John Scalzi's Redshirts Wins Hugo Award for Best Novel 112
The Hugo awards were presented last night, providing recognition to the best science fiction of the past year. The award for Best Novel was presented to John Scalzi for Redshirts, a comedic work playing on the trope of low-ranking officers frequently getting themselves killed in sci-fi works. Best Novella went to Brandon Sanderson for The Emperor's Soul, and Best Novelette went to The Girl-Thing Who Went Out for Sushi by Pat Cadigan. Best Graphic Story was awarded to the creators of Saga. Best Dramatic Presentation (long form) was given for Joss Whedon's The Avengers movie, and (short form) was presented for the "Blackwater" episode of the Game of Thrones TV show. The Best New Writer was Mur Lafferty. Here's a full list of the nominees and winners.
A comedic work? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But... where is Asimov-like Sci fi? Deep, intelectual, but not "geek".
Not geek, nerd. [wikipedia.org] Asimov held a PhD in biochemistry and did cancer research at Boston University. It shows in his works.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Quick, name me another prominent comedic science fiction author. Are there really enough that this is an issue? (I actually couldn't think of another one off-hand, if you don't count Vonnegut.)
There is a lot of great science fiction out there. Questions of identity, memory, and continuity? Try Brin's Kiln People. Reaction of societies to profound changes? Robert Charles Wilson's Spin. The Fermi Paradox? Try Revelation Space or Brin's Existence. Also, for "can't find a category for it," try Mieville'
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on your definition of prominent and your definition of sci-fi and your definition of comedy: Douglas Adams (Hitchhikers Guide series), Phil Janes (Galaxy Game series), Ben Elton (Stark, etc), Eric Idle (Road to Mars). I could probably find more if I looked, that's just what I could think of off the top of my head.
Asimov-like? (Score:2)
Why so few enlisted men in Star Trek? (Score:2)
Chief O'Brien and Yeoman Rand are the only two I can think of.
Re: There's no money. (Score:1)
It's funny how the scarcity thinking that's been beaten into you blinds you to the hundreds of thousands of years that mankind lived without money.
Re: (Score:1)
Without paper money, but there has been an economy equivalent for as long as abstract thinking has existed among humans. Sea shells and beads were a form of money for all intents and purposes in many cultures for thousands of years.
But what I think the OP is missing is if you have essentially free energy, and the ability to turn energy into almost any form of matter (Star Trek did note some limits to this, but very few), then what does economy mean? The only meaningful resources would be those few things yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Without paper money, but there has been an economy equivalent for as long as abstract thinking has existed among humans. Sea shells and beads were a form of money for all intents and purposes in many cultures for thousands of years.
But what I think the OP is missing is if you have essentially free energy, and the ability to turn energy into almost any form of matter (Star Trek did note some limits to this, but very few), then what does economy mean? The only meaningful resources would be those few things you can't replicate with energy to matter conversion and skills not possible through expert systems (computers). You'd probably want some way to allocate those, but it would take an interesting form of economy to do so. Sadly, it might come down to slavery. Individuals would be important for their skills, but since you can't offer them anything tangible to convince them to work for you (they could just work for themselves on whatever they find interesting), some people would convince them through torture, I think.
Suddenly, that utopian future looks a lot more distopian to me.
The late Iain M Banks' Culture novels were set post the Age of Scarcity, and most of his human characters look like hedonistic arseholes.
Re: (Score:2)
The holodeck looks like fun. I'd like to spend most of my evenings playing there with my friends.
Also, I'd like a big cabin with a large forward facing window.
Both of those are scarce. How are they allocated?
What if I'm willing to take a smaller cabin in return for more holodeck time?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would holodecks be scarce if everything else can be magicked into existence?
And if holodecks offer perfect replication of the view, why not just live in one and have a grand mansion of a cabin programmed into it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would holodecks be scarce if everything else can be magicked into existence?
And if holodecks offer perfect replication of the view, why not just live in one and have a grand mansion of a cabin programmed into it?
Engineering constraints force limited ship space. Also, although dilithium crystals and matter/anti-matter reactors could theoretically provide near-infinite power, the availability of given power over a an amount of time is scarce - if you're running 10x holodecks, maybe the sheilds or weapons (ie, phaser banks) can't run at full power (clearly outlined in every combat situation - not enough power to run both at full) Thus, holodeck time is scarce.
And adding to that, time is scarce - Humans do get older
Re: (Score:2)
If they're spending time the way the USN does, there's generally going to be 4-6 hours per day free to do whatever you'd like (depending on maintenance schedules, paperwork, things like that).
Somehow I can't see the Utopian society of ST having LESS leisure time than we have now.
And almost all of us can manage enough time daily to see a movie, if we want (w
Re: (Score:2)
Your imagination needs some upgrades...
Everyone who wants a holo-room isn't going to be living on a ship in the star fleet, and the typical economy-sized holohome on the 30th floor of the center-city bachelor tower doesn't need weapons OR shields....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And although humankind did lived without formal money in the tribal past, there were always exchanges and some people always had more than others. Money came as a tool to facilitate those exchanges and nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, until they invented slavery.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
#HistoricalPrecidentExists
Re: (Score:2)
Trek fabricators can make all the simple stuff, like food and standard medicines, displays and data storage. People probably don't drive individual cars as much, but then the transporter works at least for earth-moon distances. Per Roddenberry himself, the basics for the average person are dirt cheap. The real question is, how much does it cost if you get a disease that Dr. McCoy can't cure with the wave of a salt shaker and has to actually work on - and those diseases are probably limited to exotic ones th
Re: (Score:2)
The label "cruiser" as used by the Federation is a lot more like the original use of the word (ship capable of going a long way without replensihment), unlike the modern USN usage (big anti-air destroyer).
In other words, the two things you're comparing aren't really comparable in ways other than spelling....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Chief O'Brien and Yeoman Rand are the only two I can think of.
Yeoman (Janice) Rand wasn't a man.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be an idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't be an idiot.
Come again?
Your question seemed poorly formulated and your supporting comment only confused matters.
You ask "Why so few enlisted men in Star Trek?", then proceed to offer 2 of the worst examples possible as "the only two I can think of". Yeoman Rand, as I already pointed out, was a woman. Chief O'Brien, though technically an enlisted man, has a confusing rank history, including times where he was referred to as Lieutenant and wore Lieutenant's insignia as well as episodes where he was clearly in charge of
Re: (Score:2)
Yeoman (Janice) Rand wasn't a man.
Don't be an idiot.
Come again?
Pointing out that Yeoman Rand is not actually a man is an idiotic thing to say, since Yeoman is a naval rating, not an indication of gender.
(The beehive hairdo, well-rounded figure, really short minidress and go-go boots are also giveaways that Yeoman Rand isn't a guy.)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. Sitting here about 3 miles from a Navy sub base and a little further from the Coast Guard Academy, I don't need lecturing on naval ratings.
I'll try one more time and point out that your question was about "enlisted men". You used the term Enlisted *men*. In 2013. Then you gave a woman as an example.
If your question was meant to be gender neutral, your choice of words was poor. If your question was meant to address the almost non-existent representation of lower ranks on the Star Trek shows, th
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. I couldn't decide whether there was any substance behind the OP's enlightened commentary or whether it was just adolescent poo-flinging. I thought if I prodded a bit I might evoke a response that could lead to an entertaining discussion. I have my answer now and I'm ashamed to say I wasted my time. Mea culpa.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because of the high attrition rate. After seeing a few of your co-workers blasted to atoms, you might think about opening a coffee shop instead.
I have the book but haven't read it yet. (Score:4, Interesting)
The reviews on Amazon made it seem mediocre at best. Really, there was no better science fiction this year?
Re:I have the book but haven't read it yet. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I have the book but haven't read it yet. (Score:4, Interesting)
The reviews on Amazon made it seem mediocre at best. Really, there was no better science fiction this year?
I read the book and really liked it. I suspect that the reviews are not the best because the book changes course in the middle and morphs from purely comedic to something that makes you have to think in order to enjoy it.
But really?!!?!?! You base your opinion of a book that you actually own, but have not yet read, on Amazon reviews??????
Re: (Score:3)
I bought it because I like Scalzi's writing, it was new at the time, and I was going on vacation. I've read all the Old Man War books except for Zoe's Tale and liked them very much. I also read some of his earlier books like Agent to the Stars which I thought was excellent and Android's Dream which was meh.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I love Scalzi. I'm a self confessed fanboy, read whatever regularly, etc. I did not enjoy Redshirts. It's well executed, I just don't like that kind of story.
Fortunately The Human Division got things back on track.
Re: (Score:3)
I like Scalzi - Redshirts was, ah, interesting. Actually reading it a second time helped. Hugo level? Well, it's all opinion and we all know how valuable those are.
Re: (Score:2)
I have the same feeling. I just reread Agent to the Stars and I found that quite funny. But redshirts didn't do much for me.
Re: (Score:2)
I really, really loved Agent to the Stars. I think Androids Dream is even better. Those two are my favorites so far. I hope he gets to publish a lot more stories.
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for sharing. Now go read the book and comment again when you actually have something relevant to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a really fun read, IMO, at least in the beginning. Middle and ending, especially with the codas, are a tad weak.
Overall, I thought it was a good book, but not Hugo-class. It's more of a book that starts out as a parody of Star Trek/etc, and ends up trying to pull a working plot out of that parody.
Re: (Score:2)
It was mediocre. Certainly not Scalzi's best, but I haven't read any of the other nominees so I can't say how it compares. Assuming none of the others was better I'd have voted "no award". It's enjoyable, but not Hugo-level (IMHO).
It didn't help that I read it just after watching Red Dwarf: Back to Earth [wikipedia.org], which has a very similar plot! I'm not accusing Scalzi of stealing; characters coming to life is an old idea and he had a good take on it. But between Red Dwarf and Galaxy Quest I couldn't help thinking
Re: (Score:3)
I have either read or given up on all of the nominees. I am not convinced that Redshirts was the best novel, but it was probably the intersection of "mainstream / well-known" and "not so bad." Remember, Hugos are determined by a vote of science fiction fans at the convention (or who bought "supporting memberships"), and there's no requirement that they read all of the books.
The nominees were (in order of placement)
5. Blackout - the third in Mira Grant's Newsflesh zombie series. These books are entertainin
Re: (Score:1)
I haven't read a worse book since "The Omen Machine" By Terry Goodkind. Redshirts was terrible. Unfunny, horrible writing, boring bland identical characters. A perfect study piece for what makes an awful book. Just a terrible, terrible, forgettable novel.
It's an insult to win the Hugo.
Sincerely Comic Book Guy
The other Hugo categories (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sci-Fi? (Score:3)
So, I may be living under a rock or something, or maybe it's because I don't really dig Game Of Thrones, or I'm horribly misinformed about the Hugo awards...
But how is Game of Thrones Sci-Fi?
Re: (Score:3)
well Ive written another book to an existing complition of books about an old man who lives on a a cloud and sends winged being to watch over Americans.
You wrote a sequel to the Bible?
Re: (Score:2)
well Ive written... Can I have a Hugo?
Not with writing like that. You made two mistakes in the first two words, any story you wrote would not be the least bit readable.
Re:Sci-Fi? (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to sound like *that* commercial (Score:2)
...but it's really science fiction or fantasy, because there is a difference.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
...but it's really science fiction or fantasy
They're for science fiction works and fantasy works.
Re: (Score:3)
No, there really isn't once you take Clarke's Third Law into account: "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Middle Earth could have existed in The Matrix. Just ferinstance.
Granted, for the vast majority of works, the distinction is usually clear, but SF writers have also been deliberately blurring the borders between the two genres since at least the 1950s.
Is Star Wars fantasy or SF? There's strong arguments on both sides. What about FTL travel? Isn't that fantasy? Psychic
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since 2 decades it pisses me off that books and movies are categorized as "SF and Fantasy". ... I w
Mainly I read/watch SF. IMHO (as I'm not a nerd being deep into Fantasy) there are onky a few Fantasy stories worth reading. (Well, tbh my oppinion is at the edge of changing as I read quite a lot free Fantasy books from apples iBook store)
However when I'm browsing in a library or in an internet book shop (iTunes, Amazone, B&N etc.) I expect to have a section "Science Fiction" and a section "Fantasy"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Good point. It isn't. I'd call it a softcore porn soap opera with swords. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Now, it *might* have been. This is not Earth, and there are indications of higher levels of technology that existed in the past (architecture, if nothing else) but all that gets lost in who's screwing who (literally and figuratively).
Re: (Score:3)
It's G.R.R. Martin, so in the end they'll find a spaceship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Sci-fi = Fantasy. There is no real distinction between magic and advanced technology.
Um, sure there is. There doesn't *have* to be -- it depends on how the "magic" is presented (Larry Niven's "the magic goes away", where "magic" is an naturally occurring energy source, Michael Moorcock's explanation in Elric that "spells" are merely making pacts with elemental creatures or reminding them of previous pacts) but "magic" as is usually depicted on the big or small screen is often of the more trivial kind -- the vain belief that ritual causes things to happen, which is pretty much the opposite
Re: (Score:2)
Sci-fi = Fantasy. There is no real distinction between magic and advanced technology.
Um, sure there is. There doesn't *have* to be -- it depends on how the "magic" is presented ...
In case it wasn't clear... Parent was paraphrasing one of Arthur C. Clarke's three laws [wikipedia.org]:
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Re: (Score:2)
Sci-fi = Fantasy. There is no real distinction between magic and advanced technology.
Um, sure there is. There doesn't *have* to be -- it depends on how the "magic" is presented ...
In case it wasn't clear... Parent was paraphrasing one of Arthur C. Clarke's three laws [wikipedia.org]:
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
It was absolutely clear. But lest you forgot logical equivalence [wikipedia.org] from high school, that a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic does *not* mean that "magic" in arts and literature must originate from a sufficiently advanced technology. If you're in paris, that means you're in france. If you're in france, that *does not* mean you're in paris. (Unless you're a certain friend of mine, who never goes anywhere else in Europe.) Magic often is equivalent to fantasy and wishful thin
Re: (Score:2)
Sci-fi = Fantasy. ...
It was absolutely clear. But lest you forgot logical equivalence ...
Sorry, I thought that was an assignment, not equivalence - my genre operators don't overload and their classes don't inherit :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok ok, that was funny.
(And I think I should have written "lest you forget"...)
Re: (Score:2)
NO. There are people who like to say this but it's crap. Usually there's a more explicit reference to Clarke's Third Law. But from Clarke's point, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" you can't conclude that "Any writing about magic is really writing about technology". Literary genres are a matter of tropes and reader expectations.
Re: (Score:2)
NO. There are people who like to say this but it's crap. Usually there's a more explicit reference to Clarke's Third Law. But from Clarke's point, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" you can't conclude that "Any writing about magic is really writing about technology". Literary genres are a matter of tropes and reader expectations.
Generally agreed - and I referenced that third law above (in the unlikely event someone didn't know), but obviously the "tech as magic" thing could go either way depending on the context of the story, etc... Fantasy doesn't *have* to include magic (or technology) though it often seems to. Personally I'm not a fan of fantasy, especially if it includes "magic" - I see it as a lazy attempt at Science Fiction - though perhaps I haven't been exposed to good/better fantasy fiction or simply prefer story lines cl
Re:Sci-Fi? (Score:4, Interesting)
Another interesting side to the "tech as magic" notion is the work of authors who define rigorous frameworks for their fictional magic. Then magic becomes technology, just technology that's based on different (and fictional) physical principles. Much of golden age sci-fi was about exploring the impact of logical extensions of technology on social structures. Today there's a lot of fantasy that postulates interesting magic and explores its impact on social structures.
Of course, at the end of the day all good stories are about people. I love good stories that use really innovative and mind-twisting technology/magic as a backdrop, but while great ideas add spice great storytelling is about emotional reaction, and that means people.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is all in the attitude of the characters. In sci-fi, the characters either know or want to know why the world works the way it does.
Frodo never wonders how the rings turn kings int wraiths.
Pat Cadigan (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a minute - this isn't a first post.
Re: (Score:1)
cosmonaut?
COSMONAUT?!?!?
You fucking asshole. You can't even get your troll right.
It's Coruscant!!!11!
Fuck you.