Antarctica is – like all of his other novels – unique in his oeuvre: Robinson never writes the same book twice.

At first sight it is a blend of near future adventure thriller, historical report, political treatise and landscape travelogue. But when I looked closer, rereading the parts I had highlighted to possibly quote here, it slowly dawned on me: this is KSR’s big epistemic novel. It is epistemology that subtly & cleverly holds together the different themes of this book: storytelling, imagination, science, ethics, politics, economics, the reality of nature.

As such, it might be the richest book Robinson has written – at least from an philosophical point of view. Robinson convincingly ties utopia and science together once and for all: this is no scifi, but realistic fiction about the essence & scope of science.

More on that after the jump.

(...)

Full 5000-word analysis on Weighing a Pig Doesn't Fatten It ( )

It was a very entertaining read with themes close to my heart: dealing with overpopulation, and gotterdammerung capitalism. ( )

I hate the word "relevant/premonitory" when applied to SF. It seems a horribly pessimistic idea that we can only relate to things that are right in front of us or directly to do with us and our own tribe or corner of the world rather than just relating to a shared experience of being human. I´m not an Argentinian but I love Borges and Cortázar. I never grew up in the post-revolutionary USSR but I love the work of Andrey Platonov. Ditto with Iceland in the 1900s and Halldor Laxness´s “Independent People”. They´re relevant to me because they describe the experience of being humans. All books, no matter how contemporary, will one day be set in "the past". All books will one day describe a world that no longer exists. Re-reading for example "Lanark" by Alasdair Gray, somewhat closer in time and geography to my own upbringing at the British Council, I was struck by how that too is set in, both in terms of actual setting and in its mental landscape and attitudes, a Scotland that has now largely passed into myth just as much as the Scotland of clans and crofters and clearances had before it. Our world, or rather our worlds, our individual experiences and memories and perceptions that mold our realities, are always doomed to oblivion, even if the physical places survive. That´s what I like about “Antarctica” - it preserves these individual slices of worlds from being forgotten, at least for a little while, before climate change changes it forever.

For me, that´s where the relevance of SF comes from and it´ll remain relevant as long as humans still exist. I think people will always want to read about the past - people haven't stopped reading Dickens or Jane Austen, Shakespeare or Graham Greene because the world they describe has largely disappeared. The human conflicts and dramas they describe are as relevant as ever. So, even if our world changes beyond recognition - some people will still read books, and mostly they'll read the new stuff, the stuff that hasn't been written yet, but a few people will read the old books like “Antarctica”, because we all want to be Wade (one of the characters in the novel) and not because they are relevant, but because they're good. Unfortunately, I had to go back to one of Stanley Robinson’s earlier ones to recover the feeling that he can still write good SF. Will people read Stanley Robinson in the future…? Who knows? What I do know is that “Antarctica” is his best work so far.



SF = Speculative Fiction.

Book Review SF = Speculative Fiction ( )

Decent enough yarn that's packed full of jargon that you'll be Googling to find out what it is! ( )

I quite enjoyed this novel about living and working in the hostile environment of Antarctica, but came into it with some wrong expectations. Having read a number of Robinson's other fiction works, I was expecting there to be some elements of fantastical or scientific fiction, and kept anticipating something along those lines to happen. ( )

This is the most perfect novel by KSR that I've read. The Mars books and Galileo's dream were more ambitious and perhaps achieved more but at the cost of some flaws. That often seems to happen when writers really reach out and try to grasp something big and complicated but I would encourage them to try it anyway...however Antarctica tackles a fair bit and succeeds every which way I look at it: narrative drive, characterisation, subtext, prose style (apart from an occassional jarring line here and there).

Weird things are happening in Antractica: robberies, hijackings. Senator Chase's aide Wade is sent South to find out what is going on and so an adventure starts... As is usual for KSR, the story is told as a patchwork of perspectives from diverse utterly convincing characters. Sometimes this leads to problems of pacing and digression, but not here. A whirlwind tour of Antarctica, a cold weather adventure and some real surprises are mixed with tales of the (human) history of the continent and the usual concern for the environment, in a scenario that is all to plausible a view of the near future where the Antarctic Treaty has broken down and mineral exploitation is in the exploratory phase.

KSR went to Antarctica and saw much of what he describes first hand - he describes it vividly and with proper awe. Few people writing today can describe landscape and its effect on people who live in it as well as KSR consistently does let alone with as much appreciation of its fragility and importance or concern for its imperilled future.

And of course, here Kim is making the same points he does elsewhere with regard to ecology, sustainability, population, corporations, co-operation and self-interest. It's not subtle but it isn't detrimental to a good story, either.

One of the characters is a Chinese feng shui expert who wrote minimalist poems in response to a previous visit to the cold continent. Some of these appear at the head of chapters and they get better as one progresses through the book. My favourite is:

white white white
white green white
white white white

which, in context, is a delight.

I'm not sure how well known it is that this book precedes the Forty, Fifty, Sixty series: it's miles better than any of those and all of them taken together, too. Read this one if you like KSR, cold weather or survival tales. ( )

Almost every time I read a KSR book, I'm either awestruck, amazed at the scope, or I have to say something silly like, "Every time I read a KSR book, it's the favorite book I've read by him!"

Well, guess what?

Seriously, though, this one has the added distinction of KSR actually having been to Antarctica, and plot aside, the descriptions of the 60 below landscape, the problems associated with long hikes or just plain living there at all, makes this one of the most vivid novels he's ever written. This is quite aside from the Mars Trilogy, as good as it was. This one obviously hits closer to home, with all our crazy and screwed-up personages making yet another mess of things.

Because, let's face it, no nation or corporation has a good track record when it comes to reckless greed, fear of the upcoming energy crisis, or just not giving a shit because "things are bad everywhere". What does this mean for Antarctica? For those oil deposits? Or every nation capable of staging an end-run around the international treaty? A treaty unenforced and possibly unenforceable?

It brings up other familiar topics from KSR's other books as well. Ecology is a big one. Antarctica is the last clean place on Earth. It's rough on us and that's the main reason why, but you and I both know that where there's a will, there's a way. But there are also people willing to fight for the love they have for the place, and this is their novel. The fighting isn't really done with guns, but there *IS* ecoterrorism going on. There are also some rather awesome ways of living with zero-impact on the continent. Political and economic ideas that deal with the full problem. And characters that immerse us readers fully in this gorgeous, stark landscape.

I totally recommend this novel for anyone in love with cold adventures. It's full of history and the present and has a strong eye to the future, in every aspect. Now it's time to close my mouth. Snow is getting in. ( )

Wow. It took me forever to get through this. Yes, there's some good description of Antarctica, but it's not great. As far as plot though- I mean, I'm 60% through the novel before a plot begins. And it always seems to be promising something significant...only to pull that away from you at the last moment to replace it with something incredibly boring. Yes, the author obviously did good research and even was in Antarctica to get everything accurate, but...

The Worst Journey in the World is mentioned numerous times in this book. If you want interesting reading about a harrowing story in Antarctica, with descriptions of what it's actually like there, read the original. ( )

I was all ready to give this book 3 stars, until the actual story ended and the author decided to lecture us for the next 150 pages. It left me "cold". ( )

On paper, 'Antarctica' looked like the sort of book I could really enjoy. A near-future political thriller and climate change treatise set on a continent I've long been fascinated by, written by an author well-known for his immersive and meticulously researched future settings? Yes, please.

Unfortunately, 'Antarctica' also happens to be one of the most boring books I have ever read.

Any interest I had in the book's intriguing premise and setting was quickly evaporated by the flat characters, pedestrian prose and a meandering plot that was much too thin to justify the massive page-count. I can deal with boring characters in a fast-paced, action-packed story, workman-like prose doesn't bother me much if I'm immersed in the story and characters, and I love lengthy, meandering doorstoppers when done well - but combine the three, and you have a recipe for self-inflicted literary torture.

Set roughly ten or twenty years after the book's publication (which was 1997), 'Antarctica' takes place on, er, Antarctica, where the various research stations on the continent have evolved into permanent settlements, the biggest being McMurdo Station, where most of the protagonists reside. While the main goal of the communities is still scientific research, there are also recreations of famous Antarctic expeditions for tourists, and a population of "natives" who have an apparent terrorist faction that rob a transport... thing at the start of the book.

The characters are... well, honestly I can't remember them all too well. There's X, a very boring and nondescript man who Wikipedia describes as "an idealistic young man working as a General Field Assistant at McMurdo", but I can't recall much about him that could be described as remotely idealistic. There's also his ex-girlfriend, Valerie, a tour guide who spends much of the book trapped in the Antarctic wilderness with some truly hateable tourists, Wade Norton, an assistant to an environmentally-conscious US Senator, who visits McMurdo Station on his boss's account, and an Asian "Feng shui" expert who monologues on and on and on about nothing for pages at a time.

The first half of 'Antarctica" is easily the worst, mostly since not a whole lot happens. X is present at the robbery in the book's first chapter, but after that the characters spend a long time going from place to place, arguing a bit, while the author exposits about the history and geography of the continent. The factual information about Antarctica can often be quite interesting, but would have been much better if integrated into a story where things happen.

After the half-way point, the book does improve somewhat, as the actual plot begins and the protagonists are faced with some genuine danger and conflict. Valerie, the feng-shui guy, and her too-dumb-too-live tourists have to battle for survival in increasingly harsh conditions, and X and Wade have to deal with power-outages in various stations caused by the mystery terrorists. While I was relieved that there was finally stuff happening, by this point I had long stopped caring and had been forcing myself from page to page.

By the end, things rapidly go downhill again, with the final chapter or two devoted to a succession of lengthy speeches by various characters, which I think were intended to be deep and thought-provoking but mostly just came across as preachy at best and utterly banal at worst. Then the book blessedly comes to an end.

I really wanted to like 'Antarctica', but I, er, did not. Were I not going through a phase of stubbornly finishing every book I started, I would have put this one down well before the half-way mark. In hindsight, I probably should have, as I wasted months pushing through this dull, dull novel when I could have read about ten good books in the same time period.

'Antarctica' isn't terrible by any means, it is just very, very boring. And, really, that is a far worse sin. ( )

An interesting history and vision of the future of the ice continent. ( )

My reactions to reading this novel in 1998. Spoilers follow. This book is very similar in plot and themes to Robinson’s Mars trilogy. Set in some unstated year of the early 21st century, it features few sf trappings – wrist phones, parkas and tents covered in photovoltaic cells, blimps in Antarctica, and the expiration of the Antarctic treaty.

Like the Mars trilogy, this novel is concerned with the ownership and use of wilderness area (here the continent of Antarctica). This novel and the Mars trilogy feature radical environmentalists. In the Mars books it was the reds. Here it is an anonymous group of “ecoteurs”. Both works seem, especially this novel, to endorse a high-tech nomadism. Here the ferals live off Antarctica – though they are not self-sufficient and know it. A major plot element of both is the formation of political agreements, whether Martian constitutions or suggestions for Antarctic treaties. Both feature chapter titles taken from science, the landscape, and history. (In both works, Robinson shows an intimidating knowledge – it doesn’t seem to be the sort of glib fakery of a day spent with reference books – of literature, music, and history.) Both works end with the forging of a new political order.

Literarily, Robinson is as impressive here as in his Mars works. He writes relatively long books with, condensed to their bare minimums, plots much more bare and sparse than, say, the shorter novels of S. A. Swann. Yet, he makes these books page turners of the highest order. That achievement is all the more impressive given how much of these works are devoted to descriptions, compelling descriptions, of landscape. In a largely urban genre, Robinson is the great wilderness writer. (Clifford D. Simak would be an exception, but his landscape description are not as evocative as his descriptions of rural characters though his books often describe a rural environment that matches my experience.)

His Mars was as accurate as science could describe it – though he created a terraformed Mars that exists in his imagination. His imagined planetscapes are more evocative than old pulp sf adventures on exotic planets. Of course, Antarctica is a real place, and Robinson went there, and, in a very good travelogue with no pictures, described a place that has long fascinated me. Robinson’s ability to weave a compelling narrative out of landscape descriptions, interior monologues, ruminations an art and history and literature, is amazing. I think a glimpsed a bit more of his technique this time.

One is the introduction of many viewpoint characters with long interior monologues which serve to make exposition of plot, background, and philosophy. Intimidating Val the Mountineer is mainly there for landscape descriptions, Wade and X for political and social expositions, Ta Shu (who I didn’t mind despite him being a master of the silly art of fengshi) for philosophy and poetry. History and speculations melds with characterization. (Geologist Forbes – I loved the geology here – has a brief bit as a viewpoint character to not only show something about Antarctic’s past but the philosophy and politics of science.) Landscape descriptions serve as metaphors and Rohrshach tests of psyche and character.

As always, Robinson has a wonderful way of evoking science for metaphors to explore society and history. (He even uses some of the same turns of phrase as in the Mars trilogy.) Both works feature sometimes antagonistic parties coming together to form a new, utopian order. We see the viewpoint of each and see the validity of those views. I suspect Robinson’s study of Philip K. Dick probably contributed to this empathy and skill of characterization. (Though Republicans come off as merely, occasionally, tolerable and have nothing to contribute.)

Robinson’ Blue Mars was the best utopia I’ve read in terms of its seeming plausibility and literary qualities. This is less of a utopian work for two reasons. First, Robinson is not creating a new social and political order for millions on a whole world as in his Mars trilogy. Here he suggest his Antarctic society of a few thousand can point the way to a new sociopolitical, economic order. Second, because of its nearness in space and time to us, I suspect more of Robinson’s personal politics showed through in this book. Granted the megacorporations – alleged by Robinson to be a form of feudalism – are the villains in both works and comit more on-stage atrocities here than in the Mars works, yet they seem, paradoxically, more shrilly denounced here. (You can say this is just Senator Phil Chase and his aide Wade Norton, but it’s not a view contradicted – and is reinforced by other characters.)

Like good sf stories, this one begs to have its ideas discussed as well as its literary virtues. Robinson, in his Mars trilogy, makes similar accusations against the modern world and proposes similar solutions. Robinson sees modern corporate capitalism as feudalism polluting the Earth and soul-killing in the work it demands (type and amount) and its insecurity. Furthermore, lesser developed nations are impoverished by these same corporations. I first thought, after reading the Mars trilogy, that Robinson was a Marxist. I think, after reading this novel, that Robinson is probably one of those progressives who thinks there is a third way between capitalism and collectivism. Both works feature the same solution: an economic order of worker co-operatives with the land held communally, a political order of democracy seemingly tempered by individuals with enough charisma to have de facto if not de jure veto power. Such an order is probably workable – for awhile at least (after all, the USSSR lasted about 70 years) and, as Robinson points out (Basque co-ops are mentioned here and all sorts of social experiments in the Mars trilogy), parts have been tired elsewhere if not the whole system. But is such an order sustainable and and/or desireable?

First, I don’t buy all Robinson’s criticisms of capitalism. Capitalist societies have better environmental records than allegedly scientifically planned societies like the USSR and China. (Robinson glosses over Chinese tyrannies in Ta Shu’s ode to Chinese family planning). The poor southern countries have never really tried capitalism. Also, it’s hard to imagine corporations in a successful overt or self-organizing conspiracy to crush alternative economic arrangements. After all, entrprenaurship and self-employment are on the rise. Corporations spend a lot of capital to crush each other. However, Robinson does have a couple of valid points. First is the fascist like cooperation between by business and government doing its bidding. Second, the career and psychological headaches caused by corporations constanting downsizing and reorganizing to satisfy stockholders. (However, common people reap the advantage of increasing stock values.) That problem would be partly saved by a structure of co-ops have worked – in a limited way – in the real world. However, some ventures need a lot of capital, more than employees may be able to raise. Also, what happens when worker is more ambitious in expanding the business and profits? Not every co-op would suceed – not every need a business seeks to fill is a need by the public. What happens to the workers, the capital lost? Would they become employees?

The notion of communal land ownership has many flaws. Robinson’s whole society is plagued by some basic facts of human society. Some people have a will to power or create/exhibit/showoff by acquiring more than they need. Capitalism, as one of its virtues, takes these potentially destructive ends and tries to harness them for the general good. If they are allowed to succeed, they will become more powerful, egalitarianism is doomed, free capital is borne. If they are not allowed, the inefficiency of collectivism results. (Robinson’s feral society of nomads is shown, in this novel, to be spreading beyond Antarctica with the balloon nomads of New Zealand.) Robinson also commits the old and classic sin of progressives: alleging society can be scientifically planned by technocrats. (An old sf notion rarely attacked except in Vernor Vinge’s The Peace War.) This has failed in socialist countries. No committee can get enough information fast enough to manage society. (Robinson seems unaware that the principle of self-organization works in economics.) Indeed, Robinson claims science is the enemy of capitalism. But science can only advise a society, not form its ethics. There is the moral problem of a few deciding what a rewarding life is and who is to lead it. Science can only objectively describe the world, not judge the value of human wants and desires. (Though Robinson is right in that science can, sometimes, show the results of certain acts.) Science is a human enterprise. Its process can tame and curb baser desires (true capitalism and a rule of law can do the same) like will to power, deceit, jealousy, envy.) but not eliminate them. Scientists are not saints by virtue of their job. Robinson seems to think that the spiritual love of the wilderness and planet Earth will be a sufficient spiritual/religious basis for his new order. But not everyone wants to be a nomad. Not everyone can be talked into sharing – even if its for their own good.

Robinson makes the classic utopian error of creating a good world by everyone being rational (according to a narrow definition, that is all agreeing on what is good), agreeing on values and being unrealistically selflfess. Still, I loved this novel. I’ve long had an interest in polar exploration, and it was nice to have the historical bits on South Pole exploration. Here they serve the same mythological function as the First Hundred did in the Mars trilogy. ( )

It happened again: I tried to read a Kim Stanley Robinson novel and put it down before I was halfway through. Don't take that as a bad review, though, or let it put you off picking up the book yourself. You should pick up Antarctica, at least to try: It's packed with atmospheric writing, details of life on the ice, and glimpses into the history of polar exploration . . . not to mention a plot involving ecoterrorism, international relations, really bad weather, and intrigue both personal and political.

If all that sounds interesting, you'll probably love it. Most people who've read it seem to. There's just something about me and Kim Stanley Robinson.

For some reason that I can't even come close to understanding, I cannot get engrossed in his novels. I've tried four times now: Forty Signs of Rain, Years of Rice and Salt, Red Mars, and now Antarctica -- and every damn time I've bounced off. I start out full of anticipation, not to mention determination that this time will be different, and somewhere around page 100 (or 50 or 300) I start to slog, picking up the book because I feel like I should, not because I want to. I'm never actively bored by Robinson's novels . . . never annoyed by the unrealistic behavior of the characters . . . never put off by the writing (either because it's clumsy or because it's self-consciously flashy). It's just that, somewhere along the line, I stop caring whether I read the next chapter.

So I'm done trying Kim Stanley Robinson, and trying to figure out why I don't enjoy his books when everything about them says I should. He's got enough fans that he won't miss one extra, and life is too short to read -- for fun, anyway -- books you don't care about. ( )

Sometimes I wonder if I have read the same book as other people! That is obviously the reason there are so many books out there... so everyone will find something they like.

For me this was a fantastic book. It had poetry, geography, geology, history, adventure, espionage - everything. ( )

Robinson's fictional take on the environmental issues surrounding a potential non-renewal of the Antarctic Treaty System, which sets aside Antarctica as a scientific preserve, establishes freedom of scientific investigation and bans military activity on that continent. (Wikipedia, 2011). This is typical Robinson, full of ideas but rather infuriating to read because of how he does go on (and on) to make his points, but for those with an interest in the continent, it's got a lot to offer. Robinson spent time there as part of the U.S. Antarctic Program's Artists and Writers' Program. ( )

This novel is filled with plenty of interesting information about Antarctica, the history of exploration there and the geology and geography of the continent, the author is clearly well read on this subject. A lot of detail is provided and I found this distracting at times and some times patronising, but this style may suit others. There is also a concentration on the technicalities of life in Antarctica and how people move around and survive in this environment. I found the lack of back-up for a tour group unlikely in that difficult environment, which made the tale seem implausible. An easy and distracting read and good to gen up on some history. ( )

This is one of my favorite books ever. ( )

Superb. A real tour-de-force in near future SF combined with a very vividly described love of the outdoors.

Set in 2013 (never explicitly stated, but "two years after the end of the Antarctic treaty" defines it precisely), it was written in '97 shortly after KSRs own trip to the Antarctic. One of the main problems with near future SF is in predicting the level of technology available. KSR has doen well here with minimal advances, the always connected society of true view glasses, and GPS seems very likely, smart fabric with solar powered features, again is only just around the corner. Even the laser ice borers could be within out grasp. the political situation is also very probable. With the expiration of the current treaty, renewing it will be held up for years as various factions attempt to gain permissions for oil and gas extraction. Tourist trips also impinge on the formerly pristine environment.

We follow a few dedicated antarcticans over the space of a week or so, with a few paragraphs of flashback as they mull over why they are in this most inhospitable region. Val is a tour guide leading packs of "we're so hard" tourists coddled in the latest technology as they try and recreate the truly epic efforts of the original explorers. Wade - and aide to senator Phil Chase - as he explores what is happening in antarctica and whether he can use it to make political points and maybe even influence events. And X nicknamed so for being extralarge, a general service assistant strangely naive and also full of social science background. Insightful inserts come in the form of commentary from Xu who is a geomancy studying the antarctic for the billions of chinese who will never visit it.

It is the characters who are perhaps the least convincing of all the writing. Val the very compitent guide suddenly suffers a major personallity reversal, X becomes infused with social science etc however overal it works well. The landscape descriptions and technical details are very real, anybody who's spent any time outdoors will appreciate the vivid imagery and the hardships. The other disappointment perhaps is the very utopian and naive ending, after all the superb and realistic events and interactions it seems somewhat unlikely that sucj a disparete group will manage to formulate a new Antarctic treaty acceptible to all of them let alone the megacorporations baying for the chance to make money.

Overall it is fascinating, the landscape carrys the plot and you can feel KSRs real love for bing outdoors. Superb SF. ( )

I tremendously enjoyed the Mars Trilogy by KSR, so I was looking forward to this book. And I was not disappointed. The novel is set in the near future in Antarctica (duh!). The stage is set by some mysterious events on the icy continent that could be linked to ecological terrorism or sabotage (aka ecotage). A US senator's aide is sent to investigate. Along the way we meet various, not quite indigenous, characters and observe their lives and reasons for being there. At the same time, many pages are devoted to the description of the landscape and its barren beauty. This trait is in common KSR's Mars books and would remind me of the long-winded descriptions of Tolkien had the difference in the objects of description not been so great. The resolution is similar in tone to the constitutional congress in the middle of the Mars Trilogy.

The biggest detraction from this book, I find, is the annoying, self assured Feng Shui expert. Robinson takes this character way too seriously. ( )

Very enjoyable near future speculative fiction! I was drawn into the exciting storyline, felt for the believeable characters, and was excited by the presentation of plausible cultural shifts. A few of the "lecture-like" passages slowed the pace down a bit much at times, but overall a strong recommend. ( )

It took a long time to get going, but once it got there, it was really good.
A senator's aide is sent to Antarctica to investigate some strange goings-on, and ends up caught up in same.
Lots of info about Antarctica and speculation about it's future in our current climate of "wait and see what happens to the environment."
Goes well with the trilogy of 40/50/60 - shares some of the same characters (Phil Chase, Wade Norton).

Not my favorite KSR (that's Red Mars), but a good read. I had started it years ago, but while waiting on the paperback of 60, I picked it up again and finished it. I'm glad I did. ( )

http://tamaranth.blogspot.com/1999/01/antarctica-kim-stanley-robinson.html ( )

Interesting read from the author of the Mars trilogy ( )

Cool details on Antarctica both today and historically. Robinson spent
time in Antarctica researching for this book and really brings it to
life.

Add in a bit of a utopian secret society and it brings some nice spice to the plot. I really enjoyed it.

If you hate environmental descriptions and political tinkering, this is not a book for you.