Talk:The Martian (Weir novel)

Influences
Are there not significant plot points in the story that are included in the Red Planet (2000) film? Firstly, the use of an abandoned probe to reestablish communication. Secondly, the use of a abandoned vehicle to escape from the mars orbit to a larger spacecraft. Seems like it would be respectful to the writers of the Red Planet screenplay to acknowledge their influence? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Planet_(film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.40.162 (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ^One of the writers of Red Planet, haha. For real though, no. Unless you have some interview where Weir explicitly states the movie's influence, you're just extrapolating. Dghu123 (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Versions
Apparently the version published by Podium has a different ending. I don't know if all three versions (web site, Kindle, Podioum) are different, or what the change was.

Can someone who knows please update the article? Thanks! 69.219.233.64 (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I also came looking for information on the alternate ending, because of "Completely reperformed by R.C. Bray to match the 2014 Random House release! includes Andy Weir's newly reimagined ending!" at http://www.audible.com/pd/Sci-Fi-Fantasy/The-Martian-Audiobook/B00B5HZGUG Lloydde (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There is another version published in the UK ISBN: 9780091956141 2001:470:1F09:2C6:FDB8:C5C7:8E6:6FE2 (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments
I'm pretty sure The Egg was written before this, so it's not Andy's debut book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q6637p (talk • contribs) 02:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Egg is a (very) short story. "Debut novel" means first novel. -- Green  C  03:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Theft of Pride
Andy's first novel was Theft of Pride, as seen on his web site here: http://www.galactanet.com/comic/shanex.htm

I edited the article to show this but it was reverted for lack of a source. Perhaps it can be re-re-verted?

Carl IAmNitpicking (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links did not know he had a pen-name of Jack Sharp. I wrote a footnote about it. All the sources call The Martian his first or debut novel, because typically that means first published novel. Most writers produce a lot of work before they get published but those unpublished works are not usually taken into account except in an academic sense. Granted with the Internet what does "published" mean anymore but I think most people will still assume published is some sort of publication by a publisher. -- Green  C  06:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * According to the author, that's his second novel (Theft of Pride), and "The Martian" is his third novel. The first novel is not available online, and the author has stated he won't show it, as he considers it very badly written. It was in one of the web interview podcasts (maybe the Triangulum one?) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Article name
A minor point, but surely this article should be The Martian (2012 novel), rather than The Martian (Andy Weir)? It's not the usual way to use the author's name for the disambiguation. Euchrid (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes according to Naming_conventions_(books) it should be The Martian (2012 novel). Since the novel was self-published in 2012 later republished in 2013, plus other formats, it might be more clear to call it The Martian (Andy Weir novel) per the same guideline. Someone with the 2013 "first edition" may be confused about the 2012 date, and I suspect there may be some textual differences between the two. -- Green  C  01:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:BOOKDAB requires author's surname, not year, as additional disambiguation, if "novel" is insufficient. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right. Strange I misread it so incorrectly, and Euchrid too. No explanation for it but the new name is on target. --  Green  C  14:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * BOOKDAB is some weird LOCALCONSENSUS. Elsewhere on Wikipedia we use full names, and we should here as well, so The Martian (Andy Weir novel). Walk through any bookstore or library, and see how many authors share any surname. This is hardly a good way to standardize on disambiguation. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think BOOKDAB would allow for full names if needed. Same philosophy not to use sub-titles unless needed. Briefer is better. -- Green  C  13:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Publishing date

 * It was originally self-published in 2012

The book was originally self-published in 2011 as an e-book. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead

 * It has been described as an Apollo 13 meets Cast Away.

I'm not convinced that should be in the lead. Yes, the Apollo 13 comparison is accurate, but Cast Away is debatable for many reasons. It would be more accurate (per the book reviews) to compare it to Robinson Crusoe, which Cast Away draws upon. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Martian is a Robinsonade for sure. So is Cast Away. I think they chose Cast Away because it's more relevant to modern audiences and is a modern story. Robinson Crusoe is also about other things beside castaway, and Cast Away contains the word "castaway" which helps make the point of the comparison. -- Green  C  14:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not being clear. Is this book being compared to two films instead of a historical incident and a book? While reviewers are free to take such liberties, what we are really talking about is the story.  And I don't think we should be comparing the story to two films in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They are all stories. It's just an effective way to succinctly get the idea across of what the book is about. -- Green  C  14:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By comparing a book to a film? I don't agree.  We should be comparing like to like.  Cast Away is based on Robinson Crusoe, and we have far more sources making the comparison between this book and Crusoe/Defoe than we do films. You're highlighting a minority usage over a preponderance, which is part of the problem.  Apollo 13 is a bit of a different beast since it isn't based on literature. Viriditas (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Apollo 13 is the name of a book. It was later adapted to a film. The Martian is the name of book. It was later adapted to a film. We are not making this comparison the Wall Street Journal is, which is not a "minority source". --  Green  C  18:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point. It's a "minority source", because few sources make that comparison.  Wikipedia articles are based on the preponderance of reliable sources, not a minority.  Further, comparing a work of literature to two films instead of other works of literature is wrong beyond measure.  I note that while this article continues to compare literature to film, it still completely fails to mention Robinson Crusoe, contrary to the preponderance of sources, which compares this book to Robinson Crusoe, a work of literature, not a film or films. I cannot find a single substantiating reason to compare this book to a film, even in the lead section, while ignoring the majority of sources which compare it to other works of literature.  Books and films are not the same.  To me at least, it sounds like you are hyping and promoting the film adaptation for reasons that I cannot figure out. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding a cast of charcters?
Do you think the article would benefit from adding a list of the characters in the novel and a brief statement of their role? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:468:C80:8104:4C6E:28B7:A29F:DFFC (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing image of Ares 3 mission landing site
This is a high res image of the coordinates of the Ares 3 landing site. Unfortunately, it contradicts the book's description of the site as being relatively featureless (the author didn't have such a high res image when he wrote the book). To avoid confusion, I think we should remove the image, or at least move it out of the Plot Summary section or give it a better caption. Thoughts? SureJohn (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Thanks for the suggestion, added the following to the image caption => ({ {small|NASA, April 2015}}) - seems better - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that adding the source and date of the image alleviates much confusion. I'd still vote for removing it entirely. If not, then I'd like to add a note to the caption about how the image does match the book's description. SureJohn (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Brief followup - yes - agreed - a referenced note (added to the reference section) is *entirely* ok with me atm - others welcome to comment of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed for removal per SureJohn. We now have 3, I'll be bold and follow up. If someone wants to add this picture please get consensus, thank you! -- Green  C  16:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Scientific accuracy
The article could benefit from a discussion of how accurate the novel is or is not. In lieu of that, perhaps at least a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martian_(film)#Scientific_accuracy? 72.208.150.248 (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Reference to Wikipedia in the text of The Martian
I think it would be neat to include that this book mentions Wikipedia. Not sure which section to put this in, any thoughts? Not sure it deserves a new section but it doesn't really belong anywhere else. Mark Watney says "My Wikipedia page will say 'Mark Watney is the only human being to have died on Mars. And it'll be right, probably. Cause I'll surely die here. Just not on Sol 6 when everyone thinks I did.'" --Petrichori (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Was it self-published in 2012 or 2011?
The article says it was self-published in 2011, but I'm finding more evidence that it was self-published in 2012. Weir only posted the last chapter to his blog in August 2012, and he self-published the book to Amazon in September 2012.

I'm probably just not understanding how publication dates work, though.