When discussions of Project Hail Mary arises, most conversations centre around the characters of Ryland Grace or Rocky, shunning the most important character that was entrusted with the fate of the world. Eva Stratt is one of the novel’s most consequential characters that had one of the hardest tasks to bear as one person.

In many respects, Eva Stratt’s significance lies not in the heroic act of saving the world but rather bearing the weight of being the catalyst behind this act. She in some sense is the reason why the sun did not die, because she held faith in the cowardly man that Ryland Grace was. Through her character, Andy Weir questions the extent to which ethical leadership will always be best for the world. He exposes the role of Eva Stratt, a female, being the most capable to save the world through her willingness to bend over backwards for the world.

Most do not understand the reasoning behind her act of sacrifice of Ryland Grace and thus her character is presented as the “villain” or the anti hero in some respect. But it is her ability to act out tough decisions that makes her so deeply esteemed.

It is this act of betrayal that truly brings the question to mind, if she had not coerced and forced Grace into this position, would they have saved the sun or would Project Hail Mary be a waste of trillions of dollars. If Eva Stratt complied to her emotions rather than her sense of duty, would earth still have been saved?

Her ability to carry out this sacrificial act is what makes her best fit for the job. Her love for humanity outweighs any love or respect she had for one human, Ryland Grace. The presentation of Eva Stratt in the movie shows visible reluctance to send him to his death, yet it becomes her only solution to her problem and thus she must follow through with this action.

It is unbeknownst to us whether she mourned the loss of someone who is seen as her second in command, the leading scientist of Astrophage or not, but it is obvious in the movie that she has no other choice. One life for all of humanity or all of humanity for the sacrifice of one life?

The presentation of her character in the books as cruel and calculated feels rather detached simply because it is written in the third person point of view. The narration of Ryland Grace has a heavy influence on the perception of her character and restricts the narrative to what the reader wants to infer rather than giving a concrete answer because it shows the outside layers rather than highlighting the inner thought process that first person perspective would have.

Her character further presents the role of patriarchy and societal expectations of females in leadership roles. Male authoritarian figures are presented as strict and uncompromising, often looked upon favourably, yet societal reaction to the character of Eva Stratt signals this distinction. Stratt’s refusal to subject herself to follow in line with societal expectations presents her unapologetically unconcerned facade by which she does not care whether people like or dislike her, solely emphasising upon whether they respected her.

This refusal to subject herself to following societal expectations of females leaders may be why many find it difficult to agree with her actions. Popular fiction emphasises on the need for relatable characters yet Stratt does not offer any such relatability. She demands respect and prioritises her ability to lead above all. Yet these qualities should not be a reflection of inhumanity. Her emotional restraint presents her understanding that leadership is not as a result of getting people to like you but rather ensuring the world survives.

Ultimately, her character is the type that is forgotten from history books (ironic given she was a history major) yet she is the one that makes the heroics possible. Ryland Grace becomes the saviour of humanity because Eva Stratt forced him into the position. She is the architect behind every move they make but she will forever be seen in the eyes of humanity as the scapegoat to be used for her qualifications and then trashed.

Perhaps that is why you are here, reading this article now. Because your doubts about Eva Stratt lingers long after you finished the movie or completed reading the novel. She challenges readers to consider what they look for in a leader. We look towards leaders that we may relate to, who are filled with warmth and compassion. But perhaps we require someone to lead when a crises demands action, someone willing to accept responsibility when every option is geared against them.

Eva Stratt may not be a hero in everyone’s eyes, but she will be one in mine.

Goodbye Eva Stratt, we barely even knew you.

The worst feeling is no longer trying and failing.

It is simply trying.

Somewhere along the way, effort became something people could judge before it had time to shape itself into something. It stopped being quietly respected and instead became something to call out and shame.

We didn't just become afraid of failing, we became afraid of caring about the small things.

Because trying hard reveals something about you: desire.

And desire is dangerous in such a world geared towards detachment.

If you try your hardest and still fail, the failure is not just the outcome but the reflection of your failure to succeed at something you wanted so much. People no longer see what didn’t work but rather the time and effort invested into trying.

But if you pretend you didn’t try, failure loses its sharpness. It can no longer hurt you because it never really meant anything… right? You don’t look defeated, you look unbothered by this supposed failure.

People have learned from this. They begin crafting this perspective in advance.

“I don’t really care whether I get the position or not.”

“I didn’t even study”

“It doesn’t really matter to me”

These are no longer casual phrases but rather used as a defence mechanism to hide behind. How can anything ever fully hurt you if you never admitted to care?

And the internet has solidified this instinct. People start managing perspective instead of progress. They only allow something good to happen before they post about it.

The progress of beginning disappears into the darkness.

We no longer want to be seen trying but rather seen achieving.

That’s why irony has taken over so much of our language. If you joke first, no one can accuse you of taking yourself too seriously because they never see the desire, the effort. Humour becomes armour. Detachment becomes safety from failure.

The result is a generation hiding behind the fear of being seen trying. And the cost is subtle but present: people lose access to the sincerity as performance begins to take over every aspect of their life.

This has also changed societal perspective on achievement. Natural talent is perceived as more important than discipline. Instant success admired more than working steadily towards improvement. The person who claims to “not study but still got an A*” is seen as more successful compared to an individual who worked for weeks to achieve.

So people begin hiding their effort, even from themselves. They downplay it and at times attempt to erase it. They want results without the documented process. And if it doesn’t come easily, it is seen as less important.

Because trying is where the vulnerability preys on. And vulnerability is what we attempt to avoid.

So people quit early. Not because they lack to passion but rather they can no longer tolerate instant success. It is easier to quit than to be seen trying.

And under the attempts lies hope.

Perhaps thats what we are truly attempting to conceal. Hope in a world that does not delicately handle such feelings. Where hope is destroyed.

So detachment and being unbothered is safer. If you don’t fully commit to the attempt, you can’t fully be hurt by it.

And slowly, this logic becomes omnipresent in everything we do. We begin protecting ourselves from ever trying and caring.

Maybe that’s why we find desire to connect with genuinely passionate individuals. They remind us of a version we abandoned. A version of us willing to fail, to care, to desire, to try.

And maybe the real humiliation was never about trying hard.

Maybe it was learning to live with the concept of nothing truly being worth desiring.

We like to think of social media as curated reflection of our own personal tastes. On bookstagram, this belief is amplified where each book stack becomes a mirror to our personality.

But if you scroll long enough, a pattern emerges. The same books by the same authors are constantly being promoted. The book community has become so saturated and its largely at fault of the algorithm.

It is apparent the algorithm has a type. Although it is invisible, it plays a large role in what we see. It privileges the interactions the post gains more than diversity and shedding light on lesser known authors. Books heavily embedded with the same tropes or are already popular are more likely to hit the for you pages. A romance novel with a reoccurring trope, a novel reduced to a single popular quote; these are not highlighted for the readability but rather for being postable. And postability in the bookstagram space is currency.

This creates a cycle. The more prominent a book is on social media platforms, the more it is read. The more it is read and recommended, the more it is posted. This becomes self-perpetuating, not necessarily due to a dearth of stories but simply not gaining the necessary attraction. A translated novel from a lesser known culture won’t achieve the same level of success as a narrative from an easily categorised author that fits into the typical stereotype that is required for the algorithm to recognise and promote it.

The algorithm in this sense operates behind the scenes, shaping the exposure rather than outright dictating individuals’ choices. It creates a box where only certain well known books fit and which are only visible so that what appears abundant is curated by forces we never turn against.

This is not to diminish the benefit bookstagram has brought to society. It has jumpstarted numerous peoples’ journeys to reading (credit given where credit due to Coleen Hoover though I highly dislike her). It has led to a cultivation of a supportive community that has increased the literacy rate and made reading ‘cool’.

Yet, we need to focus more on honing into the definition of reading widely. To do this, it requires a willingness to step outside the algorithms’ establishment and seek out the unfamiliar and culturally diverse reads.

The algorithm may have a type. It does not mean we must follow in its footsteps.

Leave a comment

As most are aware, I love talking. If there were no limits, I doubt I would ever stop.

It’s not about speaking just to fill the void for me but rather the fact that my thoughts rarely ever appear in neat, finished sentences. I often end up in half formed tangents. There never seems to be the time nor the structure for me to develop my own thoughts.

I’ve seen this reflected in my bookstagram where I often attempt to compress my thoughts into a short and catchy caption. Yet, just as I reach an intriguing point that I would be interested in delving into, I am faced by the quiet barrier of the word limit.

This space is home to my unfiltered opinions and thoughts that do not always come across on my instagram. I no longer need to condense my thoughts to meet the word limit.

What can you expect from this, you ask? Well, I’ve got the perfect answer for you!

⋆˚꩜｡ LOTS of bookish hot takes

⋆˚꩜｡ Touching upon diverse book recs (BIPOC Authors)

⋆˚꩜｡ Reflection on how fiction intersects with politics

⋆˚꩜｡ Commentary on the use of narrative voices and perspectives

⋆˚꩜｡ Fangirl avenue over here!

Feel free to comment or directly message me on instagram @readwithallyy_ if you would like me to write about something specific!

Leave a comment