Aurora
discussion
Is this the anti-Mars trilogy?
date
newest »
newest »
Yes, there are interviews online in which KSR speaks about the difference.It seems the book did speak for itself but that you didn't like what it said. As you noticed, in Aurora people are terrible at biology compared to the Mars books.
Whether Aurora is pessimistic is in the eye of the beholder.
From my perspective, it's optimistic and there's not that much difference with the Mars books. Aurora has utopian elements and there's lots of destruction in the Mars books.
While that is somewhat out of fashion, there are even more optimistic books. But usually, their writers can also do pessimism or simply weird. I think it's healthy to explore different ideas.
I've known about KSR since the mid-nineties, when the Mars trilogy came out - always wanted to read those, but for whatever reason never got around to it.However, I just finished 2312 a few weeks ago (loved it), and I'm currently about two thirds of the way through Aurora (loving it even more). Based on my extreme enjoyment of these two books, the Mars trilogy is definitely on my short term reading agenda, along with Green Earth, Shaman, and Galileo's Dream. KSR just kicks ass as a writer, and I truly wish I started reading his stuff a long time ago. His writing constantly stimulates my intellect (such as it is) and my emotions. I learn so much about science, astronomy, biology, sociology, psychology, consciousness, and human vs artificial intelligence, all the while "feeling" what all of this is like. Oh well much to look forward to.
Anyway, to the question posted:
The big difference probably is KSR's often stated opinion (recently during interviews about Aurora) is that interstellar travel is really not realistic. The stars are just simply too far. It presents huge problems that could be insurmountable, or cause disasters that could be considered almost inevitable.
Contrast that with travel within the Solar System. KSR looks at that as realistic and doable.
The two attitudes are reflected in Aurora and 2312 (teraforming and colonization of much of the Solar system), respectively. And I'm guess that the Mars trilogy falls into the 2312 viewpoint.
That said, while Aurora might be pessimistic in some regards, it can also be viewed as optimistic, depending on how you look at it.
Travel within the solar system would also be likely to cause disasters. A sizeable spaceship is basically a WMD, something which the Mars books take into account.The danger is rather well expressed by Shohreh Aghdashloo in the (less realistic) new TV show The Expanse by the way.
Yep. Space is hard, including within the Solar System - and exponentially harder when it's interstellar.
And going twice as long as the closest possible star must be at least twice as hard. That part of Aurora never made sense to me.
That trilogy praises invention and science and human creation. There are no problems that humans can't solve if they cooperate. They will be able to create entire eco-systems from nothing and medical treatments which allows them to live for hundreds of years. So many people have great ideas about how to improve society and if they were given the chance to actualize them the world would be a better place.
The message of this book seems to be the opposite. There are boundaries and rules of nature which humans won't be able to overcome or break without consequences. The idea of humans being able to control or replace natural processes is false and destructive. Peoples ideas are dangerous and could lead to hurt and destruction.
I don't know if the author has said anything about this difference. I don't usually make any inquiries about authors intent, I think the work should speak for itself. But in this case I might have to see if I can see any comments from him about the extreme difference in view of these stories and if it reflects a change of mind of his own. In that case it would be too bad. There are so few writers who write optimistically about the future and I find it a much more interesting read.