fedak's review
4.0
Military SF novella about a sentient AI supertank that is reflecting on its long service career as it is being dismantled for scrap.
A bit heavy handed in its social commentary message but was thought provoking- particularly when it delves into the ethics of how the tanks were trained for the field.
A bit heavy handed in its social commentary message but was thought provoking- particularly when it delves into the ethics of how the tanks were trained for the field.
erichart's review
2.0
To say that this is probably one of the better nominees for the 2015 Hugo Award is to damn it with faint praise. Not terrible, but nothing new. Makes its point bluntly, with no subtlety at all. The military (human or mechanical) are portrayed as either brave and loyal, or cynical, corrupt warmongers. No middle ground, no gray areas.
made_in_dna's review
5.0
If you ever enjoyed the Hammer's Slammers series, then BBDC is a fantastic short title for you. Sentient battle tanks slug it out with alien menaces from beyond the stars. Plenty of action and realistic character development that goes a long way toward revealing the real threats to humankind (and machinekind). In a century when thinking machines are still in their infancy, this work will give you good reason for pause, to consider the consequences of putting machines on the frontlines of tomorrow's battles.
tpietila's review
1.0
A rip off of the Bolo series by Keith Laumer. A have read only a few of those, but there were much more interesting than this story. An intelligent tank has been badly damaged. It is being dismantled for scrap and that opens new connections to the brain of the tank and it remembers past missions and experiences which have been restricted from the active memory. They consist mainly from more or less bloody battles and very detailed descriptions of the turrets of tanks and so on. The writer sure seems to love his guns! On the other hand, his knowledge of physics is really badly lacking. In one place, he describes antimatter mines which are able to harm the tanks described in the story through the thinner armor plating at the bottom. As 50 grams of antimatter corresponds an explosive power worth of 150 Hiroshima bombs it will undoubtedly slightly harm the armor. Or vaporizes everything within a few dozen meters. The writing is fairly clumsy, worse than Laumer’s, but vastly better than Wright’s. What we learn from this story: pacifists should be hanged at the nearest lamppost. And feminists are badly disturbed people who push worlds to civil war just because they want to be as good as men.
barb4ry1's review
3.0
A solid novella about sentient cybernetic super tanks. As much as I love the premise (and the ending), I feel it's uneven. Well worth a read anyway.
publius's review
4.0
I don't read a lot of military scifi, but if Tom Kratman's [b:Big Boys Don't Cry|20882829|Big Boys Don't Cry|Tom Kratman|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1393024750s/20882829.jpg|40223487] is any indication of what I'm missing, I may start reading more.
Nominated for the 2015 Hugo Award for Best Novella (a story with a word count between 17,500 words and 40,000 words), Big Boys Don't Cry held me from the first page. This review is part of my effort to read and evaluate the 2015 Hugo nominees prior to the final vote later this year. I’ve previously reviewed “Totaled” by [a:Kary English|6427054|Kary English|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png], Flow by [a:Arlan Andrews Sr.|2953875|Arlan Andrews Sr.|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png], and I’ll post other reviews as I write them.
Although there's been a bit of controversy around the Hugo Awards this year (okay, a lot more than just a bit), I've decided to plow ahead and evaluate as many of the nominees as possible. Much of what has been written and said seems driven by emotion and a scarcity mentality bent on controlling and manipulating the award, where little seems to address the quality of the nominees. With some exception in the novel category (I've already finished Annie Leckie's Ancillary Sword, many of the nominees appear to be new (to me), which presents an opportunity to meet some new authors, expand my regular reading, and perhaps add to the conversation. Once I've been able to get a better grasp of the quality of writing, perhaps I can examine it against the larger conversation (or, if you will, screaming match) happening in science fiction right now over the politics, future, and fandom around the Hugo Award.
But I digress. Where was I?
Oh, yes. [a:Tom Kratman|159596|Tom Kratman|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png]. Big Boys Don't Cry. Novella. Hugo nominee A thought provoking read.
In the far future, man has expanded throughout to the universe, overcoming the light barrier. In an imperialistic surge, we have designed autonomous tanks with artificial intelligence. Initially designed to work hand in hand with soldiers, they eventually replace them, becoming the main line of an imperial ground force. Intelligent beyond our own capacity, but tempered by very human like emotions, they are more human than we realize.
Prior to becoming a full time author, Kratman was a career military officer, and it shows in his writing. Big Boys Don't Cry is written by a mind steeped in the culture and history of a trained soldier and officer. That said, Kratman is no conformist, but portrays a critical awareness of the dark side of war and military culture. Underlying his story about an artificial intelligence that becoming self-aware and developing a conscience is a cautionary tale about the dangers of hubris, of becoming to distanced from the violence and pain of war, and of allowing machines to do for us what we are unwilling to do ourselves.
I loved Kratman's description of how the hardware for the artificial intelligence is grown, as well as how the AI is trained to become a warrior. He gives special attention to explaining--in mostly comprehensible technojargon--how the gigantic tanks are mobile and powered under their immense weight. He interweaves his story with requisite back story, almost in the form of a chiasmus (poetic, not genetic), coming to the end of his story just as the denouement arrives.
If I were to lodge a sole complaint, it would be that Kratman's humans are superficially all of one breed, a selfish and greedy race, consumed with domination and control. It does, however, serve to put the protagonist tank, Maggie, in high relief as a more sympathetic character.
Big Boys Don't Cry got me thinking, and that's one of my main criteria for a competitive nominee for the Hugo. I hope all the best for Kratman as the voters start to tally their ballots. At the very least, I'm glad to discover a new author, and I look forward to reading more by Kratman in the future.
Nominated for the 2015 Hugo Award for Best Novella (a story with a word count between 17,500 words and 40,000 words), Big Boys Don't Cry held me from the first page. This review is part of my effort to read and evaluate the 2015 Hugo nominees prior to the final vote later this year. I’ve previously reviewed “Totaled” by [a:Kary English|6427054|Kary English|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png], Flow by [a:Arlan Andrews Sr.|2953875|Arlan Andrews Sr.|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png], and I’ll post other reviews as I write them.
Although there's been a bit of controversy around the Hugo Awards this year (okay, a lot more than just a bit), I've decided to plow ahead and evaluate as many of the nominees as possible. Much of what has been written and said seems driven by emotion and a scarcity mentality bent on controlling and manipulating the award, where little seems to address the quality of the nominees. With some exception in the novel category (I've already finished Annie Leckie's Ancillary Sword, many of the nominees appear to be new (to me), which presents an opportunity to meet some new authors, expand my regular reading, and perhaps add to the conversation. Once I've been able to get a better grasp of the quality of writing, perhaps I can examine it against the larger conversation (or, if you will, screaming match) happening in science fiction right now over the politics, future, and fandom around the Hugo Award.
But I digress. Where was I?
Oh, yes. [a:Tom Kratman|159596|Tom Kratman|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png]. Big Boys Don't Cry. Novella. Hugo nominee A thought provoking read.
In the far future, man has expanded throughout to the universe, overcoming the light barrier. In an imperialistic surge, we have designed autonomous tanks with artificial intelligence. Initially designed to work hand in hand with soldiers, they eventually replace them, becoming the main line of an imperial ground force. Intelligent beyond our own capacity, but tempered by very human like emotions, they are more human than we realize.
Prior to becoming a full time author, Kratman was a career military officer, and it shows in his writing. Big Boys Don't Cry is written by a mind steeped in the culture and history of a trained soldier and officer. That said, Kratman is no conformist, but portrays a critical awareness of the dark side of war and military culture. Underlying his story about an artificial intelligence that becoming self-aware and developing a conscience is a cautionary tale about the dangers of hubris, of becoming to distanced from the violence and pain of war, and of allowing machines to do for us what we are unwilling to do ourselves.
I loved Kratman's description of how the hardware for the artificial intelligence is grown, as well as how the AI is trained to become a warrior. He gives special attention to explaining--in mostly comprehensible technojargon--how the gigantic tanks are mobile and powered under their immense weight. He interweaves his story with requisite back story, almost in the form of a chiasmus (poetic, not genetic), coming to the end of his story just as the denouement arrives.
If I were to lodge a sole complaint, it would be that Kratman's humans are superficially all of one breed, a selfish and greedy race, consumed with domination and control. It does, however, serve to put the protagonist tank, Maggie, in high relief as a more sympathetic character.
Big Boys Don't Cry got me thinking, and that's one of my main criteria for a competitive nominee for the Hugo. I hope all the best for Kratman as the voters start to tally their ballots. At the very least, I'm glad to discover a new author, and I look forward to reading more by Kratman in the future.
sarrie's review
4.0
It was very well written but be prepared for a lot of very obvious politcal commentary. He did an excellent job of humanizing a tank. I've heard it's a play or ode to the Bolo series (if I remember correctly). I may pick those up as they are considered 'classics'.
morgandhu's review
3.0
Hugo-nominated novella Big Boys Don't Cry by Tom Kratman is in essence an exploration of a concept - a sentient war machine that has a conscience but lacks the autonomy to live by it. Magnolia, MLN90456SS06150212 - "Maggie" to her comrades in arms, both human and machine - is a Ratha, an AI-controlled superheavy tank that carries both massive weaponry and a crew, either human or mechanical. (Rathas are Kratman's version of Keith Laumer's Bolos, first inagined in his 1960 short story "Combat Unit.")
Maggie has had a long term of service in a long and deadly war. At first outfitted with a human complement of fighters, she, and the other Ratha, now carry mechanical drone units - but she misses her "boys":
"I used to have a human commander, one who knew me and cared about me. I carried a short platoon of my own infantry, too, once upon a time; twenty-four men in powered battle armor. They were killed, or retired, medically or otherwise, or reached the end of their service. I think the last of them has passed on by now."
Damaged beyond repair in battle, Maggie relives her past as her remaining functional parts are salvaged, back to the harrowing experiences of her early conditioning.
The novella unfolds in sections, alternating between a present-time narrative line, a past-time narrative line, Maggie's memories of past battles, and expository passages framed as excerpts from various texts discussing Rathas and the war. Despite this complexity of viewpoints, Maggie's story, and the worldbuilding needed to understand her, and her actions, come through clearly. I found the battle sequences a bit repetitive, but then I'm not the ideal audience for this style of milsf. What did keep me reading was Maggie and her response to the moral dilemmas of war.
Maggie has had a long term of service in a long and deadly war. At first outfitted with a human complement of fighters, she, and the other Ratha, now carry mechanical drone units - but she misses her "boys":
"I used to have a human commander, one who knew me and cared about me. I carried a short platoon of my own infantry, too, once upon a time; twenty-four men in powered battle armor. They were killed, or retired, medically or otherwise, or reached the end of their service. I think the last of them has passed on by now."
Damaged beyond repair in battle, Maggie relives her past as her remaining functional parts are salvaged, back to the harrowing experiences of her early conditioning.
The novella unfolds in sections, alternating between a present-time narrative line, a past-time narrative line, Maggie's memories of past battles, and expository passages framed as excerpts from various texts discussing Rathas and the war. Despite this complexity of viewpoints, Maggie's story, and the worldbuilding needed to understand her, and her actions, come through clearly. I found the battle sequences a bit repetitive, but then I'm not the ideal audience for this style of milsf. What did keep me reading was Maggie and her response to the moral dilemmas of war.
shadda's review
1.0
I will preface this by saying that I don't usually read military sci-fi, and that I am only reading this because it was part of the Hugo voter's packet. Lots of people seem to have loved this book, so clearly Kratman is doing something right, it just didn't appeal to me.
First off, I want to discuss the combat sequences. In contrast to what most people have said, these seemed quite boring to me. There was a lot of description, but no cleverness in what the characters were doing. They targeted the enemy and blew them up or were blown up, end of story. To me, the appeal of a fight scene is not the size of the explosion, but getting to watch the metaphorical gears in the protagonist's head spin. Here the mechanical nature of the protagonist meant that there were no mad scrambles, only methodical slaughter.
The social commentary in a nutshell? Humanity is corrupt, incompetent, and generally just bad. If the dust jacket blurb is to be believed, "Kratman delights in offending left-wing sensibilities". Here, aside from a cardboard characterization of modern women, the opposite seems to be true. It's the military officials, the government bureaucrats, and the capitalists who are immoral. Even the oft-hated literati are spared the sword. What historical reports we get are written in a decidedly nonacademic style - more propaganda than formal report - suggesting that this is a world where education in the humanities is seriously devalued and liberal voices have been silenced. I suppose I should be pleased by a book that so reinforces my values, but that's not why I read sci-fi.
Overall impression? I didn't actively hate it.
This is one of those books that makes me wish Goodreads used 3-stars as a neutral rating rather than a positive one. I didn't like it, yet I feel like it deserves more than one star.
First off, I want to discuss the combat sequences. In contrast to what most people have said, these seemed quite boring to me. There was a lot of description, but no cleverness in what the characters were doing. They targeted the enemy and blew them up or were blown up, end of story. To me, the appeal of a fight scene is not the size of the explosion, but getting to watch the metaphorical gears in the protagonist's head spin. Here the mechanical nature of the protagonist meant that there were no mad scrambles, only methodical slaughter.
The social commentary in a nutshell? Humanity is corrupt, incompetent, and generally just bad. If the dust jacket blurb is to be believed, "Kratman delights in offending left-wing sensibilities". Here, aside from a cardboard characterization of modern women, the opposite seems to be true. It's the military officials, the government bureaucrats, and the capitalists who are immoral. Even the oft-hated literati are spared the sword. What historical reports we get are written in a decidedly nonacademic style - more propaganda than formal report - suggesting that this is a world where education in the humanities is seriously devalued and liberal voices have been silenced. I suppose I should be pleased by a book that so reinforces my values, but that's not why I read sci-fi.
Overall impression? I didn't actively hate it.
This is one of those books that makes me wish Goodreads used 3-stars as a neutral rating rather than a positive one. I didn't like it, yet I feel like it deserves more than one star.
More...