"Fuzzy Nation" Final Thoughts *Spoilers*

[Penny]

What did you think? Who was your favourite character or least favourite? Would you consider going to some far away world to seek your (unlikely) fortune without the reasons Jack had to do so? What was your feeling about the laws they had in place regarding exploration and native species? Would you have come to the same conclusion that the Fuzzies were in fact sentient even though they hadn't spoken?

I think this novel provided a lot of food for thought while being thoroughly entertaining!

[Rob]

Any book that has a dog setting off explosions is a winner in my book!

Really though Jack wasn't the most likable person. Most of his actions were selfish.

He was fortunate to be surrounded by likable people though and he ended doing right by the Fuzzies in the end.

And as someone who doesn't want to move across the country for a good job opportunity, I don't think I'd move to another planet.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

I have to admit I liked Jack very much. I know he is a very very flawed man. If he hadn't become less self-serving, I would not have liked him as much as I ended up liking him. Isabel was right to take a pass on him. However, intelligence has always appealed to me, even if experience has taught me to admire men like Jack from afar.

I see that a lot of people liked Carl best. I liked Carl's attitude the best; however, the fuzzies had my heart. When Baby and Pinto were attacked, I teared up. As a result, the trial had me hooting and making a fist of triumph.

Needless to say, I loved this book. I'm not unaware of the moral agendas in the story, but for me, the entertainment component was strongest and that is what I most enjoyed.

[Heidi]

I really wish John Scalzi would become a screenwriter leaving novels to people who care about exploring complexity.

Jack is the only character we know enough about to discuss and he is paper thin. I don't see him as ruthlessly self interested, but others describe him that way. I see him as a survivor with healthy self-interest who is well equipped to make the best out of the situations he finds himself in. No one is exempt from such aspirations and he is certainly not without conscience.

The colonial laws are dervied from case-law rather than fiat which seems fair to us. The judge has broad nearly omnipotent authority. Most of us are predisposed to believe in wise judgement and omnipotence. The corporation, bad lawyers and security men are evil and get what they deserve. Where did I put those pom poms?

Fuzzy Nation is fun entertainment and asks nothing from us.

Would I go to space to seek fortune? I was born 'in space' on a rich planet and sought my fortune here. I haven't done everything I could to diminish my culpability in destroying the earth's ecosystems, I doubt that I would care to repeat this elsewhere. But to travel in space and record what I see. I'd do it in half a heartbeat.

[Jim]

This was the first Scalzi book I've read and I have to say I thought this was an incredibly fun, quick read. I can understand those who complain about a lack of depth or characterization. But I really don't think that was ever the goal here. This reads like an updated golden age story and I think it succeeds very well on that level.

As I read, I found myself thinking what a wonderful movie this would make. I can't remember the last time I read a science fiction novel that I actually thought would work well as a Hollywood movie. But I sure hope this has been optioned somewhere!

[Heidi]

Jim wrote: "... I thought this was an incredibly fun, quick read. I can understand those who complain about a lack of depth or characterization. But I rea..."u

This points out the woeful inadequacy of ratings systems. I completely agree with everything you said but I reserve 5 stars for books I'd take with me on a one way journey into space, four stars for books that changed me in some way, and three stars for books that I, well, liked.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

My ratings are about my feelings as well as writing merit. I do not judge writing by whether all the commas are in the right place, or how many literary allusions are in the plot. I can and will rate a bad potboiler five stars if I stay up all night to finish it. For most genre novels my ratings have more to do with entertainment value first, plot consistency second, literary value third. For literary novels, I reverse that order. Non-fiction books I judge by their architecture, writing, and facts.

I gave this book 5 stars because it was highly entertaining.

[Bill]

This was my first Scalzi novel as well. It was very well paced and enjoyable but I think it all went a little too smooth. I felt like for me there wasn't any opposition to Jack. I know that Baby and Pinto were killed but besides there interaction with Carl there wasn't enough development of their characters to elicit any reaction from me. I was disapointed that besides getting booted from the planet no one was individually punished.

Carl was obviouslythe best character. I wouldn't move for work. The laws worked well within the context of the novel but I think they would be hard to enforce in such a lucrative enterprise like resource mining. The events leading to finding out the fuzzies were sentient would be really hard to replicate in another setting so doubt I would be able to figure it out. I probably would have taken the money and kept quiet.

[Maggie]

If all I ever read were deep and complex books, I would probably quit reading. Dont get me wrong, I love deep and complex and thought provoking books, but you dont really know they exist if you dont have some popcorn in between them. This is definitely popcorn, but it had lots of butter and salt!

I did get distracted by the way off base legal proceedings that made no sense, but not enough to put the book down....highly enjoyable!

[Andreas]

Is it just me or does the title sound like "fascination"?

This is not a literary work but a well-balanced page-turner. The rather short novel feels like a John Grisham in space. I found a great tension arc, quite good character-development in the main protagonist and some discussions on ethics. It has got just enough world-building to work for the novel. It is more than just popcorn kino but don't expect a philosophical work

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Andreas wrote: "Is it just me or does the title sound like "fascination"?

This is not a literary work but a well-balanced page-turner. The rather short novel feels like a John Grisham in space. I found a great t..."

I thought it a joke title referencing the TV show 'Alien Nation' (which was a pun on alienation, because it was about the social discomfort between aliens and humans sharing earth...

[Valerie]

I loved this book. Was it the deepest book ever? No. Did it need to be? Not in my world. I have no reservations about giving this book a 5-star rating. That is how much I enjoyed it.

I thought it was a really good story, but even more important was that I liked the story telling.

I think my favorite character was Pinto. I just loved his little antics.

[John]

This guy is a good story teller, plain and simple. I enjoyed it from start to finish with no let downs in pace. He's got a good sense of humor and writes some nice dialogue. The shower scene and "I woke up smelling your furry ass" comment was probably one of the only times I've ever laughed out loud at a book. I know a lot of readers have problems with over used character types like Holloway's lovable loser but when it's done this well I don't see how you can mind.
I'm really not sure i would have picked up on how advanced the Fuzzys were. They just seemed like smart, little monkey-cats motivated by smoked turkey sandwiches and bacon. Looking back, I guess watching a movie and cheering for a particular scene like they did for the Ewoks would point to something more advanced though.

[Velma]

Penny wrote: "What did you think? Who was your favourite character or least favourite? Would you consider going to some far away world to seek your (unlikely) fortune without the reasons Jack had to do so? What ..."

This is my first post in the group, & my first group read. I quite enjoyed this book, particularly the moral ambiguity of the protagonist.

If anyone is interested, my thoughts on the book are here.

[Lara Amber]

I blazed through it in 24 hours and teetered between 4 and 5 stars (ended up on 4). I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, but the final court case seemed like too neat a package. (The camera system feed to other judges seems like something that would have been common knowledge to professionals in the legal system, not a secret.) I wouldn't have minded a few hundred more pages and going a little bit deeper into the story, learn a little bit more about the world, the corporation/town, the people, get a little bit more tension to the case. Everything happened so fast.

[Alicja]

Agree with so many here, not a deep book, but I loved Jack despite his selfishness. If I wanted to read about perfect people then I wouldn't be reading as much. I like my characters flawed. This was fun and I loved the legalese (I work with lawyers, go figure!). I think it also deserves a sequel, I'm sure there is plenty left for Jack to screw up, just to fix it again. And I really loved that at the end Jack didn't end up getting the girl.

[Sarah]

I think I liked it more because he wasn't a traditional hero. He was morally grey and much more human because of it. My favorite party is when he explains that he's not a 'good guy' but he was the 'right guy' this time. The guy the Fuzzys needed.

I also like that he didn't get the girl. It would have been ridiculous.

[D.L.]

I read it when it first came out. I bought the hardback edition and loved it, possibly even more than Piper's original (which I also loved).

[Roland]

A great read. Witty, light and good to see the bully boys lose. Ambiguous motivation for the main character, but he has a dog that blows stuff up and does ultimately save the fuzzies so surely we can cut him some slack.
All the characters are flawed which adds to the book in my opinion.

[Louise]

Yes! At last! After lots of average reads, finally a book that grabs me by the shirt collars and drags me into the pages! I loved it. Gimme more Scalzi!

[D.L.]

Louise wrote: "Yes! At last! After lots of average reads, finally a book that grabs me by the shirt collars and drags me into the pages! I loved it. Gimme more Scalzi!"

Try Redshirts. Its a Star Trek parody and quite clever.

[Sarah]

I loved Redshirts! Fuzzy is one of my favorite books. It's just so much fun.

[D.L.]

Sarah wrote: "I loved Redshirts! Fuzzy is one of my favorite books. It's just so much fun."

Agreed. Scalzi's 'Old Man's War' series is fun too but not quite as lighthearted.

[Edwin]

I whipped through the audiobook version of Fuzzy Nation last month and it was just plain fun. The found the story humorous and well-paced, with lots of surprises, wit and clever banter. It was a joy to listen to. It is light in the sense of being easy to follow, but there is deeper commentary on issues of exploitation and corporate greed, on what it means to be sentient, and for that matter what it means to be human. But Scalzi tackles it all quite well, without being over-bearing or preachy.

Despite what has been said about Jack Holloway being so flawed, I really didn’t find him so. Sure, he comes across as self-serving, he is a lawyer of course (;) but deep down he is a hero in the true sense, a hero who stands up for and defends the weak and in the end, defeats the big corporate bad guys. So what if he doesn’t get the girl. He is Han Solo, a bit of a cad, the smart ass sarcastic good guy.

So, part of the enjoyment and the appeal of this book, which I hate to say, is that this book is just so classic. There are bad guys who do bad things, and there are good guys. But surprise, the good guys triumph and the bad guys get their just desserts. Happy ending!

And yeah, you gotta love Carl.

[Sarah]

I like your comparison to Han, Edwin! I did think he was morally gray but I also think this made him more real in a sense.

One of those subtle bits of humor and something that people don't tend to catch is that Zarathustra is another name for Zoroaster and Zoroaster was the first person to create a monotheistic religion. What I don't know is if this little bit of fun was used in H Beam Piper's series or if Scalzi decided to use it.

[Monica]

I enjoyed Fuzzy Nation. It was short, quick interesting read that was not too taxing on the attention span and had a positive outcome (at least in the short term). That said, it was pretty typical Scalzi. I first read Scalzi about 6 years ago w/ Old Man's War. I had stopped seriously reading SF for the decade prior. Though I thought that book was somewhat overrated, it made me want to read SF again. Last year I read the second book in OMW The Ghost Brigades. I enjoyed it more than the first. Amazon had a sale on Scalzi books (kindle) and I snapped up the rest of the OMW series as well as Agent to the Stars, The Android's Dream, Redshirts and Fuzzy Nation. I read Agent to the Stars in November and it was kind of a scorching indictment of the entertainment industry as well as the media; all packaged and delivered in a lighthearted, talky, fun, wry satire. Fuzzy Nation did that for corporations and the legal system. All this is a long winded way for me to say, I loves me some Scalzi, but he is seeming a little one note. Same characters, different settings. [Caveat being that the OMW series is very different from the stand alone novels. Also note that I like the OMW series (a lot) and so far have enjoyed the stand alones, but I think it'll be at least a year before Red Shirts, or Androids Dream...just in case].

[Trike]

I did like the fact that the corporation's home base was Dayton, Ohio. That's totally random and possibly the most unbelievable aspect of the book, but it's always nice to hear the hometown get a call-out. Scalzi lives nearby, I understand.

[Sarah]

Trike wrote: "I did like the fact that the corporation's home base was Dayton, Ohio. That's totally random and possibly the most unbelievable aspect of the book, but it's always nice to hear the hometown get a c..."

I didn't even notice that. That's absolutely fantastic. It's just so ordinary!

[Steve]

I find Scalzi about as diverse as King is in horror. How many times can you meet a wise old sheriff? What I do think he brings to the table besides snark are interesting concepts (I found the skin changing of OMW just super original, at least in implementation), snappy pacing/plot, and good dialog. It was a great tonic after reading the Handmaid's Tale.

[Sarah]

Steve wrote: "It was a great tonic after reading the Handmaid's Tale. "

That's for sure. They were good back to back books.

[Michael]

Steve wrote: "I find Scalzi about as diverse as King is in horror. How many times can you meet a wise old sheriff? What I do think he brings to the table besides snark are interesting concepts (I found the ski..."

I can't comment on Scalzi's book diversity, having only read this one, but speaking of King... my copy of Fuzzy Nation has this quote from The Dallas Morning News: "If Stephen King were to try his hand at science fiction, he'd be lucky to be half as entertaining as John Scalzi."

I found that to be an odd comment, because I could think of nothing that Stephen King would have done the same way as Scalzi in this book. (Also, some of King's work could be considered sci-fi - e.g. Carrie, The Tommyknockers - and those are nothing like this book.) It seemed like they were making the comparison solely to capture some Stephen King readers. Does anybody think there are any grounds for comparing the two authors?

[Sarah]

That's an absurd comment. Well, in my opinion anyway. Scalzi's books tend to be much more fun and this one is quite light hearted. King's books are more suspense/horror as well. I see no comparison. I'm curious to see if people think there is validity. I'm not a King fan anyway, so I could totally be missing something. I have read quite a few though, so I'm not comparing without knowledge. I hate those comparison things; they're always wildly wrong.

[Steve]

I mentioned King because he recycles his characters to a large degree. Scalzi's mains tend to be snarky men. I actually find King's and Scalzi's clean styles somewhat similar, though their tones may differ.

[Sarah]

I don't know about styles since I'm not familiar enough with either of them but I can see what you mean about the characters.

[Valerie]

So, this isn't really about the book, but I thought some of you may share in my amusement.

In my in-person, straight (not Scifi/Fantasy) book club, I think I've got them convinced to read Fuzzy Nation in November when we revisit a past group author. I turned them on to John Scalziin January with Lock In where everyone was pleasantly surprised to find themselves enjoying science fiction.

MWuhaha....converting others to dorkdom at a time.

[Sarah]

That's awesome :)

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

The dog was a good dog. Musn't forget the dog. Fuzzies turned out to be people, so, dogs are still man's best friend. Even some lawyers like dogs, I suspect.

[William]

This was my first Scalzi book. It would make a great movie like E.T. Question to all: Does being a "light" read as opposed to being more "literary" influence your star rating ? If so, why? I give it 5. PS: I just finished Bicentennial Man by Asimov, which I rate a bit higher

[Trike]

If the book is pretentious then I'll give it a lower rating for being douchey. But there's room for a meal and a dessert in life, and you life is less enjoyable if you have just one of those things all the time.

Buster Keaton and Orson Welles were brilliant for different reasons, but I find them equally enjoyable.

[Bruce]

There might be a literary case made for the characterization of Jack Holloway. Scalzi does some excellent work with his characters.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

His hero characters are adorable. I want one for Christmas, especially a fuzzy.

[Laz]

Has anyone also read Fuzzy Sapiens and the others in that series? Obviously decades older, but does Scalzi's reboot compare well to the original?

[Sandi]

I actually liked the original Little Fuzzy better, even with the dated wild west feel. The motives were purer and sweeter if not a little simpler in the original. I did not mind the way Scalzi changed Jack into the self centered, snarky Scalzi guy (other words may apply) but I though some of his stunts were a little too contrived and stupid to be believable (sometimes Scalzi tries too hard for the laugh, at least with me as the audience). And for me, I rate books based on how successfully the author does the job that he/she sets out to do. In the end, I thought Scalzi did a good job with the story but it felt too fanfic to me - I would have been more impressed if he had actually written a new story rather than giving us a rewrite of the old one. Piper did all the heavy lifting - came up with the world and characters and dilemma, Scalzi just wrote it as a modern novel. I am not sure that you can read the original afterwards and appreciate it as much.

With all that, I really like his Old Man's War series and even Lock In and Agent to the Stars. I just didn't warm to this one as much after already having read and liked the first incarnation of the story.

[Sandi]

Oh. and Sarah - Zarathustra was in Piper's original version.