On The Nightstand – Redshirts – 4/28/2018

Anyone who grew up in the South knows that we have a saying for almost any occasion.  One of my favorites has always been “If there’s fog in the pulput – there’s gonna be mist in the pews”.  Probably goes without saying but the inference is – a speaker better be crystal clear about the message he’s trying to communicate or the lesson he’s trying to teach or he’s just going to leave his audience confused.  That’s how I feel about this book.  I just wasn’t sure – by the end – exactly what Scalzi was trying to accomplish and it all just seemed like a bit of a mash up.

If you’ve been with me for awhile, you’ll know I’ve reviewed several of Scalzi’s books:

• The Collapsing Empire

http://booksofbrian.com/on-the-nightstand-the-collapsing-empire-1-8-2018/

• Old Man’s War

http://booksofbrian.com/on-the-nightstand-old-mans-war-1-14-2018/

• The Ghost Brigades

http://booksofbrian.com/on-the-nightstand-the-ghost-brigades-1-18-2018/

If you’ve read those posts, you’ll also know that I’m a little ambivalent about Scalzi’s writing.  He’s entertaining, he tells good tales, he sometimes finds novel concepts (geriatric rejuvenations as soldiers in “Old Man’s War”), he sometimes creates really engaging characters (Kiva Lagos in “The Collapsing Empire”) – but I’ve never had the feeling – at the end of any of his books – that I’ve read something truly worthy.  His work always strikes me as above average – nothing more – and I’m struggling with that a bit since the guy has one Hugo nomination for “Old Man’s War” in 2006 and a Hugo win in 2013 for “Redshirts”.

Redshirts is a perfect example.  This starts out as a straight up Star Trek satire – all the characters are there – it builds off an aspect of the show that has always been kind of a running joke – the expendability of / high mortality rate associated with the Security detachments assigned to Away Teams – and it provides some snappy dialogue and easy laughs.  In the second half of the book, however, it starts to focus on more serious themes and teaching points – particularly in the final three Codas.  It almost feels like Scalzi started out writing one book and decided – in mid-stream – to shift to another.

Compare that to these two books by Steven Erikson:

Both are shamelessly simple Star Trek satires – they make no pretensions – they’re written in a lovingly ridiculous way – and I found them to be far funnier than Redshirts.  Erikson goes for cheap laughs based on some admittedly low humor at times – but he keeps it simple and outrageous and funny.  With “Redshirts”, I felt like Scalzi was trying to do two very different things and neither of them worked as well as they should have.

There’s even a point in the book – the 1st Coda – when the screenwriter of the Star Trek knock off that drives much of the plot is blogging anonymously about his writing – where I almost felt like Scalzi was talking to himself – lecturing himself for his lazy approach to his writing – not putting the effort into it that he should and that his audience deserves.  I found it to be a revealing but disorienting chapter.

Overall, Redshirts is an entertaining read but I just do not understand how it could have been singled out as the Best Science Fiction novel of 2013 when there were so many other incredible books that might have / should have earned that distinction.  By way of example, “Ancillary Justice” by Ann Leckie won the Nebula Award for best Science Fiction Novel in 2013 – a book which I reviewed here:

http://booksofbrian.com/on-the-nightstand-ancillary-justice-2-3-2018/

Here’s a full list of the Nebula nominees for that year:

“Redshirts” wasn’t even nominated – not even in the running.  So – what am I missing?

It actually brings me to the last point I wanted to make in this post – the difference between the Nebulas and the Hugos.  As I’ve mentioned before, the Nebulas are chosen by other Science Fiction writers while the Hugos are selected by fans.  It’s analogous to the difference between the Oscars and The People’s Choice Awards.  I’m not saying that this lessens the legitimacy of the Hugos in any way.  I could cite a fair number of examples where I felt the professionals and the critics got it wrong.  I would just suggest that you’ll find greater consistency with respect to quality of writing, imagination, complexity and impact when it comes to those works recognized by the Nebulas than you would with the Hugos – different set of judges looking for very different things.

Read “Redshirts” – you’ll enjoy it – but let me know if you feel that I’m being too hard on the Author and his work.