Reading the Martian, and book experiments

 

I’ve been travelling in Sydney trains for a few months now. I spend about 40 mins travelling one way, so its more than an hour of commute each day. Though the distances covered is larger than those I covered in Bangalore in the same time, or any Indian city, I would venture. And good thing about my commute, there are always seats ! Even during the rush hour, you could find seats to slid into. So I figured the best way to spend time on these commutes would be to listen to podcasts, or just read a plain old book when the batteries die down.

I’ve been also running a crazy experiment of sorts. After I finish reading a book, I leave it on the seat. There. Abandoned. For the next commuter on that seat. You see, the building I live in has a library of abandoned books. Books which their owners throw out when its too much cargo when they move out. So its a free library ! I’ve read and left about four books on the trains so far. Just finished reading Andy Weir’s The Martian. This novel was turned into the hit 2015 movie by Ridley Scott. The movie was Ridley’s best work in this decade, in between all those Alien duds.

I could see why the book was a hit, its a story of survival in the harshest conditions. Its a fight against nature, and the cosmos itself. Its a story of the whole earth uniting to save one man stranded on a distant planet. But I also could not see why the book was such a hit. Its nerdy. Its full of long jargon, longer, meticulus calculations, and technological exposition. Engineers and scientists would love this kind of thing, but anybody else would find it..hmm…boring. Repititive.

I didn’t !

I loved it. Most of it. But then even I got bored of all those calculations, error variance, and best estimates. There is a lot more of the story happening in the book, which got cut out of the movie. And that was good, because there is no way a 2 hour movie could capture this much techno-babble.

We all know what happened to the stranded fictional astronaut Mark Watney. He is eventually rescured after 500 days alone on planet Mars. But the book goes into great detail to explain all the problems he and the NASA team faced along the way. There is a journal entry for most of the 561 sols he spend on the planet. There are other subplots not discussed in the movie.

Like the incident during the drilling of the second rover’s rood. Mark accidently shorts out the electronics on the pathfinder, and loses his ability to communicate with earth.  This is not shown in the movie. But in the book, Mark has no choice but communicate one way using stones arranged in morse code on the route he follows across Mars.

Or when the rover tumbles into the crater.

But I still had questions, which I hoped would be answere in the books, but was left disspointed.

For starters, Mark is extermely optimistic. Like, he is the most optimistic literary character I have read till date. He beats Robinson Crusoe hands down. Its unnatural , the guy simply does not give up. He does talk to himself a lot, but he voices his optimism clearly. I wanted to know the why he was so. Wanted to know about his childhood, his college days. Was he in the forces ? Does he belive in a god ? What pulls him to earth ? Was it his family ? Speaking of family, neither the book nor the movie tries to shed light, what kind of family did he grow up in ? Does he have siblings ? A girlfriend ? His best friend ?

Another question, this is more of a tease. The story mentions that Mark travels more than 3oo days travelling across Mars in rovers. He was carrying all the equipment to keep him alive, but he was not carryin a porta-toilet or something. So, where did he poop ? How ? And how did he cook the food he brought along ?

But what I find most astonishing is the passage of time. 500 days is almost 2 years. He spends a lof of that time travelling, and completing all sorts of tasks. Its easy to say 100 days of travel. But Mars has a barren crust, its the same shade of red everywhere. 100 days of travelling through it is not at all easy, with no one to talk to, and having to be alert all the time. At some point, one will at least think of giving it all up. But not Mark.

Anyway, despite all of this, the book is still a good read. The epilogue in the movie is missing in the book. It ends with Mark’s rescue from the planet. Science, technology, humany ingenuity and persistence, this is what the story is about.

Now that I finished reading it, I am going to leave it on the train tomorrow. For someone else to enjoy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Winter in the city

Brrr…Chilling out there. Today the whole city was covered in a thick layer of mist. Only the bottom few storeys of each high-rise was visible. Checked the temperature; 5 degrees! Haven't seen these temperatures outside for the last...well..many years. That was when I was in Europe, where it went below zero in the winter. 5 degrees is what they call spring time. I started recalling the tricks we used to use during those frigid European winters, heaters on, warm fluids. Even the fill-the-warm-water-bottle-under-bed hack.

It is good to be away from the heat, though we still do get some sun, but its not that harsh. That was really missing in Europe, the winters there are long and dark. Even at peak noon, the sky just turns a little light blue. And for the rest of the day, it remains dark. Street lights are on all day. In office all the blinds were down, otherwise you just wouldn't feel like working. I used to carry a torch to use near my apartments back then.

So this is what a Melbourne winter feels like. I think I am going to enjoy the next few months.

The Post. Relevant, but boring.

 

Yes. The 2017 movie. Directed by 'Sir' Steven Spielberg. Starring 'Sir' Tom Hanks, and that lady who has all the oscar nominations. I finally got around to watching it. Been very busy lately. And finally got a good print. This movie was tipped to win at least a few oscars. Ended up winning none.

I could see why it did not win the best picture or director awards. But I could not see why it did not win anything at all.

This has to be the most...hmm...boring Spielberg movie I have watched. No offense, but it is not the kind of subject matter young movie goers would want to watch nowadays. But it discussed a very relevant topic, that of the freedom of the press. That of accountability of the government to the people. This is a serious topic which will be discussed for generations yet to come.

Inspite of being boring, I loved it. It has the Spielberg stamp everywhere, in the direction, photography, the way people react, even lense flares. Yes, there is a scene when a kid runs across the street and there is a lense flare in the pan. There are some nice dialogues, and good charachters . Hanks again plays a nice guy,that guy can NEVER play a baddie. There is tension in the scenes, short war scene in the beginning was unexpected. And has great music. And since its a speilberg movie, you know that it will have a happy ending. The press wins, and there is a moment of triumph, highlighted by John Williams music. "The press was to serve the governed. Not the governors". That scene.

But the thing that kept bothering me the whole time was that, I felt they chose to tell the wrong story. It was not the Washington Post, but the New York Times which broke the story of the Pentagon papers. I really really really wanted to know how they did it. How did they research the material for over 3 months, and ultimately took the decision to publish it. Who where those charachters, what all did they stand to gain from it. How did the , allegedly, 'Failing New York Times' discuss their options and take the risk of going against their Federal government. And how did they react when a case was filed against them.

And , who the hell delivered that shoe box of copies to the post ? Was it somebody from NYT ?

But instead, we see a story of another press trying to keep up in the competition. And then alloting a lot of time to discuss the legal repercussions of what they are about to do. Not bad, but there is hardly anything happening there. At some point this movie was more about lawyers than about reporters. And the whole dull lighting and grey-color palette was off.

Today the media has a more active and faster role in spreading information, people no longer wait for their morning newspapers. They get it fresh off the internet, often spreading it via posts and likes. In the past few years there have been numerous instance of media barons NOT doing their jobs, or simply overdoing them. Spreading news without indpendently verifying them. The media back home in my my country are notorious for over dramatizing events and discussing non-relevant topics just for the airtime. So watching the story of people responsible in The Post thinking ten times before publishing underscores the roles reporters play in modern democracy. Yes, they have the freedom. But then they also have the responsibilty of reporting it neutrally, without taking any sides.

So do watch how they did it at the Post.