So, after months of virtually nothing catching my interest, I heard about John Scalzi's new book Redshirts and went on Amazon to order it. Imagine my chagrin when I discovered a handful of "must buy" books have all been released recently. Scalzi also has a re-telling of the classic H Beam Piper novel Little Fuzzy, which garnered pretty fair reviews. Its in paperback now, I believe, so it may fit my budget soon. John Birmingham's 3rd book in the After America series, Angels Of Vengeance is out-I got hooked on him with the Axis of Time trilogy and have bought the new series as it came out. I also heard about a book called Year Zero by Rob Reid-it sounds like it's as wacky as Hitchhiker's Guide and it gets fantastic reviews-so onto the "must have" it goes. The latest in the 1632 Eric Flint universe is out- 1636:The Kremlin Games, with 1636:Papal Stakes scheduled this fall. I'm gonna be scrambling, I think, to pay for all of this. ANy of you know of new releases I may have missed?
Fuzzy World is real fun and has an old-schoool vibe to it. I think I tore through it in one night. I wish SyFy would pick stories like that to turn into their movies of the week, stuff able to be filmed cheap with few actors and sets, but still telling a great story.
Agreed. For a channel devoted to science fiction, their Sat Night movies miss the boat completely. If they did good stories maybe they would spark more interest in science fiction in media, which could only benefit their bottom line as time progresses. Ah, well....instead we get "SHarkopottamus" or whatever...
I LOVED Scalzi's Redshirts book. I need to check out more of his stuff. Also really enjoying Kim Stanley Robinson's 2312.
Baxter and Pratchett, The Long Earth Robinson, 2312 Brin, Existence Egan, The Clockwork Rocket (available in kindle)
That's because, like any commercial-supported cable network, it's actually a channel devoted to profitable content. Like it or not, it's the wrestling and dumb movies that pay their bills and let them do the classier original stuff to the extent that they can. I wish that were true, but the sad fact is, they used to have a stronger science-fiction focus, and it didn't benefit their bottom line, so they had to go for the more lowbrow stuff that would bring in a larger audience while also being cheap to make. This is the path many niche cable networks have gone over the past 20 years, and if anything, Syfy's managed to cling to the vestiges of its core identity better than a lot of other formerly niche networks like A&E, Bravo, CourtTV (now TruTV), and The Nashville Network (now Spike). Actually a Sharkopotamus sounds like it would be very scary indeed. Have you seen hippos in person? They're huge and powerful. And they can move on land. Stick a shark's head on that and you've got an impressively deadly movie monster. Although you know what would be even scarier? Sharknoceros.
A few new cooks are out of the kitchen It came out in 2010, so you might not consider it a new release, but I really loved The Way of Kings by Brandon Sanderson. It's the first installment in what is intended to be a ten-volume series. This first book is more than a thousand (very enjoyable) pages long, so this is quite an undertaking Sanderson has started.
Re: A few new cooks are out of the kitchen Fuzzy World is an abomination and insult to H. Beam Piper. The first chapter was available online from the publisher. I recommend reading it before throwing away your money on the purchase. Scalzi took the idea of hollywood remakes and applied it to books with the re-write. ugh.
^Hollywood didn't invent the remake/reboot. It goes back thousands of years, and was the only way to keep a story alive before widespread literacy. Almost every one of Shakespeare's plays is a "remake" and reinterpretation of an earlier play, myth, historical account, etc. Heck, the Book of Genesis is basically a remake of the Sumerian creation myth Enuma Elish, adapted for a monotheistic audience.
^Yes Chris, I've heard the speech and gotten the pamphlet. That doesn't negate the fact that Hollywood has a reputation of remakes/reboots that are poorly executed and/or poorly thought out.
^Which has nothing to do with where Mr. Scalzi may have gotten the idea to do a new interpretation of Little Fuzzy.
It's Fuzzy Nation, by the way, which I thought was a great read. Redshirts is downright hysterical if you're a big Star Trek fan. Android's Dream is another good read from him. Nothing is quite as good as Old Man's War though. My only complaint with Scalzi is that hias books are too short. It seems like they're over as soon as they start getting really entertaining. Redshirts is one of two new releases I've bought this year, the other being The Long Earth by Stephen Baxter and Terry Pratchett. I'm thoroughly enjoying this one too.
Has Mr. Scalzi let you know where he got the idea from? Regardless of where he got the idea, the results are terrible.
I haven't met him yet, so no. But the point is that, given that retelling pre-existing stories is a tradition going back to prehistory, it doesn't make sense to assume that he must have gotten the idea from motion pictures, a medium that's only existed for a little more than a century. Nor does it make sense to imply that there's anything wrong with the practice in general. Yes, lots of remakes are bad, but that's because lots of everything is bad. Many of the most beloved films, plays, and books out there are retellings of pre-existing stories. (Adam-Troy Castro made that point on his Remake Chronicles blog just yesterday.) So if a work doesn't turn out to your satisfaction, it's not because it was a remake.
There are a few good suggestions here. Looks like I'm going to be broke for a while... in a good way.
Yes, yes ,yes, we've heard this all before. I'm sure we'll hear it again. I didn't say that Hollywood invented the remake or anything of the kind. I said it was a Hollywood remake in that Hollywood tends to have a certain reputation for poorly thought out retellings. Everyone knows what you mean when you say it's a Hollywood style remake. It's a derogatory statement in most cases. If I had just said "it's a remake" without the "hollywood" qualifier, you might have some merit here. I didn't, so you don't. In the end it still does not change my opinion of the book.
So... he actually makes reference to Star Trek and calls it a reboot. I think it's a good book, either way. It obviously made a lot of money because they keep buying his books.