KWBC: Redshirts by John Scalzi - Discussion

[I'm Murrin]

Our second month is almost up, it's time to start talking about February's read, the funny and self-aware Redshirts by John Scalzi.

I'll kick discussion off with a question: Did you spot the plot hole?

[danlo]

I think I did, but I'll let others comment...I DID think it was a serious hoot especially in the last 4th and the Codas. Could not watch an episode of ST or STNG the same way after it...

[I'm Murrin]

Yes, the book works because it gets the source material, understands the tropes of bad sci fi - and makes use of those to drive things along. (And it's more of a loving tribute to Star Trek than a mockery, which helps it work.)

[aliantha]

Well, now I feel dumb. I don't recall any glaring plot holes. Enlighten me, you guys.

I did think it was a kind-hearted tribute to the Star Trek red shirts. And hilarious in spots. This is only the second book by Scalzi that I've read, but one of the things I liked about both of them is his ability to craft humor that also has a serious edge to it. I laughed at the redshirts' plight in some scenes, and in others I was kind of horrified.

What did you guys think of the codas? I liked how they rounded out the story, but I kind of thought the 1st person/2nd person/3rd person thing was sort of a gimmick.

[I'm Murrin]

A bit gimmicky, but hey, he got away with it.

You want me to spell out the plot hole? Simple: The show doesn't exist in their history, so they couldn't travel back to stop it. I assume Scalzi was well aware of this, and relied on keeping the story engaging to stop people thinking about it too much - and the nature of the story to make us more forgiving of it.

[danlo]

Yeah it worked until the timeline and other universe things--but I let the blackhole suspend my imagination on the whole thing, it was too much fun to stop and ponder.

[I'm Murrin]

So I guess I want to talk about the way Scalzi went about showing the reader his premise, and how the different levels of meta-narrative become apparent as you go along.

It starts right in the prologue, of course, where we have a character in a stereotypical Star Trek away mission scenario, who appears to be acting in ways even he doesn't understand and receiving knowledge that he didn't have before. It starts to come across there that this scenario is in some way manufactured, that they're being forced to play this role. The cliched encounter is made much more interesting by being in the head of an unwilling participant.

In the early chapters Scalzi continues to reinforce to the reader that what is happening is pretty much exactly the setup of a sci fi TV show: the commanding officers going on away missions and people always dying; the part with the impossible science and the Box, and particularly the way the result from the Box needs to be delivered with a problem for Q'eeng to solve.

The final piece that solidifies the idea in the reader's mind is when Jenkins appears and delivers his warning: "Avoid the narrative." This means nothing to Dahl and Finn, but it's a clear suggestion to the reader: They are literally part of a science fiction story.

The next level of meta becomes clearer in the away mission with the killer robots. Here is where Crewman McGregor makes the first mention of the Sacrifice Effect, and then promptly dies. This clues the reader in to the fact that the crew have worked out the rules - but it also does something else. It was a moment of fridge brilliance for me: I realised the next day that the Sacrifice Effect was working for Andrew Dahl. McGregor dies from Dahl's party, and everyone else is safe - he was the sacrifice for Dahl.

That's the point where the reader gets a clue that this story isn't just lampshading and parodying these tropes, but is making active use of them for its own main characters. That's when I knew one of the five main characters had to die before the end. That's why, when they go back in time, they have a 6 day time limit - and why the people there buy into their story so quickly. It's why the solution to saving Matthew is nonsense science that uses the magic Box.

It's an interesting move, as it's an author deliberately making the reader aware of his hand behind events, that this narrative is something he controls - and deliberately making the reader aware of the author's hand takes a fair bit of confidence in your storytelling capabilities.

The book rewards the reader for paying attention to details and patterns. I first noticed that Hester didn't have a first name during the scenes of planning their mission with Jenkins: the characters kept calling each other by first name in their conversations, except for Hester.

Scalzi puts up a chekhov's gun in the form of Hanson's rich father and family connections, then leaves the attentive reader waiting for it to come into the plot, only for it not to happen - a deliberate subversion.

And then both of these things - Hester's name, Hanson's backstory's irrelevance - become plot points in the story. It's brilliant, it's Scalzi saying direct to the reader I know exactly what I'm doing. The little things that stick out as being odd, or cliched, or predictable, turn out to be there so that Scalzi can turn out yet another layer of meta-narrative on top.

It's hard to find fault in a book where you suspect the faults all happened knowingly.

[aliantha]

I had most of a response written, and then the boss came by and I had to close the browser in a hurry. Let's see what I can remember of what I wrote before....

It seemed to me that they *did* know about the show's existence in their history. I thought Jenkins finally found a reference to it on something similar to IMDb. But I could be wrong about it.

As far as Scalzi knowingly utilizing the tropes -- yes, of course. But he's already indicated that the rules exist in the universe he's created, so why wouldn't they also apply in Dahl's case? Good catch, btw, Murrin, on figuring out that Dahl was a beneficiary of the Sacrifice Effect -- I didn't catch it 'til the characters discussed it at the end of the story.

In that light -- that Scalzi told us he was using the tropes, even while making light of them as part of the plot -- the way he presents the codas seems even more wink-wink-nudge-nudge. One of the things writers wrestle with is whether to use 1st or 3rd person PoV (thank the gods that not many of them try to sustain 2nd person for a whole book...). So the codas then would seem to be a nod to this universal wrestling match, with the storyteller trying out all the different ways he could end the book.

I think that's what I was going to say, more or less.

[I'm Murrin]

So, just the three of us read it, then?

[Sorus]

I just started it.

[aliantha]

Well, snap it up, missy!

[Sorus]

[danlo]

[aliantha]

[SerScot]

I prefered the Coda's to the Novel itself.

[I'm Murrin]

This book just picked up the Hugo Award for Best Novel. What do you think - did it deserve it?

[Sorus]

I didn't read any of the other nominees. For shame. I used to like Kim Stanley Robinson.

[aliantha]

I expect it won because of the metafiction angle, and maybe because Scalzi is due. I can't remember which other books were up this year, tho.

[danlo]

Yeah, "gimme" award for other stuff...it was fun, but not that good compared to the competition...

[Wildling]

I just finished listening to it (narrated by Wil Wheaton!) and damn, that was a lot of fun.

As for the plot hole, I'm guessing that it can be explained as part of the goofy science that their world was made up of anyway.