Sign in with FacebookFrancine's Reviews > Redshirts
Redshirts
by John Scalzi (Goodreads Author)
by John Scalzi (Goodreads Author)
Francine's review
bookshelves: adventure, humor, sci-fi
Jul 03, 12
bookshelves: adventure, humor, sci-fi
Read from June 22 to 30, 2012 — I own a copy
What a terrific premise! Fans of Star Trek will be familiar with the ever-revolving cast of "Redshirts" (from the original to TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise) and will be amused by this story written by Scalzi, who was a consultant on Stargate Universe.
I definitely would've given this book 4 stars for the story - it was inventive, creative, funny and very meta. Also, I can't remember ever reading a book that had a first-person, second-person and third-person narrative. It was definitely an uncommon literary device and it worked very well. The main part of the book was written in third-person omniscient, which is not really all that odd. However, each of the three codas were written in first-, second- and third-person (in this case, third-person present), focusing on three minor (but not inconsequential) characters of the main narrative. I didn't know how it was going to work out, but Scalzi pulled it off quite successfully.
My main problem with the novel was the writing (and is the reason why I didn't give this 4-stars). The story was great and the pacing was fine, but in all truthfulness, Scalzi did a lot better when he was writing the novel as a screenplay. Things came across much better when he used the screenplay format (in the first coda). The main part of the narrative, however, was bogged down by the choppy dialogue and his constant use of "X said" and "Y said". To wit:
"[something something something]," Duvall said.
"[something something something]," Dahl said.
"[something something something]," Duvall said.
"[something something something]," Dahl said.
"[something something something]," Duvall said, then, "[something something something]."
"[something something something]," Dahl said.
"[question]," Hanson said.
"[something something something]," Duvall said.
Pages and pages and pages were filled with this kind of dialogue. Part of me wanted to scream out at some point and say "Use a thesaurus, for crying out loud! There are other words other than 'said'! You can use 'retort' or 'mused' or 'gushed' or even 'asked', 'implied', 'cried' or 'bemoaned'!" *sigh*
Granted, this is probably just my thing and is just me being too nitpicky once again. Still, it distracted me enough from the story and detracted enough of my attention from the awesomeness of the narrative (and of Scalzi). Would I read more of Scalzi's work? Sure...but I may just want to give myself some time before I tackle another one.
Nevertheless, I would definitely recommend this to others. It's too good a story not to!
I definitely would've given this book 4 stars for the story - it was inventive, creative, funny and very meta. Also, I can't remember ever reading a book that had a first-person, second-person and third-person narrative. It was definitely an uncommon literary device and it worked very well. The main part of the book was written in third-person omniscient, which is not really all that odd. However, each of the three codas were written in first-, second- and third-person (in this case, third-person present), focusing on three minor (but not inconsequential) characters of the main narrative. I didn't know how it was going to work out, but Scalzi pulled it off quite successfully.
My main problem with the novel was the writing (and is the reason why I didn't give this 4-stars). The story was great and the pacing was fine, but in all truthfulness, Scalzi did a lot better when he was writing the novel as a screenplay. Things came across much better when he used the screenplay format (in the first coda). The main part of the narrative, however, was bogged down by the choppy dialogue and his constant use of "X said" and "Y said". To wit:
"[something something something]," Duvall said.
"[something something something]," Dahl said.
"[something something something]," Duvall said.
"[something something something]," Dahl said.
"[something something something]," Duvall said, then, "[something something something]."
"[something something something]," Dahl said.
"[question]," Hanson said.
"[something something something]," Duvall said.
Pages and pages and pages were filled with this kind of dialogue. Part of me wanted to scream out at some point and say "Use a thesaurus, for crying out loud! There are other words other than 'said'! You can use 'retort' or 'mused' or 'gushed' or even 'asked', 'implied', 'cried' or 'bemoaned'!" *sigh*
Granted, this is probably just my thing and is just me being too nitpicky once again. Still, it distracted me enough from the story and detracted enough of my attention from the awesomeness of the narrative (and of Scalzi). Would I read more of Scalzi's work? Sure...but I may just want to give myself some time before I tackle another one.
Nevertheless, I would definitely recommend this to others. It's too good a story not to!
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Redshirts.
sign in »
Reading Progress
| 06/23/2012 | page 74 |
|
23.0% |
Comments (showing 1-8 of 8) (8 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Matt
(new)
Jun 24, 2012 01:25pm
Did you like it?
reply
|
flag
*
Matt wrote: "Did you like it?"Story is quite entertaining, but the writing is sub-par. Still, as someone who loves Star Trek and the Stargate universe, I'm really enjoying the story and all the nudge-nudge-wink-wink parts. Are you going to read it?
"Pages and pages and pages were filled with this kind of dialogue. Part of me wanted to scream out at some point and say "Use a thesaurus, for crying out loud! There are other words other than 'said'! You can use 'retort' or 'mused' or 'gushed' or even 'asked', 'implied', 'cried' or 'bemoaned'!" *sigh*"Ack. Actually, if you read any writing book, you'll find that they tell you to *avoid* all those thesaurus words unless it's for specific purposes. 'Said' is an invisible word. 'Retort' and 'bemoaned' makes me roll my eyes and say 'ooh, look, the writer has a thesaurus'. Not a good thing. And what is wrong with 'said'? It's a perfectly serviceable word.
Dean Koontz once mentioned a book of his where the copy-editor tried to replace all of the 'said's with more 'active' verbs, but they kept escalating until the characters were practically screaming the dialog. He had to push to get them turned back to 'said', which was the appropriate word.
It was used too much. And it showed no depth, no emotion. While "said" may sometimes be invisible, there is something to be said about variety and flow. That was my problem with it. But as I qualified, this was just me and my personal preference. Others are more than welcome to disagree. :-)
I noticed the same thing Francine. All the "saids" were distracting, especially in cases where no qualifier at all was necessary since we knew who was speaking in a two-hander conversation. Otherwise, I enjoyed the book very much!
Kevin wrote: "I noticed the same thing Francine. All the "saids" were distracting, especially in cases where no qualifier at all was necessary since we knew who was speaking in a two-hander conversation. Otherwi..."Thanks, Kevin! I definitely enjoyed large parts of the book, being both a Star Trek and Stargate fan. And I definitely loved the codas. I thought the use of minor characters, and explaining the story from their POVs added depth to the story.
"Lianne Burwell said: "Ack. Actually, if you read any writing book, you'll find that they tell you to *avoid* all those thesaurus words unless it's for specific purposes. 'Said' is an invisible word. 'Retort' and 'bemoaned' makes me roll my eyes and say 'ooh, look, the writer has a thesaurus'."so don't use those words -- you can attribute dialogue through action too.
"[something something something]" duvall tossed back the rest of her drink. "[something something]"
dahl shrugged. "[something something.]"
scalzi does the "said" thing in every book. i think it is a holdover from his days as a reporter.
