Another great selection is "His Majesty's Dragon" by Naomi Novik. Basically the Napoleonic wars fought with an aerial corps composed of dragons. Another terrific series.
@Evil Tortie's Mom: Fun and exciting, certainly--love me some dragons. I have to disagree with you on her world-building. It is rich and detailed but crazy implausible.
If Western civilization had developed with air travel a thousand years before the Wright or Montgolfier brothers I really doubt it would parallel our history that closely. Science, navigation/exploration, and of course warfare would be drastically accelerated.
I enjoy the Temeraire novels, but with a heaping dollop of disbelief in thorough suspension.
@Grey_Area: Is it one of those books like Dune, where the ending really makes you want to read the sequels? Or is it more like Ender's Game, where you can get the sense of having read a full story, and there's no real need to go on to read the rest of the series unless you're interested?
@Adah: There's no real cliffhanger at the end of Red Mars. You may be curious as to what happens next, but like most readers I was disappointed that the sequels weren't as good.
@tibbie: absolutely. A really great book. I really loved the obsessive attention to detail in simply equipping and sending out the expedition. The next two books dragged a bit, but this first one really really popped. A great read.
@rek: Yeah, all those Westerners will get fed up right quick with having to deal with all the desicated corpses of people who shoestringed their way to the moon.
Two problems. First, the author has a very romantic notion of what the 19th century frontier actually looked like. Sure, there were bold individuals staking out new lives on the plains and mountains, but there was far more corruption, violence, petty crime and in general the worst aspects of humanity let loose without restraint. We've just glossed over that in the intervening two centuries.
Secondly, there is a fundamental difference between the process at work. Settling of the American frontier was something that could be accomplished by anyone with a wagon and a small government grant. That is nowhere near going to be enough to settle on the moon. Given the vast quantities of infrastructure and support required, this finds a much closer parallel in the colonization of the New World by the European powers, leading the ages of Colonialism and Imperialism. And those beget some of the worst atrocities humanity has ever witnessed. So I'd like to avoid that sort of thing if at all possible.
@braak: If it is communally owned no one would have any incentive to invest in the lunar property because any singular investment would only cost the individual but would benefit the community. So if the moon were to have riches (oil, spice, moon cheese) then it take longer to find them.
@Belabras: Yeah, I don't know. I mean, transforming the 19th century from a land sparsely inhabited by indigenous peoples to a land inhabited by a lot of farmers...this seems disingenuous.
Isn't colonizing the moon way more like colonizing Antarctica than it is like colonizing Kansas?
In the 19th century you could, in theory, have just grabbed land by going west on foot.
03/10/09
03/10/09
03/10/09
03/10/09
03/10/09
If Western civilization had developed with air travel a thousand years before the Wright or Montgolfier brothers I really doubt it would parallel our history that closely. Science, navigation/exploration, and of course warfare would be drastically accelerated.
I enjoy the Temeraire novels, but with a heaping dollop of disbelief in thorough suspension.
03/10/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/10/09
03/10/09
12/12/08
12/12/08
Yeah, all those Westerners will get fed up right quick with having to deal with all the desicated corpses of people who shoestringed their way to the moon.
12/12/08
Secondly, there is a fundamental difference between the process at work. Settling of the American frontier was something that could be accomplished by anyone with a wagon and a small government grant. That is nowhere near going to be enough to settle on the moon. Given the vast quantities of infrastructure and support required, this finds a much closer parallel in the colonization of the New World by the European powers, leading the ages of Colonialism and Imperialism. And those beget some of the worst atrocities humanity has ever witnessed. So I'd like to avoid that sort of thing if at all possible.
12/12/08
In fact, though, I think that the colonization process is going to look a lot more like the colonization of Antarctica.
What, exactly, are the "riches of space"? Are we that close to running out of basalt? Isn't most of space actually empty, anyway?
12/12/08
No question - it will be an ugly process marred by corruption, violence, and the abuse of power and money.
That said, it is still the best way to draw private interest in to lunar exploration/colonization.
12/12/08
This isn't really convincing me that private interest is the way to go.
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
Isn't colonizing the moon way more like colonizing Antarctica than it is like colonizing Kansas?
In the 19th century you could, in theory, have just grabbed land by going west on foot.
12/12/08
Yeah, it won't work that way for the moon.
Under current auspices the lunar surface would be carved out by those already wealthy/powerful interests that can actually reach it.
Not a great outcome, but if it pulls in more private interests to lunar exploration, not the worst of all possibilities.
12/12/08
If someone starts to put up billboards, though, I swear right now that I'm going to turn into an anti-corporate terrorist.
12/12/08