Bookworms: Fuzzy Nation (2011) by John Scalzi

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those being crushed.” Proverbs 31:8, The Bible

What follows is a two part, compare and contrast review of Little Fuzzy by H. Beam Piper and Fuzzy Nation by John Scalzi. This is part two. Read part one here.

Given the simplicity of story and its lighthearted tone, Little Fuzzy by H. Beam Piper is usually protrayed as juvenile fiction. If that is the case, then Fuzzy Nation is the story all grown up. While keeping the heart of the story intact, John Scalzi took the characters and situations therein and dug a little bit deeper, shaded a little bit darker, and produced a fantastic remake of an already outstanding novel.

The stories’ protagonist Jack Holloway undergoes a noticeable transformation. In Little Fuzzy, Jack is a crusty old prospector to be sure, quick on the gun and with a propensity to be gruff, but is generally a nice guy. The fuzzies know him as Pappy Jack. Jack quickly recognizes the fuzzies’ sentience and grows very fond of them. He is distraught when they go missing and genuinely cares more for them than himself. Jack in Fuzzy Nation is an asshole. I wish there was a nicer way to put it, but there isn’t. He is self-centered and petulant. He, and everyone he knows, readily acknowledge that more people like his dog than him. He doesn’t believe the fuzzies are anything more than smart animals, and it takes quite a bit to convince him otherwise. He doesn’t rush to their defense, initially, and does so out of his own self interest. He is out to see his scores settled more than he is out to see the fuzzy nation recognized and protected. Eventually, he comes around and his character is redeemed by the end of the story, but he doesn’t start nice.

The character of Jack is a good example for how the story was changed. Everything was tweaked to be a bit more aggressive, grown up. The planet is harsher, the predators more dangerous, the mining company more devious and heartless, Jack’s friends less friendly. The fuzzies themselves are less cute and innocent. They do more for themselves and their backstory is expanded. Start to finish, Fuzzy Nation is in every way Little Fuzzy, only darker, and more sophisticated.

And funnier. Holy space monkeys, Batman! is it funny. I laughed, loudly and frequently. The judge is sarcastic and even more hilarious than in the original, and Scalzi never misses an opportunity to illustrate the funny side of what is happening.

Despite knowing the story going in as a fan of the original, and it was clear from the beginning that the general plot was exactly the same, Fuzzy Nation still delighted and surprised me. As far as remakes go, it is one of the best I have ever witnessed, regardless of medium. It was everything I enjoyed about the first iteration and more. It was as if I had picked up a children’s book I enjoyed as a child and found, quite magically, that it had grown and matured right with me. If this were a movie remake I would say that the acting, the dialogue, the set decoration, the effects: everything was improved and familiar all at the same time.

Should you read Little Fuzzy, then, if Fuzzy Nation is so well done? Absolutely. You’d be an idiot if you only watched Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins and never Tim Burton’s Batman. Casino Royale and Dr. No are very different, but both are worth the time. [Author’s Note: While not technically remakes, Bond is a very good analogy here. Sean Connery is not Daniel Craig is not Timothy Dalton but all are Bond and all can be appreciated for how they inform and perform the character]. Originals exist in a class, and a time, of their own. Little Fuzzy was written in 1962 and it feels like it. The science is very old fashioned (from our perspective) and very much like science fiction of the time. The fuzzies are characterized differently, so much so that they almost feel like two different species while being essentially the same. As has been demonstrated, there are two very different Jack Holloways. I prefer the Jack in the original, but I understand the Jack in the remake better. I think each reader of each novel can find elements of both they like, dislike, and absolutely love.

The emotional impact of Fuzzy Nation is harder. The climax hit me right in the gut, and I still haven’t quite forgotten it. That is why I quote the Bible in my epigraph. I don’t want to get into religion, but the Bible tends to bring a certain gravitas to a situation. For many thousands of years it has been respected as literature and as a guider of men’s souls. The quotations and teachings therein have been respected, even by those who don’t believe the mythology and grander claims. For me, this quote sums up the fuzzy rage and pain as presented in Fuzzy Nation and encapsulates Jack’s motivation in Little Fuzzy. Also, it is a very apt quote to apply to the fuzzies. In both stories a fuzzy is killed by being crushed, and in both stories the normal language of the fuzzies is outside of the human auditory range, so in effect, they are introduced being unable to speak. Furthermore, the fuzzies need justice they cannot procure for themselves.

Definitely read both versions. I would recommend starting with the original, as I did, but it really isn’t important. Both novels deserve to be read and admired. I enjoyed both so much that I think I will actually seek out and buy physical copies of them, and include them among my other favorite books that I keep in physical form. I am a child of the digital age, and read on my iPad mini when I read, but there is something about books that will never be duplicated on a tablet, and that little extra specialness I reserve for books I want to read again and again. As you will, once you read Little Fuzzy Nation for yourself.

*By the way, you can read what Scalzi himself had to say about Fuzzy Nation when he introduced it on his blog.

Related posts: