Red Mars is not a story of creation, but rather a tale of destruction. The story focuses on the journey of 100 colonizers to a new world ready for development, but it is set upon the backdrop of a world wrought with destruction and corruption.
Throughout Red Mars the Earth is painted as an unstable and decaying place. Corporations have taken over the government, causing global corruption. Wars erupt over the scant resources and millions die regularly. This, at least to me, completely overshadows any progress that is attempting to be made on Mars. The corporations even reach to the new frontier that is Mars, and cause violent conflict on the planet. This paints the message that no matter where we try to escape to, corruption and destruction will follow.
To me this seems like a comment on politics also. From a quick scan of his Wikipedia page, it seems like Robinson isn't too much of a fan of modern capitalism, which is fairly apparent in this
book. The corruption and subsequent destruction we see in the book is a fairly obvious comment on
the flaws of capitalism. Red Mars seems like a comment and warning on an individualistic
government rather than a tale of exploration and new beginnings.
The book is hugely political, right? I think the title really only refers to the planet itself, because the next two books are called Green Mars and Blue Mars, named for the ongoing terraforming efforts. Howeeeeever, there exists a little-known Russian science fiction novel called Red Star, written by one Alexander Bogdanov. Certainly an influence on KSR's naming, although not necessarily the final word on his political stance.
ReplyDeleteIf it helps, things get better. Arkady Bogdanov himself points out that a utopia isn't a real utopia if it happens in a fishbowl, isolated from the rest of the world, not caring about the greater wellbeing. Hence the Martian project falls apart by the end of Red Mars and they spend the next two books rebuilding it in a way that extends to Earth, as well.