May 26, 2013

5 Minute Book Review: “Redshirts” by John Scalzi

Redshirts

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This is the fourth Scalzi I’ve read, and Scalzi proves again that he has a talent for dialogue, for character, and for crafting a clever plot in a bite size portion.

While I would never call myself a Trekkie–I much prefer Star Wars, and I have never been able to buy into Roddenberry‘s vision of a utopian future where mankind has solved its scarcity problems and given up money, but I digress–I’ve watched enough to know that the guys who die are almost always–always–the guys in the red shirts. They’re unnamed extras, low-level members of Star Fleet that die to provide some level of tension to the episode. And this book is through their eyes, through the eyes of the red shirted members of “away teams” that die at the first sign of danger.

I picked up Redshirts because it looked clever, but I didn’t expect any amount of depth. In fact, Scalzi’s plot begins deceptively simple. He develops his red shirted characters with heavy use of dialogue that is fast and flowing, typical Scalzi, that is more difficult than it looks. That’s part of what make’s Scalzi so good.

However, for the most part, the book starts with a gimmick, and rides that gimmick, for almost three-quarters through the novel. Then, without giving up any spoilers, a shift occurs, and suddenly the writing is serious, smart, and insightful, more a paean to writing than science fiction.

And perhaps it’s better I leave it there. The ending, the shift, was what made the book a four out of five stars instead of just three, but it was unexpected and almost out-of-place. In any case, it’s good writing (despite occasional flashes of vulgarity that is not atypical of Scalzi), and I appreciated the way Redshirts ended, as much for what it said about writing as it said about Star Trek.

View all my reviews

Is this how they see Republicans? And how they see themselves?

I’m just sayin’…

Little did he know…

Boys will be boys…

Boys will be boys, and girls will be girls. At least that’s what advertising executives in the toy industry are hoping.

I like to see information presented visually. Today, I ran across a visualization that presents, in a word cloud, the phrases and words used to advertise to children, separated by the gender they are aimed at.

The results are a fascinating look at how the advertising industry views gender stereotypes. They seem to be saying that boys are warlike and externally motivated, while girls are loving and introspective.

Behold, first the boys’ list, then the girls’ .

Put them together, and you’ve got a ying and a yang…

If the “child is the father of the man,” and the “hand that rocks the cradle rules the world,” what does this say about how we raise our children? What do the kind of toys they are playing with mean for our future?

On the other hand, are these advertisements shaping children, or are they a reflection of what children already are? Anyone with children knows that a boy of three can turn any stick into a sword, light saber, or gun, and a girl of the same age will fawn over babies and puppies of all shapes and sizes. It doesn’t take a t.v. commercial to induce a child into using its imagination.

For example, our daughter doesn’t have a television in her home to persuade her one way or the other, and we’ve exposed her equally to Yoda, the Care Bears, and Olivia, among others. Equal time notwithstanding, she’s more likely to ask for Olivia over Star Wars almost any day of the week (the outlier, of course, is The Incredibles…but then, it’s because she wants to see Jack Jack). On the other hand, my Dear Ol’ Mom regularly refers to my nephew as a “warrior.” That’s just because it’s how he rolls, not out of wishful thinking or intentionally nurturing him to be a soldier.

Nurture or nature, it’s a fascinating word cluster. I recommend the full post, where the author explains her methodology and what sounds like an upcoming book on the research.

(h/t The Achilles Effect)