3.8 stars“Oh my gosh!”Although a conservative, staid, and constrictive tradition lies behind the 1950s, U.S. pop culture, an odd and innocent sense of fun seems to accompany it.“Gee!”After my immersion into Shirley Jackson’s dark and menacing world, Heinlein’s Red Planet, (1949), with this conservative yet fun 1950s aspect, became just the tonic I needed.Setting a young adult/adult, science fiction adventure novel on Mars allows Heinlein to create an exciting story and world while simultaneously exploring ignorance and intelligence, arrogance and humility, materialism and faith, and surprisingly, gender!Within the hero-villain adventure story plotline, the author sets these variously explored layers amidst an American Revolution-type frame. The Earth humans as Martian colonists experience repeated grievances and dictatorial threats, (very “Royal-like”), that mirror the original English colonies' sufferings, the crown's feudal mercantilist economy, and the colonies' escalating resistance. And so, echoes from Adams, Jefferson, and Paine emerge.Heinlein succeeds in balancing his multiple ideas within genre and “story” expectations primarily through character, “world building,” and above all, plot.Apparently, like any Heinlein novel, Red Planet possesses not only “clinks and clunks” that a reader can gloss over but endoxa and entrenched points-of-view that can make a contemporary reader cringe, well up with frustration, and even recoil in outright anger. The author's reliance on the MacRae character to be his aged, curmudgeonly, all-at-once Everyman, (doctor, sage, linguist, diplomat, councilor, and combat platoon sergeant), irritates. The template for his later Stranger In a Strange Land Jubal character, MacRae, with his almost extreme, strident advocacy for “arms” or guns, strikes a nerve. His comments about paranoia simply are ignorant and inflammatory, making them "wrong" in both senses of the word. And, Heinlein's creation of a male-centered, constrictive-prescriptive world for women has sexist, even misogynist moments: “the womenfolk,” and “’That’s what comes of trusting women,’ he said, bitterly.”And yet . . . Golly!Despite all, Heinlein still creates an enjoyable tale that engages the reader on both the fun and thinking level.Section by section, and chapter by chapter, readers will recognize prototypes, ideas, themes, and paradigms that have heavily influenced later science fiction tales and scripts. A few include:—the government-private company alliance in Alien;—the atmospheric processing stations in Aliens;—the character and some functions of R2D2 in Star Wars;—the "beach ball" alien in Dark Star;—a feature of the environmental suits in Dune;—and, the sub-plot, tunnels, and ice-water dynamic in Total Recall.And, the causes, goals, and ideals of the American Revolution, as mirrored in Heinlein’s treatment, become ideas and values well worth the exploration.Lastly, the most wonderful aspects of this fun and thoughtful adventure novel deal with the Martians themselves. Indeed, the creatures and their culture become the “stars” of the narrative. And, Heinlein wisely keeps much of their history and “world” in mystery. And, the Martian characters, even more than his MacRae character, allow the reader to reflect upon deeper ideas: humanity’s strengths, weaknesses, and limits; and, the human awareness of the need for others and “otherness.” Pretty “Neat-o” for a young adult/adult science fiction “romp.”Confound it! For the love of Mike, I enjoyed Red Planet.It’s a swell novel, it is.Yes. Red Planet is a swell novel.
An author can't reasonably be called on the carpet for not knowing things that were not known at the time the book was written.That said, there are several things Heinlein COULD have known, and didn't. Examples? Heinlein didn't know quite how low the atmospeheric pressure was, so he couldn't reasonably have known that it was so low that surface tension couldn't be sustained, so that water would boil away at so close to freezing temperature that it wouldn't mostly go into liquid form at all. But he should have realized that the water would sublimate, and that therefore there wouldn't be any dry air in the neighborhood of the canals. There would be a nearly constant snowstorm around the canals, since the cold air couldn't hold much moisture. Another? Heinlein blithely assumes that all plants will produce energy by photosynthesis, though even at the time it was known that there were other forms of photosynthesis. Even granting that chemosynthesis was not widely known at the time, there's also xanthophyll.A related problem is that though the atmospheric composition of Mars was very imperfectly known at the time, there was no reason to believe that there was any free oxygen at ALL. Not 'too little for humans'. NONE. The assumption is necessary for the story, but it's a 'willing suspension of disbelief' matter. Oxygen is very reactive stuff. If something (such as photosynthesis, in this case) is not continually liberating it, it'll rapidly oxidize other elements.Heinlein apparently had a very limited knowledge of biology--something of a handicap in world-building.The 'Martians' (meaning the native people, because apparently few terrestrial plants, animals, etc, were imported, so ALL the native biota are 'Martians' in the strict sense) are, as has been noted, similar to the Martians in Stranger in A Strange Land. Heinlein didn't see this as the only possible model for Martian sapients--cf Double Star, for example. Or Between Planets. But it's not surprising that he was fond of the form he chose for this book and Stranger in A Strange Land. I don't see, however, why Heinlein chose to consistently argue that communion with nonhuman intelligences is essentially impossible.Even in this book, the humans who attempt communication with Martians generally don't dig very deep. They seem unable to achieve true understanding. Has NOBODY gone 'over the wall', as Cyrus Buchanan is said to have done on Venus in Between Planets?Another assumption Heinlein consistently makes is that the colonies will have essentially unlimited electrical power. This assumption is not necessarily valid, as people who are currently exploring Mars via robot frequently complain.
What do You think about Red Planet (2006)?
Robert Heinlein's vision of life on Mars in this book is, from a scientific standpoint, way off, but the story he tells of two young men fighting to keep that life safe for their family and friends (with help from some of the native Martians along the way) is an interesting, funny, exciting, and wholly enjoyable one. There's even a bit of a mystery along with all the atmosphere and adventure. This is the sort of Heinlein book that one can't help smiling at the thought of.Heinlein just has such a wonderful way of showing his readers a whole fully-realized world, including the technologies, social structures, culture, and everything else, without ever seeming to have any exposition. It's just all there, and we understand it by watching the story unfold.This book is a really quick read, both because it's easy and short and because it's so fun and interesting there's just no reason to put it down.
—Rachel
One of Heinlein's early YA books, it's about 2 young boys who wind up on an adventure on Mars. This is a Mars with water (frozen) in its canals, oxygen, but not enough for a human to breath unassisted. So if you like your SF with the latest science in place, this isn't for you. Heinlien's young heroes are boy scouts, good kids with good intentions who buck the odds to do the right thing. They make discoveries beyond what the adults have done & face danger. They tough it out & make good, though. Happy ending! I'd recommend it for any adult, but also for any young boy, maybe 3d grade reading level & up. (I'm probably wrong about 3d grade, get another opinion.) The language & ideas are pretty simple, but equally engaging for young & old. There is a moral to the story; be brave, resourceful and - damn the consequences - do the RIGHT thing. I've seen worse messages in books, this one is pretty typical of all his YA books.
—Jim
Before I comment on this book, I have to comment on how it came to my attention. Manny, a good friend of mine, had suggested I read Red Mars, a sci-fi novel by Kim Stanley Robinson. Some time later, Audible.com had an audio-book sale, and Red Planet was one of the featured books. My memory being what it is, I bought it, thinking it was the book Manny had recommended to me. I realized my mistake after I bought it and before I listened to it, but decided to give it a whirl because Robert Heinlein is such a legendary sci-fi writer, and I'd never read anything he wrote.As for Red Planet, if you can get past a few minor things, it is a great teen sci-fi adventure read -- like a Hardy Boys go to Mars tale. Actually, the Hardy Boys analogy works for the book's short-comings as well, as both were written in a different era, when "swell" and "fellows" were part of everyday language, and women were considered a subservient gender. But, like I said, if you can get past the dated speech and gender roles, as well as some archaic sci-fi concepts regarding technology and Mars, it's a ton of fun.I especially liked this audio-book edition, for two reasons -- it is the author's intended version (which includes material originally edited out for controversial content), and it is a full cast audio production, which adds a lot of depth to the audio experience.
—Eric
