Talk:Mars trilogy

Novels: Sci-fi B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Science fiction task force.

Science Fiction B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Articles on the individual characters in this series were listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 1 to July 7 2004, consensus was to redirect to here. Discussion may be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Boone, Bogdanov, Russell, Ai.

---

Hi,

I propose to change one little thing in this article :

The West Antartica ice sheet on Earth begin to melt in "Green Mars", not in "Blue Mars" like the article seems to expose. (Reference "Green Mars", p. 552 to 557 ISBN : 0-553-57239-3). I think this event is the main cause of the second martian revolution (Ibid, p. 556).

205.237.80.194 19:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we remove the individual character pages for this book - I mean, delete the pages for Hiroko, Sax, Boone etc...

This is not to criticise the contributions to those pages, but I ask what role these entries have in an encyclopedia?

I am not aware of any of these characters directly influencing other novels or being cited in academic works etc. ie. These characters are not Hamlet, Bloom or Superman - there is nothing more to know about them than you could find out by reading the book - so why do they deserve an encyclopedia entry?

Being a fan of them is not a good enough reason. I like these characters too, but in the absence of evidence of their influence outside the text of the Mars Trilogy, I think the pages should go...

After thinking it over a day or two, I decided that, rather than delete the character pages (many of which were stubs), I merged their content into this page. It just doesn't seem 'encyclopedic' to devote entire articles to fictional characters that have no known literary influence outside the text in which they were first writtern.

As the character's information from the stubs have been merged into the Red Mars article, the individual pages are redundant. Please don't link to them unless these characters prove to have some kind of literary influence beyond the Mars books...

Mercurius 23:27, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

More important than their literary influence is that there isn't enough to say about them to be worth a separate page, with little prospect of there being more to come. And it's not like this page is overloaded.

I don't recall where Coyote came from; is Trindad a misspelling of Trinidad?
--wwoods 22:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just a heads-up for KSR/Mars fans - a few of us from The Demimonde have launched a new KSR wiki project, entitled The Kim Stanley Robinson Encylopedia. Editors needed! http://ksrwiki.philosophicalzombie.net/wiki

How exactly does Ann develop a split personality? She eventually comes to an appreciation of Terraformed Mars, but... Kit 06:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be right that the huge list of criticisms that somebody added are out of place in this article. However, such criticisms are not unheard of on the wikipedia. For example: Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code, Biological Issues in Jurassic Park, Criticism of Family Guy, and Criticism of Halo 2. These demonstrate that the wikipedia allows articles of criticism of a variety of media. I think that, in this vein, someone could set up a Criticisms of the Mars Trilogy article and link to it from this page. I think that acknowledging the controversies in the book also acknowlegdes its importance and impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk)

I think criticism should be in the article itself, it must be encyclopedic tho. -- Jeandre, 2006-03-28t19:46z

Did you read the list? Some of the points made were reasonably encyclopedic. With a little editing (or a lot, depending on how you define 'encyclopedic') you (meaning someone) should be able to bring it up to standards.

You could also read the policies refered to, particularly Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No Original Research to see what's meant by "encyclopedic". siafu 04:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an extract from Alexander Bogdanov article, discussing Bogdanov's novel Red Star:

Red Star was one of the inspirations for Red Mars, an award-winning science fiction novel by Kim Stanley Robinson. Bogdanov is the surname of the character Arkady (perhaps the first name is a nod to the Russian science fiction writer Arkady Strugatsky, although this is not confirmed) who is also a fictional descendant of Alexander Bogdanov.

?ellol 15:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I REALLY liked the review; I know that I would not be willing to put in the effort the author(s) of the review did; I wanted something to show a friend that these books are workth reading. 63.173.64.50 18:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I nuts, or was there talk of a Sci-Fi channel made for tv film based on Red Mars? I can't find mention of it anymore, but I could have sworn it was going to happen. 70.105.117.116 12:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I was looking over the page and I notice that some of the boxes at the right of the page are different colors. But I couldn't find anywhere where it explains what the colors are supposed to designate. Am I just missing it or should something be put in to help the uninformed reader? Also, it seems that the blocks are off—the text is aligned with the preceding box.

It seems that it used to represent political affiliation (red, green, UN, ...) GrAfFiT^{Talk Contribs} 06:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case it's not very consistent. Either way, some sort of key should still be put in to explain it.

Pyllis Boyle's name in her box is unreadable. A near-white gray against light yellow background does not have enough contrast. People, don't assume that everyone has your monitor and your eyes. MichaelSH 04:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough time has passed. I changed color so now there is some contrast instead of being nearly identical foreground (fff) and background (ff8) colors. MichaelSH 03:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the talk page to ask the same question: why are there different colours for various of the character boxes, and (if the colours are useful) why is there no key explaining them? :-) The contrast may have been improved on some of these boxes, but the original question above still stands. -Stelio (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should have a "Spoilers End Here" tag at the point where spoilers end. --Mr. Billion 02:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I think some of the "political affiliations" of the characters in the character boxes are wrong. For example, I would dispute that Coyote was a green, despite his proximity to Hiroko. Also, neither Art nor Peter Clayborne were in the first hundred. The "positions" seem inconsistent - some with their original crew (first hundred) assignations e.g. Arkady, and some with later assumed positions e.g. Ann as head of the Reds. She was of course, but her position was head geologist. Any thoughts on standardising these? Cheers.Pete9804 23:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest (in my less-than-complete knowledge) that although Peter Clayborne and Art might not have been members of the First Hundred, they might have had similar political views. Perhaps this explains their being labelled as such. 211.27.98.176 03:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The publication data for the trilogy is incorrect. The books were first published in the UK by MacMillan: Red Mars in Sep 1992, Green Mars in Oct 1993, and Blue Mars in Apr 1996. I also note there's no mention of KSR's novella 'Green Mars' (1985) -- published as half of a Tor double in 1988 (with Arthur C Clarke's 'A Meeting with Medusa').Tanzeelat 11:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one cares about this? What about the years of the first two novels mentioned in the article (which are correct now) that do not match the publication details listed on the right? Don't Americans wonder why the publication years sometimes differs from their first editions? Btw: The actual first editions were published in the UK by HarperCollins not MacMillian - but the dates given by Tanzeelat are correct. --217.18.181.18 (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More than most articles I've seen, this one seems to be overrun with some pretty excessive linking. Does every mention of Earth or Mars need a link to Earth and Mars? Or the links to plants, water, rivers, and seas?

Anthony Hersey 19:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the following characterization of Boyle:

"She ruled Mars from the Clark Space Elevator with an iron fist until the first, failed revolution sent it spinning off into the outer Solar System."

RED MARS mentions nothing about her "ruling" Mars and certainly nothing about repressing people (as the word "iron fist" would imply). The main accusation against her was simply that rejected the advice of Boone and Chalmers to regulate immigration through her elevator. As an error of judgement, it is less blameworthy than Vlad's release of the immortality treatment during a time of overpopulation.

The real problem is that Robinson, so good with characterization otherwise, failed to depict her consistently. She is described at one point as ecumenical, another as fundamentalist, and a third as a hypocrite. At one point she is a skilled scientist, another a Philistine bored with science talk. No wonder it is difficult to describe her as a real character; she's really a dumping ground for ideas that Robinson dislikes, and the same applies later to Jackie Boone. CharlesTheBold 03:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to re-read the books to support the following, but my hypothesis is that as each major chapter tends to concentrate upon a particular character's progress through the world (or worlds, in the case of Art, etc) that the differing representations may be indicative of the impression of the current character du jour and their current interactions. But as a counter-example, this does not seem to hold true to Red Mars's introduction which is Frank-orientated and yet fails to paint John (in my mind at least) in any light less saintly, altruistic or charitable than John's own segments do. Unless it's that's just a deliberate echo of some sort of "he's too good to live..." internal monologue. (Really must re-read...)--195.171.111.194 (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask re-readers to look for and list clues which might suggest that:

• Jackie Boone is actually the genetic offspring of Maya Toitovna and John Boone, rather than Kasei and Esther. Some clues: Maya dislikes Jackie intensely; Esther leaves Jackie in childhood and starts a new family; Jackie is described as having similar physical traits as Maya.

• The Arctic volcano which causes the catastrophic sea-level rise on Earth is caused by Desmond "Coyote" Hawkins, possibly with the knowledge of Sax Russell. Some clues: Desmond learns how to create a volcano by breaking into two of the moholes in Mars' southern hemisphere; Desmond is familiar with creating habitats (or working environments) under ice caps; I have a vague recollection that Desmond cryptically mentions returning to Earth; Sax requests Maya to play for a fairly specific amount of time before commencing the revolution.

• Hiroko is alive and observing the actions of the First Hundred. There are numerous examples and Robinson deliberately leaves the subject in the air, but there are also interesting suggestions that she is alive and nearby. For example, in the last chapter Ann notices an "old Asian woman" surf fishing on the beach next to Ann's group.

Thanks for your consideration, and enjoy it again. [[User:Sofa King|Sofa King] Thursday, 2007-08-16T17:48UTC

I just got done rereading these books, and I love them. Here are some corrections:

Phyllis did not die in 2089, because Sax entered Biotique around 2100.

In the Vlad/Ursula/Marina love triangle, it's revealed at the end of Blue Mars that the real couple was Vlad and Ursula, although Ursula and Marina stay together after Vlad's death.

I'm not bold. Thank you. Hollielol (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: Art told Nadia that he was 40 years old. Nadia was 120, Art 40, and Nirgal 12. Hollielol (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Red mars.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to add an disambig page for "Blue Mars" don't you think? http://www.primotechnology.com/2008/02/19/gdc-08-first-blue-mars-screens/ CapnZapp (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The three books considered together are a proper noun that is correctly capitalized as The Mars Trilogy. Likewise, The Alexandria Quartet. Unless anyone mounts an objection in the next several days, I can make the change. Ribonucleic (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A news.google search for mars.trilogy robinson shows the modern lowercase style for the 2 hits.

Increasing the search to all dates, has on the 1st page (ranging from 1996-2007): 7 modern lowercases and 2 old style uppercasing of everything. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-06t16:19z

Is the "Green Mars" novella published as part of a Tor Double an early version of the Green Mars novel? Should it be mentioned on this page? Zarvok | Talk 23:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the customer summary published here, it sure sounds like the same characters and same "universe". We would need a more reliable source though. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The novella "Green Mars", included in The Martians, deals only with climbing Olympus Mons. 2 drawings, 82 pages. I always saw it as being in an alternate storyline to the trilogy, like "Michel in Antarctica". -- Jeandré, 2008-07-20t21:15z

I know Wiki isn't supposed to be a "list of lists" thing, but it seems that there isn't actually a proper full compilation of all known First Hundred members beyond the major character 'bios' already marked (and I see being discussed above). When I read Red Mars I know I'd tentitively noted down nearly 40 known identities (though not all with surnames, and not including Coyote/Desmond in the count), by the time I was half way through the book and got too engrossed in the book to continue, knowing that I had missed some (and, at the same time, that not all would get mentioned.

I even Googled to see if someone had made a non-Wiki effort to compile such information, but surprisingly it looks like nobody's done anything like that (that I found, only browsing the first few pages of results that were mostly reviews).

If it's to be done here, though, it might be best be put on a dedicated First Hundred page so as to leave the current page summarised to the main cast as is (to argue over the details). Quite lot of otherwise unmentioned characters are mentioned (on first-name terms only) as members of various sometimes overlapping groups (Acheron, Arkady's Phobos team, Hiroko's farm absconders, etc), etc, so it needn't be information heavy, just tabular. Assuming it's not already been done, I may think about digging up/recollating and transcribing my info, but thought I'd RFC here in the Talk page before doing anything silly. Support? Objections? Opinions? It'sAlreadyBeenDone? --195.137.54.23 (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note the subject of "list of lists" has been discussed here before, as has a movement to delete character information resulting in the merging of all details into this page. However, when reading the article, the characters list is distracting. I propose to create a new page - "Mars Trilogy - Characters" and move / link the whole section. Objections here please! Thanks. --Ormers (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like to see this change but I'm not experienced with creating articles so someone else should beat me to it. If no one does I will likely get to it eventually. Millahnna (mouse)talk 04:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to complain about awkward exposition at the beginning of the RED MARS section. The summary says:

   "The mission is a joint Russian-American undertaking, and the First Hundred are mostly drawn from these countries (excepting one Michel Duval, a French psychologist assigned to observe their behavior)."

Why so much stress on Michel when there are other exceptions? Particularly Hiroko (from Japan) who is arguably more important a character than Michel. Shouldn't "mostly" cover everything? CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Charles. Either use "mostly", or be more precise and state that "seventy of the First Hundred were drawn from these countries." and delete the parenthetical regarding Michel Duval. 01:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)