The Sword and Laser discussion

As much as I love all the Old Mans War books, I am shocked at how unimpressed I am with this one. It was just kinda weird. It is very much like Mogworld, and I wonder if I would have liked it more if I hadn't already read that. I did really like (view spoiler)[the explanation about the atoms. It was the first explanation I thought made sense as to why 2 persons from different times could not exist in the same time. I also really enjoyed the taking of the pants as a interrogation tactic. (hide spoiler)]

I thought it was good, but I think I would have liked it more if my expectations hadn't run away with me.

(view spoiler)[I was hoping for something contained within the setting we started with. The twist was a bit of a disappointment. (hide spoiler)]

I agree, I was looking for more of a twist at the end. And then when their final plan seems to work out perfectly, I felt a little let-down.

I think this book had been too hyped up for me, so I was expecting something much deeper. Other reviewers have pointed out how much this book relies on dialogue, with the plot floundering in the background, and I agree.

I did still enjoy reading it and would probably recommend it to others, especially Star Trek and Star Gate fans.

I've just finished. This was my first experience with Scalzi, outside of his work on SG:U, and I had really mixed feelings on this.

When I looked at it as a semi-serious piece of literature I found I was let down. As other's have mentioned in other threads the "he said" and "she said" lines were overly in abundance and felt almost lazy and took me out of the experience a bit.

When I looked at it as a campy, fun romp through a Star Trek inspired universe, and my expectations changed, I found I enjoyed it much more. It was a real treat with the right mindset.

Curtis wrote: "When I looked at it as a campy, fun romp through a Star Trek inspired universe, and my expectations changed, I found I enjoyed it much more. It was a real treat with the right mindset."

That's the way I looked at it, and I think why I enjoyed it so much. I was expecting a parody and read it that way. Also, like you, it was my first time reading Scalzi. I get the impression that his other works are more cerebral?

I read this book about a year ago and going in, I knew it was going to be some sort of parody of Star Trek - how can it not be with a title like Redshirts?

On the whole, I really enjoyed it - it was fun and fast paced and it kept me interested during a long car ride. Don't get me wrong, I do have gripes (the usual Scalzi "he said, she said" for example) but it's not meant to be taken too seriously. If you're after serious sci-fi then this one won't be for you.

Overall I enjoyed the book. The style and tempo is very similar to his . And if you enjoyed this book, I think you would enjoy that one as well.

As I said in another thread, the only thing I wasn't thrilled about was the ending. I just didn't need the protagonist bit, even though it filled in some plot holes. While I could appreciate the coda's on there own as short stories, I didn't actually enjoy reading them at the end of the main story. It just seemed very anticlimactic. This was all a bit surprising to me since I've read most of Scalzi's other books, and the one thing I usually think he does a good job with is endings.

I really enjoyed this book. It was a fun and quick read - nothing fabulous, but definitely enjoyable...except that ending just didn't work for me. I'm not talking about the codas; I liked those. I just didn't really understand the ending, I guess. Maybe you guys can help. I'll wrap my question in spoiler tags, just in case.

(view spoiler)[For what reason does Hanson exist? They were banging on about it in the end, but there were so many "you know"s exchanged there that I seem to have missed it. I was expecting some big reveal, that maybe Hanson would reveal he was the enemy all along and kill Dahl or something like that, and instead...nothing happened. They just chatted about what happens next. By the time I got to the end, I was just..."huh?"

Oh, while I'm at it, there was also I joke in there I couldn't figure. and it's irritating me! I'll quote the text here.

"A man who needs to know if he's really that way, or just written to be that way," Hanson said.
"Yes" Dahl said.
"Someone who needs to know if he's really his own man, or-"
"Tell me you're not about to make the pun I think you are," Dahl said.
Hanson smiled. "Sorry," he said. "It was there"

What was there???? Someone please explain. It's bugging me so much! (hide spoiler)]

Rochelle wrote: "I agree, I was looking for more of a twist at the end. And then when their final plan seems to work out perfectly, I felt a little let-down."

Let me put it this way. In relation to the "source material" the title of the book references, there are several beings/groups with enough power/tech that are dickish enough to play around with the lives of less powerful individuals to the extent we see with the command staff and the expendable crew in the book. I had hoped that Scalzi would go that direction with it, and keep everything contained within the universal union setting.

Instead... we got something that was good, but wasn't what I wanted.

Ruth, that bugged me too! What was the end of that sentence...anyone? I too was confused by the whole Hanson thing. I could have done with the book ending at chapter 22 myself.

That said, I don't know if I'm the only one, but I listened to the audio WITH someone else. We had it going with the digital version up on the computer like subtitles. Why subtitles, you ask? We were laughing out loud. We were also yelling out loud (view spoiler)[NO...FINN! (hide spoiler)]. What I'm saying, is really, I didn't read or listen to the book...we experienced it in a group imagining. We got as close as you could to watching it as a tv show, and I am telling you, any other complaint I've made, I THOUGHT IT WAS GREAT! This book was fun, if that is what you were looking to get out of it. It was no SG:U, sometimes it felt like a fifteen year old wrote it ("owe ya a blowjob"...really?), but I had fun, which is what I was looking for.

I didn't care for it. Maybe its because I read it in print but it wasn't as funny as I expected and I just started getting into TNG. The book just wasn't what I expected.

David(LA,CA) wrote: "I thought it was good, but I think I would have liked it more if my expectations hadn't run away with me.

[spoilers removed]"

What David says, in his spoiler tags, is bang on with what I thought.

If the story had been contained in the setting where they knew something was fishy about away teams (a 'meta' story, for lack of a better term), then I would have been really happy to see how the story developed, which is essentially an episode of Star Trek. When the story went 'super-meta', it was a direction that I wasn't expecting and did not enjoy as much as had Scalzi stuck with the original setting.

Not to say I didn't enjoy the book. But I'd say its obvious that Scalzi was aiming for a 'super-meta' story and that's fine for people who enjoyed that bit.

I wasn't sure about that joke either Ruth. It may have something to do with his name being Dahl (Doll?) and comparing him to a puppet but that may be a stretch.

Did anybody think the Karensky/Corey exchange may be a nod to The Man Who Folded Himself by David Gerrold who also wrote The Trouble With Tribbles?

I for one loved that their plan went off "without a hitch" (quotes because Dahl did end up in sick bay), precisely because that is how a Star Trek episode plays out. It wouldn't be messier, because that's not how Star Trek rolled.

And I read the Hanson bit as a very tongue in cheek scene, where typically, a character would be there to offer someone for our hero to muse to, but Scalzi threw in the twist of making the hero self aware of the purpose of that scene, and therefore Hanson. Very meta, but I felt like it fit, since the book was almost self aware.

I really liked the book. There were some exceptionally great lines (Stay off the bridge! Avoid the Narrative!). I can see if you don't like the "super-meta" aspect of it why it would be less enjoyable, but I found the tone and characters delivered exceptionally well.

Maybe I read the scene entirely wrong, but I took Hanson to be the representation of Scalzi himself in the fictional world. Dahl comes to the realization they're not just characters on a tv show, but also may be characters in a different medium where he is the protagonist (hence his surviving death on 3 occasions). This other medium is the novel, REDSHIRTS, you currently have in your hands, on your ereader, or on your MP3 player. This is the part of that final conversation that makes me think Hanson is Scalzi:

HANSON: ...if I had to guess, I'd guess that your creator would say to you that he would want you to live happily ever after.

DAHL: That's just a guess.

HANSON: Maybe a little more than a guess.

Erik wrote: "Maybe I read the scene entirely wrong, but I took Hanson to be the representation of Scalzi himself in the fictional world. Dahl comes to the realization they're not just characters on a tv show, b..."

I thought the same thing.

I liked the first part of the book but as it went on it just and when they started their "plan". I found myself pushing myself to read the rest of it instead of enjoying it.

It made me laugh more than any book has made me laugh in a long while. This book was meant to be funny, and I don't think it was meant to be taken seriously. I'm frankly surprised many commentators seem to have taken the story in the opposite vein, because I can't see how it could be taken seriously. It's like trying to read Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy seriously.

i found the ending kind of dull and unimpressive, but the codas won me back

Just finished, very quick read. I found it to be quite funny in trying to rationalize the way things work in a Star Trek universe, and would have like if more of the story was similar to The Box explanation.

The time travel put me off a bit and the codas seemed unneeded and stylistically too different from the rest of the novel.

Now maybe its because I have also been watching TNG and had it on in the background while I read this but I nearly expected the whole thing to turn out to be a holodeck at the very end with Hanson.

Also was it that I missed it or were there actually NO descriptions of what any of the characters looked like?

Jenkins is described, and is revealed in a video from a con or something to be based on Patrick Rothfuss (it's been awhile... haystack beard or something?).

Now that you mention it, I remember thinking it was funny that I pictured Q’eeng as being a Vulcan, but I don't recall them even saying he was an alien.

Serendi wrote: "Jenkins is described, and is revealed in a video from a con or something to be based on Patrick Rothfuss (it's been awhile... haystack beard or something?)."

It's been a while, so I don't remember the description from the book all that well myself. But a link to the video you mention can be found in this thread here:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Deon wrote: "Now that you mention it, I remember thinking it was funny that I pictured Q’eeng as being a Vulcan, but I don't recall them even saying he was an alien."

I feel like if you didn't picture Q'eeng as a Vulcan, there's something wrong with you. I read his dialogue with Spock's voice in my head. It fit perfectly.

The lack of character descriptions really bugged me. I was cool with the Intrepid's "stars" not being described because I figured we were meant to picture the original Star Trek cast. But not describing the "redshirts" made no sense. Just give me a little something so I can picture the characters in my head.

Jenkins was the only one who was really described at all and I thought when they said he looked like a Yeti, they were speaking literally. Like Jenkins was a Chewbacca-esque alien. I was halfway into the book before I realized Jenkins was just a really hairy human being.

Erik wrote: "The lack of character descriptions really bugged me. I was cool with the Intrepid's "stars" not being described because I figured we were meant to picture the original Star Trek cast. But not describing the "redshirts" made no sense. Just give me a little something so I can picture the characters in my head."

At first this bothered me as well, but I wasn't sure if this was done on purpose since they were originally supposed to be characters killed off on a Star Trek knock-off. Like the show chose a face you recognize vaguely but can't place, so Scalzi reflected that in the text.

I wasn't sure to think of Jenkins as Chewbacca or the one horned hairy "monster" I had on one of my Star Trek books as a kid. I didn't realize he was human until the group met the writer.

It seems that I may be in the minority because I didn't find the book that funny. I appreciated the humor of the situation and received the odd chuckle or two. But I never really missed a beat because I had to stop to finish laughing before continuing. (I still remember having to put down Restaurant at the End of the Universe because I was literally ROTFL for minutes.)

I did really enjoy the book. I found the story fascinating, though I had initially expected some sort of conspiracy a la "Soylent Green" and was surprised (not altogether pleasantly) to find "Stranger Than Fiction" instead. I felt like many others did, that this ended up being the "easy" resolution.

Erik wrote: "Deon wrote: "I feel like if you didn't picture Q'eeng as a Vulcan, there's something wrong with you. I read his dialogue with Spock's voice in my head. It fit perfectly."

I pictured him as Kif from Futurama. Couldn't help it. I tried to picture Spock, but, no, he was Kif.

I went into the book expecting farce. I sort of enjoyed it, but came away thinking it a pretty shallow story. Never really cared about any of the characters.

Overall, I am glad I read it, but probably not a good first experience with Scalzi.

Wow, this book was a really fast read. It struck me as funny but rarely laugh-out-loud funny. Maybe if I'd heard the audiobook, rather than read it, I would have laughed harder. I don't think it's fair to say that it's shallower than Scalzi's other work. I'd say it's on-par with Old Man's War and definitely deeper than Agent to the Stars.

I really liked Kerensky as a Chekhov parody, thought that Q'eeng made an OK Spock, and thought Abernathy felt more like Shatner than Kirk. Did anyone else miss having a McCoy around to make sarcastic comments about the general proceedings?

Actually, I did find it odd that they made the point of mentioning their versions of McCoy and Scotty, but never introduced them into the story. Maybe it would have been funnier if he had thrown in a few more parody scenes...but it seems like comedy is getting a mixed reaction anyway.

I liked the book a lot. I took it as a Star Trek parody, and it worked well for me. I might be the only one, but I really liked the ending with Hanson (not surprising, since I like meta-stories). I was expecting something in the line of the crew meeting with the creator of their show, but that Dahl would become aware of being the protagnist of an other story (and I totally take Hanson as The Chronicles of the Intrepid's Scalzi). I found the codas beautifully written, and I'm thinking about trying the audio version someday.

I kept seeing Q'eeng as Dr. Lazarus from the movie Galaxy Quest. The ultimate Star Trek parody for me !

Oh, that IS a fun movie! I would definitely recommend the audio, but you have to be on your best behavior. If you crack a smile even a little bit when Wheaton does a girl's voice, you will ruin it. The third coda was so touching, in my opinion, until his voice went just a hint higher, and hit my giggle reflex.

This was my first Scalzi novel, and while I entered into fully expecting a spoof I was mostly unimpressed with the shallow plot and characters and was only somewhat entertained and amused with the dialog. As a whole it reminded me of a much less enjoyable version of Heinlein The Number of the Beast. The codas saved the novel for me though as they seemed much more intelligent, emotionally deeper with believable characters while still being funny without becoming campy like the main story. Seen as a whole I would consider the main story a fantasy with sci-fi trappings and the codas as sci-fi stories about "real people's" reactions to their experiences with that shared fantasy.

Alan wrote: "Did anyone else miss having a McCoy around to make sarcastic comments about the general proceedings? "

Not really, because I felt like that was the role of every other person in the book

I really liked this book, it was laugh-out-loud hilarious in some places. I have been rewatching Star Trek: The Next Generation lately, and it was especially fun to envision some of the characters in this book as actors from that show. This would have been a 5 star book for me, except the codas after the main story were done weren't nearly as good as the main part of the story. The book should have ended with the conclusion of the main plot, and not included the codas.

I am probably alone in that I really didn't like this book. It just felt tiresome. The concept was interesting and I love Scalzi as a writer but this book did not click with me at all. Luckily it was not that long.

Neil wrote: "I am probably alone in that I really didn't like this book. It just felt tiresome. The concept was interesting and I love Scalzi as a writer but this book did not click with me at all. Luckily i..."

I liked the book for what it was (a fun paradoy/spoof), but I had just finished "Old Mans War".... and wow what a difference. The last coda, however reflected Scalzi's true writing ability. If this was your first pass at Scalzi, try Old Man's War and the others in that series. I dont think you'll be disappointed. Just my thoughts...

Andy wrote: "Neil wrote: "I am probably alone in that I really didn't like this book. It just felt tiresome. The concept was interesting and I love Scalzi as a writer but this book did not click with me at al..."

I have read all the Old Man's War books. I loved them. This one just was not my thing.

I spent most of the book laughing and sharing funny parts with my wife. It was not overly thought provoking, it was just pure enjoyment.

Read "Old Man's War" and then moved on to "Red Shirts". While it was not a stellar read (no pun intended) as compared to "Old Man's War", I found the story clever, fast paced and relatively enjoyable. The allusions to Star Trek et al were amusing, and I especially appreciated the codas-- they made the book imho. I also recently read Charles Stross "Glasshouse" and found myself wanting the twists and turns to be as adept and visceral as those in "House". Not Scalzi's masterpiece, but a fun and funny summer read.

I thought is was a fun read. The ending was anti-climatic as everything went exactly as planned. Although I guess this could be part of the parody.

One thing I couldn't stand was the over use of "he said", "she said". I noticed the same thing when reading Old Mans War. I almost put both books down because of it but it seems to get better after all the characters get introduced. In both books it is around page 100 that the plot takes off and it becomes easier to overlook the overuse of "saids".

Although I thought the ending was a little bit of let down I thought the Codas were brilliant. They really put a nice touch to the end of the book. It was nice to see the actions of the future characters having positive effects for the actors of the show.

I read this book when It first came out and even though I enjoyed it I couldn't help feeling it could have been better. Overall it seems like the whole book was rushed. Since I did enjoy it ill stop complaining but I do hope this is a stand alone book and I don't want to see any sequels pop up in the future.

It was a fun read, but I would have liked to see it go full meta.

It would have been right along this books lines if the 'episode' of return had been about Kerensky being kidnapped by a group of ensigns to go back in time to stop the show (I'm thinking Eshers 'Gallery' print, the painting is also the outside of the gallery). But it would have been more involved to write such a thing, and as others have noted, it felt a little rushed (the ending at least, to me).

Also, the second episode with the withheld pants was a fantastic piece of writing, I thought.

This wasn't a terrible book, but the execution was much worse than the concept. The writing was mediocre and the characters were totally forgettable. The plot was fine, but hardly gripping.

I am just flabbergasted at how many accolades this has gotten. Are there just a bunch of Trekkies who are falling over themselves in love with the in jokes? Or legions of Scalzi zealots? Or some unholy alliance of the two? If this wins the Hugo...

Unholy alliance of the two. I would like to think that the part before the codas was intentionally bad. It was fun for a short while, but then just got tiresome. I was about to throw my iPod out the window. The codas saved the book for me. The writing was so much better. However, my overall opinion is that it's just an okay book.

What I wrote in my review when I first "read" it.

This book is like a Saturday Night Live skit. It was funny for a bit, but just went on and on and on. This would have served better as a novella at best. When we did reach the end, which was satisfying, Scalzi continued on with 3 more endings all of which were unnecessary. Not unreadable, but not needed at the same time.

The other thing that drove me nuts, as I listened to it, is Scalzi's constant use of the word "said." You wouldn't catch it I think reading it, but listening to it, he used it way too much. It just drove me nuts.

Scalzi's not big on synonyms or adverbs.

Mike wrote: "Are there just a bunch of Trekkies who are falling over themselves in love with the in jokes?"Yup. I loved it, but that has a lot to do with loving Trek. Of course, I am his intended audience. Part of me actually liked it so much, I feel a little guilty that others didn't enjoy it as much.