"Mars" by Ben Bova (1992)

"'Yes!  Because we have to.  The human race has to.  We're explorers, Tony.  All of us.  Even you; it's what brought you here.  It's built into our blood, into our brains.  That's what science is all about.  Human beings have to learn, have to search and seek and explore.  We need to, just like a flower needs water and sunlight.  It's what made our ancestors move out of Africa and spread all across the Earth.  Now we'll spread all across the solar system and someday we'll start to move out to the stars.  You can't stop that, Tony.  Nobody can.  It's what makes us human.'"

Mars is part of Bova's "Grand Tour" series.  Mercury, a later entry in this same series, was also reviewed here.  SPOILER ALERT: don't read (or read about) Mercury if you want to be surprised by Mars.  Many of the plot points in Mars are described or alluded to by characters in Mercury.

So without revealing too much, I can say that Mars details the first manned mission to that planet.  A multinational crew of astronauts is sent there for a period of two months, during which - you guessed it - they make a startling discovery.

Much of the action in this novel revolves around Jamie Waterman, a half "white," half Navajo member of the crew.  The earliest chapters in this book flash between his arrival on Mars and his pre-flight training on Earth, with particular attention paid to the politics behind their mission.  During later chapters the author moves on to both the interpersonal struggles of the crew members, and - you guessed it - that startling discovery.

In many ways this book is like the mirror image of Bova's Mercury.  Mars features a large cast of characters where Mercury only features a few.  Mars is a long novel where Mercury is short.  Mars focuses on scientific accuracy where Mercury focuses on characters.  And while Mars is far from bad, I think the facets of Mercury listed above make for a much stronger book.  Mercury is a lot more focused than its earlier counterpart, and a lot of the story in Mars is smothered beneath unimportant details.  Most of the characters in Mars also remain ciphers, with many of their "flaws" seemingly added on as an afterthought.

Mars also features a very ridiculous subplot concerning the Vice President.  Her actions - both public and private - are implausible in the extreme, and the novel concludes without really tying up her particular plot thread.  I get that she was included to flesh out the political dimensions of the Mars mission, but her machinations add little to the story.

So will I be continuing my "grand tour?"  Not in the near future, though at some point I may seek out Ben Bova again.  I think he's a very competent writer, though his misfires may cancel out his successes.  As said elsewhere, he's written a ton of books, and many of them are probably very good.

Thoughts on Marvel's The Defenders

It is now time to binge-watch Marvel's The Defenders!  Let's get down to it!

1. Hype?

We'll see how it goes.  At this point I'm far less excited about The Defenders than I would have been a year ago.  Since the first season of Daredevil it's been a barrage of hallway fights, dudes walking down alleyways, and boardroom confrontations.  I'm not really looking to this series for any kind of resolution because a) at this point any kind of satisfactory resolution would be impossible, and b) you know they already have more shows planned, right?  Why would they kill the golden goose?

But maybe, just maybe I'll have the chance to watch Jessica Henwick jump around in yoga pants again.  Damn, girl...

Episode 1

2. Off to a good start.

Danny and Colleen fight a mystery assailant in Cambodia.  Matt Murdock tries to put his career as Daredevil behind him.  Luke Cage gets out of prison and tries to help his community.  Jessica Jones tracks down a missing husband.  The transitions between the various characters are handled well, and this episode goes by quickly.

Sigourney Weaver really elevates this series.  She's already a far more interesting villain than her boring henchwoman, Madame Gao.  I'm only hoping the next episode has more action.

Pause for lunch!

Episode 2 

3. Stick! 

Charlie Cox/Daredevil continues to be the most interesting actor/character in the Marvel Netflix series, and Finn Jones/Iron Fist continues to be the least interesting.  This episode is good, and it was nice to see Luke Cage and Iron Fist finally face off.

And hey there's Stick talking with Alexandra.  Hopefully Scott Glenn pops up again later.

Episode 3

4. So that's what this "Black Sky" thing is.  Kind of a letdown after all that buildup in Daredevil.

The conversation between Luke Cage and Danny Rand in this episode is ridiculous.  Bringing the "Black Lives Matter" vibe into this show feels forced.  Danny and Luke would have had to interact more to have that conversation.  As it is they're in way too much of a hurry to resort to racial stereotypes.

The part of this show when Danny goes to "confront" The Hand is very silly, but it leads to a good fight scene.

5. Iron Fist?

It's been a season already.  Couldn't they have thought of some way to make the Iron Fist look cooler?  I mean it's just a glowing hand.  Not particularly threatening.  Fire?  Smoke?  I think this show probably had the budget.

Episode 4

6. Yawn.

Talky and boring.  Stick shows up in the Chinese restaurant and does a really shitty job of explaining everything, then three of the four Defenders basically take his word for it.

And why, exactly, does Jessica feel the need to crash the car through the window?

Episode 5

7. Why is it that characters in movies and TV series never think that people who've lost their memories won't recover them?  Don't they watch movies and TV series?

8. ???

So... instead of bringing Colleen to the emergency room they bring her to the... police station?

Colleen is, by the way, a really difficult character to sympathize with.  She spends a lot of time mourning the loss of her cult.  I get that she's having an identity crisis, but when ninjas are involved her "issues" just make her look like a crybaby.

This thing where the Japanese member of The Hand conducts monologues in Japanese while the others comment in English is getting really, really irritating.

9. Finally some real violence.

That beheading near the end there was not bad.  You'd think that with all the people carrying swords we would have seen a dismemberment much earlier in the series?

Pause for dinner! 

Episode 6

10. The Marvel Syndrome?

Alexandra and her inner circle are becoming increasingly generic villains.  This series would have been a lot better if they had been either genuinely threatening, sympathetic in some manner, or both.

And that twist at the end?  Weak.  However this plays out, I'm starting to feel like the writers of this show failed to understand Elektra as a character.  I'm not trying to be one of those "just like the comics" guys, but there's a point beyond which a character becomes unrecognizable as that character.  Elektra in this series is a case in point.

Episode 7

11. Double yawn.

So she's the bad guy now?  Uh... ok.  That sure came outta nowhere.

I tell ya, I'm really looking forward to the last episode.  So much talking and so little fighting.  Who are these people?  And why are they doing what they're doing?

Episode 8

12. Fight!

So much fighting.  Matt fights Elektra.  Luke and Jessica fight ninjas.  Danny fights Madame Gao.  Colleen fights that teacher guy from The Hand.  Kicking, and punching, and throwing, and slashing.  But most of the fighting is in a very dark place, and most of the fighting doesn't feel very exciting.

I'm really not buying Luke Cage's acceptance of their "plan."  Based on what we've seen so far, I'm really not buying him being cool with SO MUCH death and destruction.  For that matter, I'm not seeing Jessica buying into their plan, either.  That's vigilantism on a whole other level, and their rationale for doing what they do sounds like it might have come from the Al-Qaeda handbook.

And why in the fuck did XXXX have to sacrifice XXXXself in the end?  Why not just have Luke, Jessica, or Danny knock XXXX out?

The Final Verdict:

Pretty boring this one.  Instead of a grand finale, it feels more like a retread of things that were better in earlier series.  The characterization is a mess, and the fight scenes are only slightly better than those seen in Luke Cage and Iron Fist.  All in all better than the previous two Netflix series, but not by much.

This, and no Jessica Henwick in yoga pants.  LAME.

As for me, I think I'll wait to read the reviews before I watch any of the future Marvel Netflix shows.  The Punisher interests me, but if I hear that it's a watered down version of that character I might just give it a pass.

Other Entries on the Marvel Netflix Shows:

Thoughts on Marvel's Iron Fist
Marvel, DC, and Live-Action TV
Marvel's Jessica Jones
Thoughts on Daredevil Season 2
Thoughts on Marvel's Luke Cage

Ten Good Bad Movies

Bad movies can be great.  Sometimes a truly bad movie is better than the best good movie.  Many of my favorite movies are also very bad.

1. Samurai Cop (1991)

Buddy cop movie directed (and written!) by an Iranian guy with a less-than-optimal understanding of English.  The acting is wonderfully terrible, the fight scenes are shoddily done, and some of the samurai cop's more verbose moments are sure to make you smile.  A "WTF movie" if there ever was one.

Oh, and I've seen the sequel too.  It makes about as much sense as the first one, but it lacks the low budget charm of its predecessor.

2. The Room (2003)

"Oh hey Mark!"  This is the gold standard of bad movies - so bad that they made another movie about how bad this movie really is.

Your first watch is bound to be cringe-inducing, but by the second or third watch you'll be quoting it to family and friends.  It was probably made on a budget of $20 and a pack of cigarettes, and features abominable acting, a plot that makes little sense, and a creepy "boy neighbor." 

3. Deathsport (1977)

70s barbarian motorcycle movie starring David Carradine ("Bill" from Kill Bill).  A lot of drugs were involved in the making of this movie, and the ending consists of an almost uninterrupted series of explosions. 

One of the best/worst things about this movie is the dialogue.  It transforms what would have been a boring low budget picture into something WEIRD.  It's kind of like a high-brow science fiction film and a 70s TV pilot had a bastard child that loved loud noises and flashing lights.

4. Basket Case (1982)

The number of times I watched this movie as a kid probably explains a lot about me.  Conjoined twins are separated at a young age, and the larger, normal-looking, sane one carries the smaller, weirder-looking, insane one around in a basket.  Thus "Basket Case."

Sites like Rotten Tomatoes actually give this film a decent score, but I think the real reason many of us love this movie is that it's terrible.  A remake would probably do pretty well at the local multiplex. 

5. Showgirls (1995)

Paul Verhoeven's masterpiece of bad film-making.  A young girl (from a troubled home, of course) journeys to Las Vegas to find fame and fortune.

The funniest scene has to be that odd bit of lovemaking in the pool.

6. Network (1976)

Paddy Chayefsky, where are you now?  With all your earnest, embarrassing dialogue, and tropes centered around older men with younger women!  Wikipedia says you died in 1981, and the world is a little poorer for it.

Anyway, if you've ever heard the phrase "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" you can thank Network.  William Holden courts Faye Dunaway, and Peter Finch (who is, in other movies, a great actor) gives his most memorable performance as a TV prophet.  Like other Chayefsky-related productions, it's full of memorable lines and some terrifically bad acting - not that you can blame the actors for that.

If you like this one, I highly recommend 1971's The Hospital, featuring the always-overbearing George C. Scott.

7. Female Trouble (1974) 

Do movies that are intentionally bad count?  I have no doubt that John Waters knew exactly what kind of film he was making, and the fact that his earlier movies still enjoy a lot of underground credibility testifies to this fact.

It's hard to pick a favorite among the early Waters films.  Pink Flamingos, Female Trouble, Desperate Living, and Polyester are all great for different reasons.  I'm picking Female Trouble because it's the movie my family quotes the most often.  "Not on Christmas!  Not on Christmas!"

It's only too bad that Divine is no longer with us.  He/she is sorely missed.

8. Gods of Egypt (2016)

Who says they can't make truly bad movies on a big budget?  Who says all of the truly classic bad movies date back to the previous century?  If I hadn't already mentioned The Room above, I'd be obligated to mention Gods of Egypt.  It's BAD, BAD, BAD.

Partly an attempt at mythology, partly an attempt at superheroes, partly an attempt at "whitewashing," Gods of Egypt is chock full of bad dialogue and worse acting.  It also features some of the worst CGI known to man, and on top of that the plot is nonsense.

Don't worry, Chadwick Boseman.  You're a good enough actor to survive this debacle.  As for the rest of the cast... good luck!

9. Inframan (1975)

Gotta love Inframan.  You can watch the whole thing on YouTube.  Part kung fu movie, part robots vs. monsters, this Hong Kong production is just as awesomely silly now as when it first appeared in theaters.

"Princess Dragon Mom" and her henchmen are bad news, but thankfully we have... Inframan!

10. The Toxic Avenger (1982) 

Like Female Trouble, this one is also intentionally bad.  Also like Female Trouble, I've seen it more times than I can remember.

After being exposed to toxic waste, a high school nerd develops super powers.  My favorite part of this movie is the game his tormentors play early on in the film.  "Double points, my man!"  Great stuff.

Don't bother with the sequels.  They aren't so bad they're good.  They're just so bad they're unwatchable.

"Gods of Mars," "The Warlord of Mars," and Other Things John Carter

John Carter, contending with some of those damn, dirty white apes.

"Presently a cry went up from the section of the stands near by - 'Rise slaves!' 'Rise slaves!' it rose and fell until it swelled to a mighty volume of sound that swept in great billows around the entire amphitheatre."

Edgar Rice Burroughs is best known as the creator of Tarzan.  He grew up in Chicago, and wrote his most famous stories in the early 1900s.  The first of his stories to be published was "Under the Moons of Mars."  Tarzan, his later creation, appeared shortly thereafter.

As the book cover above indicates, I recently read both "The Gods of Mars" and "Warlord of Mars," which together form the second volume in Burroughs' "Barsoom series."  Burroughs chronicled the adventures of John Carter (a.k.a. the "Warlord of Mars") up to 1941.

In The Gods of Mars, John Carter returns to Barsoom (Mars) after a multi-year absence.  He soon finds himself in the clutches of a Martian "goddess" and her fanatical priesthood, which leads to a rebellion against a theocracy that has ruled Mars for countless ages.

The Warlord of Mars (the second half of this book) is a much simpler story.  In this tale John Carter must rescue his lady love Dejah Thoris from a pirate.  In the course of his pursuit he's led on a not-so-merry chase down rivers, through catacombs, and to the remote polar region of Mars.

As you might have guessed from the above descriptions, Burrough's John Carter stories aren't exactly science fiction.  They are instead labeled "science fantasy," though in my opinion placing the "science" before the "fantasy" is being generous.  As an example of world building, the John Carter series is a lot closer to Lord of the Rings than to Foundation, and many - if not all - of John Carter's exploits fly in the face of any scientific understanding of the world(s).  He's a lot closer to sword and sorcery than to science fiction, and many of his adventures hinge upon both a superhuman prowess in battle and an extraordinary series of coincidences.

Dejah Thoris

As his adventures fall firmly within the realm of pulp fiction, it should also come as no surprise that plot holes are a common occurrence.  The thing in The Gods of Mars that struck me most was the length of his imprisonment.  John Carter himself states that he was imprisoned in a dark cell for more than 300 days... and yet after his imprisonment he is in perfect health - able to fight multiple foes at the same time.  How could he have remained sane for all that time, much less healthy?

In Warlord of Mars there is a different problem.  The villains take great pains to explain both their plans and private thoughts at every opportunity, and John Carter, of course, is always there to overhear them.  At a point near the end this tendency toward narration becomes especially ridiculous, and borders on self-parody.

These flaws aside, the influence of these stories on later writers is obvious.  One example is Philip Jose Farmer's World of Tiers series, which shares with Burroughs' stories elements such as a race of immortals controlling a world behind the scenes, "astral" projection between worlds, and a fondness for Wild West tropes.  Yet where Farmer was big on narrative ideas and weak on action, Burroughs is just the opposite.

Robert E. Howard is another example.  I doubt that his Conan (or Kull) stories would have existed in the absence of Burroughs, and Howard in many ways builds upon the template set forth in Burroughs' earlier stories.  In this case, the chief difference is in the character of the protagonists.  John Carter is a romantic where Conan is a brute.  John Carter engages in swordplay where Conan hacks people to pieces.  John Carter pursues love where Conan just fucks.  I hate to say it, but I find Conan a lot easier to relate to, and I think the greater familiarity with Conan speaks to the fact that a lot of other guys feel the same way.

There are also the movie adaptations.  Disney released "John Carter" several years ago, and less reputable sources produced "Princess of Mars," a straight-to-DVD version.  The Disney movie is BORING and could have done with more bloodshed.  The straight-to-DVD version is even worse, but I think Antonio Sabato Jr. and Traci Lords probably look (and act) a lot more like the characters Burroughs imagined.  You can, by the way, watch Princess of Mars in its entirety on YouTube.

Besides movies, the John Carter stories have also been adapted into comic books.  Of these there are many, and some of them are very good.  John Carter even appears in Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and several companies (including Marvel) have offered their versions of the character.

In the books, Dejah Thoris is also (almost) nude.

The Best-Selling Sci-Fi Novels of All Time?

I'm using the list from the Book Haven site.  This seemed like the most reasonable example to me.  Other online lists include books like Lord of the Rings, or present the list entries in a questionable order.  The Book Haven list is of course also open to debate, but given my years (decades!) reading throughout the genre, it seemed like the most reasonable example.

Defining what science fiction is can be tricky.  Is C.S. Lewis's "Space Trilogy" science fiction?  Is Infinite Jest?  Is A Canticle for Leibowitz?  At the end of the day, labels like "science fiction" are always open to debate - no more or less so than labels used for types of music, or food, or cultures.

There is also the question as to what "best-selling" means.  Given that there are more science fiction readers alive now than ever before, should we assign Orson Scott Card precedence over Frederick Pohl?  Or should we adjust the term "best-selling" to account for percentages of the market at any given time?  Surely the influence of certain authors counts for something, and just because Robert Heinlein's sold more books than Jules Verne doesn't mean that he's influenced more people.

1. "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert A. Heinlein

I can't stand Robert Heinlein.  Believe me, I've tried.  He has to be one of the most condescending authors ever, and aside from the usual "space aliens and rocketships" tropes, I've found very little substance in any of his books.

It seems to me that only those who read Heinlein in their youth would be able to develop a fondness for this author.  Anyone else - anyone first exposed to much better science fiction - would probably avoid him. 

2. "Dune" by Frank Herbert

The first novel is fairly overrated, although it was definitely revolutionary for its time.  Some of the later entries in the series are excellent.  I'm a big fan of both Dune Messiah and God Emperor of Dune.  Heretics of Dune is also great, but Dune and Children of Dune are ponderous in the extreme.  And Chapterhouse Dune?  Simply terrible.

If you've read this blog for a while, you're probably aware of my fondness for Frank Herbert.  This is partly due to nostalgia, partly due to his origins in the Pacific Northwest, and partly due to the more interesting entries in his bibliography.

If you've already read through the Dune books, I highly recommend The Godmakers, Soul Catcher, the Eyes of Heisenberg, and Hellstrom's Hive.  Many of the ideas first presented in these non-Dune books were later folded into the Dune series, and a reading of these four novels will enhance your enjoyment of Herbert's best-known series.

One of the strangest things about Frank Herbert is that his WORST novel, The White Plague, seems to be everywhere. 
 

3. "2001: A Space Odyssey" by Arthur C. Clarke

A lot of this book was hammered out in the presence of Stanley Kubrick, while they were putting together the screenplay for the film.  For this reason I don't think you can give Clarke ALL the credit for 2001, though he certainly did most of the heavy lifting.

Despite writing a few crappy books, Clarke refrained from writing any as crappy as the latter entries into Asimov's "I, Robot" series.  He was, generally speaking, a better writer than Asimov, and one of the things I appreciate most about Clarke is his succinctness.  Some of Asimov's later books really feel like he was grinding out his obligation toward a publisher, whereas Clarke, even at his worst, wrote engaging stories that can still be appreciated today.

The three sequels to 2001 are all good.  None of them will blow your mind, but they're all solidly written and very readable.  For Clarke at his best, see entry #9 below.

4. "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams

If you're wondering why people still worship these books, you'll probably also wonder why people like Monty Python and Doctor Who.  They're predicated upon a very British sense of humor, and those with more "American" tastes will be mystified by them.

For my part, I loved all of the books in the series.  Life, the Universe and Everything is my favorite, but I thought they were funny right up to the last book.

I haven't read anything else that Douglas Adams has done.  My impression is that his other novels aren't quite up to the same level?  I could be wrong, but they don't seem to enjoy the same kind of audience.

5. "Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury

Ray Bradbury always struck me as a writer of "serious fiction" trapped in the body of a sci-fi writer.  He'll spend pages waxing poetic over spaceflight, but the stories in which these mini-poems are to be found are all very minimal - little more than outlines.

Is Fahrenheit 451 his best book?  I'm not sure.  It's certainly the best known.  I can remember being unimpressed with it, and both his Martian Chronicles and The Illustrated Man seemed much better at the time. 

6. "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" by Philip K. Dick

Why is this Dick's best-known book?  Because Blade Runner.  Ridley Scott's ode to AI was adapted from Dick's novella.

In a way this is unfortunate because Dick wrote much better stuff.  But then again, I suppose "Do Androids?" is merely an entry point to Dick's catalog, an appetizer if you will, and those seeking true strangeness will find Dick's other books, eventually.

Of all the writers discussed here, PKD (as he is often referred to) is by far the trippiest, and maybe also the best.  His stories of time travel, alien intelligences, and alternate timelines continue to exert a powerful influence over the popular imagination, and it's safe to say that modern science fiction would be much, much poorer without him.

If you want to get WEIRD, I suggest spending a week(end) with his VALIS trilogy.  Fans of more conventional sci-fi will likely prefer novels such as Martian Time Slip and The Man in the High Castle.  Whichever point of entry you chose, it's worth looking over Dick's bibliography beforehand.  He wrote a lot of books, and although none of them are really "bad," many of them are very similar.

7. "The Foundation Series" by Isaac Asimov

Isaac Asimov was a smart guy.  He also wrote some of the most important books in all of science fiction.  I, Robot and the first (published) Foundation book are brilliant, and the only reason these books aren't the source of more films is the fact that they are, for the most part, unfilmable.

Even so, Asimov wrote a lot of crap.  His Foundation series goes downhill fast, and his I, Robot series goes downhill even faster.  Some of these books contain interesting ideas, but these ideas alone aren't enough reason to struggle through most of his novels.

If you really want to know Isaac Asimov, the best way is through the short stories that made him famous.  It's in stories like "Jokester" that Asimov really shines, and I have had ample cause to regret that he gave up short fiction for the more lucrative novel.

8. "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card

Before you embrace Orson Scott Card too enthusiastically, be aware that he is 1) a practicing Mormon, 2) believes that homosexuality should be illegal, and 3) believes in "Intelligent Design" (i.e. the Biblical account of creation).

With this said, I don't think you can always hold every author responsible for every ridiculous thing he or she believes.  Many famous authors were chauvinists, many were racists, and many others also believed that the Bible should be taken literally on all points.  The problem here is that Orson Scott Card is a writer of science fiction, and many (if not all) of the beliefs listed above speak against a scientific understanding of the world.  If you're only after "space aliens and rocketships" this is no problem, but if you're after fiction based on sound, scientific conceptions of the cosmos this is definitely an issue.

For what it's worth, I've read both Ender's Game and its sequel, Speaker for the Dead.  Ender's Game is a fairly competent effort, though Speaker for the Dead is, in my opinion, bad.  I did like Card's take on Iron Man in Ultimate Iron Man, but I can't say that I've bothered to read him since.  To put it simply, there are much better writers out there, and Card's belief system hinders his development beyond the established tropes of the genre.

9. "Childhood's End" by Arthur C. Clarke

This book is fantastic.  It remains one of the best science fiction novels ever written, and displays a level of prose unmatched by anything Clarke did after.  It deserves the praise it has received, and it was written with an economy that few other science fiction writers can match.

10. "Gateway" by Frederick Pohl 

It's been SO long since I've read this book that I can't really say much about it.  I remember reading this and its sequels when I was in elementary school, but my recall of any Frederick Pohl books is sketchy.  Maybe I should read him again?

"Mercury" by Ben Bova (2005)

"When the greenhouse cliff struck so abruptly, flooding coastal cities, collapsing the international electric power grid, wrecking the economy, Earth's governments became repressive, authoritarian.  People who are hungry, homeless, and without hope will always trade their individual liberties for order, for safety, for food.  Ultraconservative religious groups came to power in Asia, the Middle East, even Europe and America; they ruled with an absolute faith in their own convictions and zero tolerance for anyone else's."

Ben Bova has been kicking around the sci-fi world for a LONG time, and I'm a bit surprised it's taken me this long to read one of his books.  He's won the Hugo several times, he was the editor of both Analog and Omni, and he's written more novels than I'd care to count.  At the time of writing he's 85 years old, and his most recent book appeared this year.

His novel "Mercury" forms part of his "Grand Tour" series, which explores the (human) settlement of the solar system.  This series stretches all the way back to 1985, and with new entries published every year or so you can imagine how many there are.

While the plot of this book could be dismissed as "Count of Monte Cristo in space," it's grounded in solid technical details, and written with a good eye for drama.  It's not a stylistic achievement by any means - just a solidly written story of revenge - but Bova's more pedestrian writing style serves the story well.  Certain touches like naming it "Goethe Base" are a little too on the nose, but this is a small complaint.  In the greater scheme of things Mercury builds steadily toward its somewhat ambiguous conclusion.

Of particular note is the disaster that occurs halfway through this novel.  This sequence of events is executed brilliantly, and while reading this part of the book I kept thinking how amazing this sequence would appear on film.

I've already bought Ben Bova's Mars, and plan on reading it soon.  Mercury has been a surprisingly enjoyable read, and I heartily recommend it.