The first book could have just been "hey remember Ghostbusters" for 300 pages and it would have the same literary significance
the book is like if one of those Funko pops grew a mouth and started talking
The first book laid out a premise, established conflict, introduced (marginally) novel characters, and explored the interaction between them.
The second book appears to just redo the first book by replacing antagonists with angst.
Also there is literally a thing called "The Dorkslayer".
Also there is literally a thing called “The Dorkslayer”.
Well at least the book has one thing going for it
To nerd out for a second: I'm still mad that somehow nobody solved the super-obvious Tomb of Horrors clue in, what, 20 fucking years? And then when they go to the Tomb of Horrors, they have to play Joust against the fake Acererak? Like wtf, if your book is going to be "References: The Novel", the least you could do is get the references right.
Ernest Kline isn't actually a nerd, he's just a social outcast who enjoys being seen as a nerd because he can occasionally feel superior to them as opposed to other social groups. He never ever ever demonstrates more than an absolute surface-level understanding of any property he writes into his books, which is why so many of his descriptions are literally ripped directly from Wikipedia. Based on how he spends his free time and what he writes about deeply, he very clearly likes writing, and universally beloved and widely appreciated 80s movies like Sixteen Candles and Karate Kid and such. But when he talks about any property that actually came with some form of social derision when he grew up, he obviously has no clue.
To anyone who plays DnD, making your "nerdy reference" whose obscurity is the secret behind which a billion dollar fortune secret sits the Tomb of Horrors is like if the riddle were about superheroes and the answer was Superman.
The movie is fine if you just remember that almost nothing is accurate their from the duststorm up, and that the guy would be dead from perchlorate and heavy metal poisoning on like week 2.
the book avoids this and they caused a problem in the adaptation, or am I misunderstanding?
I think the soil toxicity was discovered just after the book was released, so when it was written, it wasn’t an error. It was known when they made the movie though.
Not sure, but I think the original Mars Space Cadet Zubrin talked about heavy metal contamination in the 90s, though we weren't certain.
I don't remember the book avoiding it (but it's been many years), since he grows crops from the (again, too deadly from perchlorates to even grow a crop in without industrial-grade decontamination) soil. I remember diet issues, but I pegged those to nutrition.
Also Martian dust is deadly as fuck, May as well just snort asbestos if you're tracking it into your hab. Also, he never needed to worry about water since Martian soil has fucktons, and the duststorm would have not had any effect on the lander save visibility.
Never seen the movie, but the book is actually a really good hard sci fi man vs nature narrative (it's also a fast read which I think is why it appealed to a lot of people outside of the usual hard sci fi crowd). I can understand if someone doesn't like the style but I would never put it in the same sentence as Ready Player One jesus.
Before Reddit, books were written about the stories published in the NYT and WaPo for a lot of writers.
I can't find it right now, but there is a paper charting when certain technologies are mentioned like VR/fuzzy logic/rando tech of the day in literature, and the vast, vast majority aligned with the newspapers of record until the internet became big.
I refuse to watch or read anything related to the book because I enjoyed it when I read it in high school and don't want to ruin that
Using it as inspiration for my online username was a fuckin mistake and a half
