I love to refer to the letter “Can a biologist fix a radio”, often in a manner ill-suited to the debate. However, hard science folk might be overconfident with other disciplines (software engineers being the biggest know-it-all). Feynman himself has outlined this unawarely with his experience mixing the drops. As physics and engineering shaped science fiction to the modern state, the genre prefers to speculate on quantifiable, exact matters. Albeit there are selected exceptions, the authors rarely challenge life sciences. The associated problems are either simplified or non-existent, poorly recognized. Kim Stanley Robinson, the author of Aurora (2015), did the opposite:

“The physical problems of propulsion have captured your fancy, and perhaps these problems can be solved, but they are the easy ones. The biological problems cannot be solved.”

The solutions are 11 and 64

While not directly related, I cannot recommend enough the Stephen Webb’s book, a muggle’s guide to plausible solutions to the Fermi paradox (go for the second edition, it is expanded). Among other things, the book lists numerous arguments related to the extraterrestrial life and the existence thereof, implicitly becoming a compendium on the subject. I personally tend to think that they do not exist, and find the conditional question fair: if life originates at localized and highly specific environment (see the rare Earth and Great filter hypotheses), what are the chances of such life to thrive elsewhere? While this is not the theme Aurora is based on, the question is relevant to one of the main novel’s concepts: species are intrinsically tied to their home world, their biology is not resilient and is fragile outside its native biosphere. This outlines the premise, a record of failed colonization attempt.

Science fiction is the futurology simplified. The genre creates overly optimistic expectations for the developments to come, some type of Imperial Trantor is a staple. The feverish belief in space conquest is abundant, not just in fiction - the thought was formalized in past, and present in the modern outreach. In speculative fiction, it is uncommon to question this canon. The created world and its society can prove dystopian, yet the almighty scientific progress seldom fails. As the indoctrinating perception of the future being bright and interstellar makes a comeback at the forefront of popular culture, the iconoclasm of Aurora is genuine, feels fresh: moonshots won’t work.

The nerdy stuff is not important

Then, the key speculations - long-term space habitation and closed ecosystems (“metabolic rifts” is the minor concept I really like), the importance of biodiversity, being an alien specie - are passed through this bleak prism. Why things are challenging and to pair them with reality, the Biosphere 2 experiments could be mention - the Wikipedia article serves as a good introduction.

I found a great essay, “No Astra without Aspera” (the author, Tessa Fisher), a very fine line of thought. To comment lightly, surely the space bugs plot device does not sound convincing at first, a similar, surprisingly common fallacy dates back to Herbert Wells. But Robinson did not use microorganisms, the story nemesis is some obscure, prion-alike entity. In fact, to trigger (in sense, to initiate) havoc, the pathogen does not have to be a form of life, even in a figurative sense. An orphan xenobiotic will do just fine, although, the required complexity mandates some biological nature. This plot twist is certainly improbable, but it is, nevertheless, legitimate.

After all, I am not finicky, these are not important. For good, the novel exploits the hard science fiction elements for flavor only. Indeed, the story is rich with MacGuffins of thought-provoking, very rational origin. Critics oppose them, offer “nanotechnology and all that stuff” instead. Solutions to these problems can’t change the grand idea: that, quoting the author, there is no planet B.

Great speculative fiction touches on non-STEM areas. The novel fails a little to deliver small groups dynamics; the subject that would have fit the setting perfectly, but is not covered much. A funny play on a class struggle is shown. The space colonization is often portrayed mirroring the history of the New World; space is frontier, cowboys aplenty: penal colonies, outposts, pioneers and outcasts. The space in Aurora differs, it is an elite domain, prerogative of upper estates. This take is good, reflects the reality a bit. Another fair question that is asked: considering that the odds are stacked against them, how to justify the suicidal mission to its participants and their descendants? A good reflection that doesn’t seem to bother anyone else (19:15-19:55).

This literature is good

Being an L2, essentially self-educated at a pretty adult age, my English is far from the ideal. That said, with some literature explored (I read Twilight last summer, we don’t talk about it) and becoming relatively lettered, I sense good English more and more. Or it just feels so.

Reading Aurora was closely flanked with other books, Seveneves by Neal Stephenson and Leviathan Wakes, the first installment in The Expanse series. Impressions from the novels overlapped. I am not too positive with the latter piece, its moons “showing sides like a prostitute”, although generally I like quality pulp and strong language. Still, the reference was well framed, Stephenson writes good prose. To my opinion, Robinson excels. Aurora’s narration creates the mood, that gloom and doom that makes the novel special. Besides, the technical aspects are excellent too. An eloquent wordplay is placed in quantities just right, flow to complexity is balanced well - a contrasting relief to a certain every-word-is-purple author I favor lately. I didn’t find the writing dry a single bit, contrary to what I read online. Blunt credentialism it is, but Robinson has a PhD in literature (thesis on PKD!) and is, perhaps, no stranger to academically refined writing.

I prize the characters. Details would reveal the plot, yet one particular character scores very high - and again, the language tools for them evolve as they develop. Consequently, the reading felt a little on a slower side at the beginning and even tedious sometimes. I plowed myself through it for the first third - an effort well-rewarded and that I don’t regret.

Too many authors, so many books

To catch up with the contemporary science fiction is an ambitious, exponential pursuit. There is an unhealthy feedback, with every book extending the reading queue further. For now, I have to check at least the Mars trilogy. The Internet tells that there the theme and mood are reversed, and represent Robinson’s prose better. If so, I am less interested, but I enjoyed Aurora too much to skip his major work.