with what's been written or said about Antartica and its various explorers, then these little posies to the fans will no doubt make you wonder what the heck they're talking about. So..final word...this book is a great choice for fans of Antartica and her history but perhaps not so much for the general reader who may be puzzled by the historical and scientific references and bored by the lecture at the end.
—Veronica Shawcroft
„Na południe od czterdziestego równoleżnika nie ma żadnego prawa. Pod pięćdziesiątym – nie ma Boga. Poniżej sześćdziesiątego – nie ma rozsądku.”„Niebieskie niebo; biały śnieg. To wszystko, co język może powiedzieć o tym miejscu; reszta to komentarze i ludzka fantazja.”tAntarktyda, niedaleka przyszłość. Ktoś napada na konwój zmierzający na biegun. Skradziony zostaje jeden z ciągników transportowych. To tylko jedna z serii dziwnych kradzieży na białym kontynencie. Podążając ich tropem, dowiemy się o bardzo ciekawych rzeczach mających miejsce na najmniej zaludnionym z lądów…t W książce Robinsona towarzyszymy na przemian kilku głównych bohaterom, z ich perspektywy śledząc wydarzenia. Poznajemy więc losy między innymi: przewodniczki historycznych wycieczek Val, pracownika warsztatowo-polowego na stacji McMurdu Iksa, specjalnego wysłannika z Waszyngtonu Bena. Do tego dochodzi cała gama oryginalnych postaci, z chińskim pisarzem odnajdującym spokój pośród bezkresnego lodu, na czele. Mamy obrazy życia na stacjach polarnych. Opisy niezwykłych ludzi z ich jeszcze bardziej niezwykłymi sposobami na zachowanie zdrowych zmysłów pośród bezkresnego lodu. tJednak najlepsze co oferuje nam owa książka to historie wielkich odkryć. Raz po raz raczeni jesteśmy opowieściami o wyprawach Sheckeltona, Scotta, czy Amundsena. Poznajemy losy pierwszych wypraw na biegun południowy. Świat początku XX wieku przeplata się z tym współczesnym, pokazując różnicę w nauce, technice, warunkach życia. Przede wszystkim jednak autor uświadamia nam z jakiej gliny kiedyś ulepieni byli ludzie. Czy współcześni mogą się z nimi równać?tJedyny minus to powolność akcji i duża ilość rozległych opisów. Chociaż, to co dla jednego jest minusem, dla innych może być plusem. Zwłaszcza, że taki styl bardzo dobrze wpisuje się w obraz opisywanych rozległych lodowych pustkowi…P.S. Metallica zagrała ostatnio wyjątkowy, w pełni profesjonalny koncert na Antarktydzie. Od razu nasuwa się skojarzenie do koncertu w pobliżu bieguna jaki w swojej książce opisuje nam pan Robinson. Z kiepskim nagłośnieniem i w tragicznych warunkach. Z tych dwóch wolałbym jednak być na tym książkowym. Tyle w temacie kunsztu autora.8/10„Być może w pielgrzymkach z natury jest coś śmiesznego, coś żenującego i teatralnego. A może nie miało to żadnego znaczenia.”„Nie było związku między niebezpieczeństwem a odwagą, tak jak nie było związku między męką a cnotą.”„Wspaniale jest stwierdzić: ‘Wspaniale jest stwierdzić.’.”„Ta cała demokracja jest dobra, dopóki nie zamienia się w chaos. Ktoś musi mieć ostatnie, a raczej pierwsze słowo.”„Znajdź tamte czerwone kapcie, otrzep je z kurzu i może wrócisz do domu, który nigdy nie istniał.”malynosorozec.blogspot.com
—malynosorozec
