Review of "Red Shirts" by: John Scalzi

For those of you who do not like the science fiction genre, I'm right there with you. I prefer to see it on TV than to read about it. While at work, a coworker recommended a book that I didn't think I would like based on the genre it was in. The book she recommended was "Red Shirts" by John Scalzi. The way she described it piqued my interest and later that day, I ended up checking it out. Little did I know that my mind would be blown by this book.

To start, the book takes place in the future. It chronicles the adventures of a few new recruits onboard The Intrepid. As we get to know each and every one of these recruits, we soon find out that people onboard start acting really weird when it comes to away missions. Their phone or tablet might go off, alerting them that one of the Commanders is on their way. They mysteriously find that they need to do inventory or grab a cup of coffee, leaving the new recruits to be pulled into the away missions. While on the away missions, someone ends up getting killed. It's not even a someone sometimes gets killed.... someone ALWAYS gets killed! Dahl, our protagonist, starts to figure out that something isn't right and begins to slowly figure out what's going on, all thanks to his fellow recruits and a loner crewman named Jenkins.

I don't want to give too much away just due to the fact that you have to read it to really know what's going on. Once you do figure it out.... OH MY GAWD! I actually had to put the book down at one point and re-read the chapter to make sure I was understanding it correctly. Scalzi does an excellent job in setting up one of the biggest plot twists since Shyamalan's "The Sixth Sense." I can't believe this isn't already in the works of becoming a movie! I would be honored to write it if I had the permission of Mr. Scalzi himself! This book makes you think that this (the plot twist) could truly be real. What if ::redacted:: is happening right at this moment? What if ::redacted:: playing ::redacted:: on ::redacted:: is actually causing ::redacted:: on the actual ::redacted:: to ::redacted::? That's a lot of "redacted" but you'll see what I mean when you read it.

Overall, I would give this a 5 Captain Kirks out of 5: