- How did you like the book?
- What were your thoughts on the Codas? Do you like that they were added or were they not necessary?
- What do you think was Hanson’s role in all of this? What about Dahl’s?
General Concerns:
three.nerdss@gmail.com
Nerd Specific
hecate.threenerds@gmail.com
isis.threenerds@gmail.com
scathach.threenerds@gmail.com
So The Three Nerds have their own book review blogs for all the books that they don't read for the club!
When I read the first person coda, I thought it was kind of…stupid and lame. I was thinking, What’s the point of this?! However, I actually really enjoyed the second and third coda, since they explained what went on with the ‘real life’ people, and pretty much answered some of the questions that the book posed. I can understand that whole “first person, second person, third person” thing, but I really didn’t think the first coda was necessary. I was bored with it.
Overall, I really enjoyed the book in the beginning, until it got to explaining the whole Narrative part, and then I felt like I was walking around in circles. The book redeemed itself a bit with the last two codas. But would I read this book again? Probably not. Probably won’t recommend it to anyone either. It was good and entertaining, and I enjoyed the writing style, but when the best explanation to a question or situation always ends with, “it’s because of the Narrative,” it starts to feel unresolved and…stuck.
I’m still trying to figure out if Dahl and Co are fictional characters or real ones? I think it’s because I’ve seen things from Dahl & Co’s point of view for majority of the book, that I feel as if they are not fictional characters. Maybe because I feel connected to them, so I feel as if they are real, actual characters and not fictional ones.
I liked the ending of the main novel, with the conversation between Dahl and Hanson and the book sort of referencing itself (the story in which Dahl and his friends are the main characters and the real world people are also fictional). “So here’s what I think. I think there’s no television show. No real television show. I think that Charles Paulson and Marc Corey and Brian Abnett and everyone else over there are just as fictional as we were supposed to be. I think Captain Abernathy and Commander Q’eeng, Medical Officer Hartnell and Chief Engineer West are the bit players here, and that me and Maia and Finn and Jasper are the people who really count. And I think in the end, you really exist for just one reason” (p. 228). It kind of puts, the readers, us into the place of the people who watch “Chronicles of the Intrepid” in the story. Similar to what I wrote in my comment on the thread for chapters 14 to 20, I think this message would have been improved by some more character development for these characters, to get the they-are-redshirts-in-one-world-but-actually-they-are-important message across.
The double ending of did-they-survive-or-didn’t-they was both frustrating and kind of fun at the same time.
I think the codas weren’t needed, but they did add something, so I’m glad they were there. I liked the second and third codas for their moving content. I think they have a message that, while we create the stories, they end up affecting us and changing our lives.
The first coda was odd, but at the same time, I think it had a section that conveyed one of the main messages of the book. Finn says to Nick, “None of us except for Davis are pissed off at being dead. Death happens. It happens to everyone. It’s going to happen to you. What we’re pissed off about is that our deaths are so completely pointless” (p. 266). Later, Nick says, “You want me to write better deaths” (p. 268) and Finn responds, “Yeah. Fewer deaths wouldn’t hurt, either. But better deaths. We’re all already dead. It’s too late for us. But each of us have people we care about who are still alive, who might pass under your pen, if you want to put it that way. We think they deserve better. And now you know you do too” (p. 269).
Maybe it’s because I read Scalzi’s book “You’re Not Fooling Anyone When You Take Your Laptop to a Coffee Shop” (a collection of posts from his blog) immediately prior to reading this book, but I had this weird feeling while reading the first coda that it was a Scalzi-writing-about-writing-and-blogging-as-a-writer-and-blogger-himself sort of thing. Almost like it was as much about himself writing “Redshirts” as it was about Nick Weinstein writing “Chronicles of the Intrepid”. There’s even a passage which mirrors opinions that Scalzi has expressed in his blog posts. Nick Weinstein writes, “Filled with existential ennui about your place in the universe? Get over yourself. Yes, you’re an inconsequential worm who makes shit up for a living, which means you don’t have to lift heavy boxes or ask people if they want fries with that. Grow up and get back to work” (p. 237). In some blog posts, Scalzi has criticized writers think it’s beneath them to have a day job and don’t appreciate that, though writing may be difficult, it’s not as difficult as many other jobs (like manual labor or working at a fast food restaurant). He also lists several well-known authors who had day jobs in addition to writing.