The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War • Hacker News Board

Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War

#71

Post by briholt » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 7:34 PM UTC

gregjwild wrote: post #53

PuffinBlue wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often read comments like this about The Forever War and I'm never sure if I read the same book. I enjoyed it but it seemed an awful lot more shallow than it's given credit for. It just seemed to me that it raised lots of ideas but never really explored them fully. I found it a bit 'thin'. Perhaps that was intentional as a corollary to the breakneck pace of time-dilation Mandella faced and the societal change he fac…

Those are fair comments, sure. I think the rationale is really that Haldeman was really commenting on the pace of social change, especially for service personnel, particularly those who served multiple tours. The protagonist hates the horror of war as much as the alienation from the society he is allegedly being forced to defend. Though I can see why that puts some people off :)

I agree it's deliberate. I took the fleeting scenes and topics as simulating the experience of bouncing from Vietnamese hamlet to hamlet, never really stopping to know anyone or anything about them, then getting whisked stateside for a brief leave in a now a totally changed homeland, only to get sent back to start the process over.

Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War

#72

Post by shepardrtc » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 7:39 PM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #67

shepardrtc wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made another comment saying that it was satire (without the douche-iness), and it got downvoted, too. So its just disagreement. When I initially read the book, I expected it to be pro-war. In fact, I just wanted to read a SF book about aliens and robotic suits. But after I was finished, I was very surprised by it being satire. Sure, if you look at it from a completely superficial perspective, it looks like its espo…

> I made another comment saying that it was satire (without the douche-iness), and it got downvoted, too. So its just disagreement. This is kind of superfluous to the discussion but I'm trying to be constructive here, honest: all three of your comments on this story might lead one to believe that you are an enormous bag of douche. Reexamine your use of terms like "common misconception" and "quite clear" as an exercis…

> completely superficial perspective

I was being very literal. And I wasn't referring to the author in particular.

Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War

#73

Post by justin66 » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 7:40 PM UTC

benihana wrote: post #24

notahacker wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying they're "nearly identical" seems to miss the point that the former is a paen to the military filled with lieutenant colonels waxing philosophical about how duty to fight is the basis of all morality, whilst the latter involves a brazenly cynical protagonist whose thoughts of war mostly involve hoping to find a way out of it...

> a brazenly cynical protagonist whose thoughts of war mostly involve hoping to find a way out of it... Catch-22?

Catch-22 was mentioned in a blurb on the cover of the first paperback edition. TFW is more subtle than Catch-22, but then again, everything is. Catch-22 pushes the envelope about as hard as a satire could and still be good.

Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War

#74

Post by shepardrtc » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 7:46 PM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #67

shepardrtc wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made another comment saying that it was satire (without the douche-iness), and it got downvoted, too. So its just disagreement. When I initially read the book, I expected it to be pro-war. In fact, I just wanted to read a SF book about aliens and robotic suits. But after I was finished, I was very surprised by it being satire. Sure, if you look at it from a completely superficial perspective, it looks like its espo…

> I made another comment saying that it was satire (without the douche-iness), and it got downvoted, too. So its just disagreement. This is kind of superfluous to the discussion but I'm trying to be constructive here, honest: all three of your comments on this story might lead one to believe that you are an enormous bag of douche. Reexamine your use of terms like "common misconception" and "quite clear" as an exercis…

Also, let me add that I don't think the author is being superficial. I'm sure he has read it far more times than myself or others. But I don't agree with him.

Maybe my strong feeling for what the book is about (or is not about) is affected by me completely ignoring Heinlein himself. I'm not taking into consideration any of his other work or his history. I'm just looking at the book as is.

Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War

#75

Post by ghaff » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 7:52 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #64

shepardrtc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct, it is satirical. But its a common misconception that its some sort of military love-letter. Edit: So I assume that downvotes now are a form of disagreement rather than a measure of contribution to the discussion.

> You are correct, it is satirical. I don't think that's the case; I think that it isn't simplistically prescriptive the way that shallow readings usually take it, but I don't think its satire either. Its more complicated than that. I think that there are a number of things that come together in ST : (1) Heinlein's concern about what he saw as a then-current political current to dismiss what he saw as clear, current,…

This is probably the most accurate description of the novel in this thread. I agree that there's no particular reason to think that Heinlein is saying we'd all be better off if tomorrow we took away the franchise from everyone who hasn't served in the military. Nor do I think it's fair to say that the novel is pro-war in the sense of glorifying warfare.

At the same time, based on large swaths of what Heinlein has written (including non-fiction), there's also no particular reason to think that we're supposed to roll our eyes and take as satire the various lectures about honor and duty in the book. Nor take it as a general condemnation of the "military mind" or anything like that.

Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War

#76

Post by justin66 » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 8:11 PM UTC

shepardrtc wrote: post #74

justin66 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I made another comment saying that it was satire (without the douche-iness), and it got downvoted, too. So its just disagreement. This is kind of superfluous to the discussion but I'm trying to be constructive here, honest: all three of your comments on this story might lead one to believe that you are an enormous bag of douche. Reexamine your use of terms like "common misconception" and "quite clear" as an exercis…

Also, let me add that I don't think the author is being superficial. I'm sure he has read it far more times than myself or others. But I don't agree with him. Maybe my strong feeling for what the book is about (or is not about) is affected by me completely ignoring Heinlein himself. I'm not taking into consideration any of his other work or his history. I'm just looking at the book as is.

I think an interpretation of a work completely removed from its historical or literary context is perfectly valid. It's not super surprising that you'd see things differently.

I guess there's a lot we could say about all that. I thought the movie version of ST and the book were both very entertaining in their way. (Haldeman's statements about the book as a brilliant didactic novel for teenage boys resonate strongly for me since I did lend the book to a friend who later credited it as an inspiration for his joining the Army...) I thought the movie did a great job of highlighting some of the absurdities of the book and if I had read the book in a certain light I wonder if I might have viewed it similarly.

Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War

#77

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 8:47 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #75

dragonwriter wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are correct, it is satirical. I don't think that's the case; I think that it isn't simplistically prescriptive the way that shallow readings usually take it, but I don't think its satire either. Its more complicated than that. I think that there are a number of things that come together in ST : (1) Heinlein's concern about what he saw as a then-current political current to dismiss what he saw as clear, current,…

This is probably the most accurate description of the novel in this thread. I agree that there's no particular reason to think that Heinlein is saying we'd all be better off if tomorrow we took away the franchise from everyone who hasn't served in the military. Nor do I think it's fair to say that the novel is pro-war in the sense of glorifying warfare. At the same time, based on large swaths of what Heinlein has wri…

> I agree that there's no particular reason to think that Heinlein is saying we'd all be better off if tomorrow we took away the franchise from everyone who hasn't served in the military.

Even if the novel was strictly prescriptive, it wouldn't be saying that: federal service wasn't exclusively, or even mostly, military; federal service included the military, but it also included pretty much everything that would be considered "civil service" positions in today's system, and those positions significantly outnumbered the military ones.

Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War

#78

Post by ghaff » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 9:44 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #77

ghaff wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably the most accurate description of the novel in this thread. I agree that there's no particular reason to think that Heinlein is saying we'd all be better off if tomorrow we took away the franchise from everyone who hasn't served in the military. Nor do I think it's fair to say that the novel is pro-war in the sense of glorifying warfare. At the same time, based on large swaths of what Heinlein has wri…

> I agree that there's no particular reason to think that Heinlein is saying we'd all be better off if tomorrow we took away the franchise from everyone who hasn't served in the military. Even if the novel was strictly prescriptive, it wouldn't be saying that: federal service wasn't exclusively, or even mostly, military; federal service included the military, but it also included pretty much everything that would be…

That claim gets made but there's nothing in the actual novel to actually support it, e.g. "A term of service isn’t a kiddie camp; it’s either real military service, rough and dangerous even in peacetime . . . or a most unreasonable facsimile thereof. Not a vacation. Not a romantic adventure. Well?" He then goes on to talk about things like "field-test survival equipment on Titan" as an alternative. (It's also explicitly mentioned that the merchant marine isn't included.)

Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War

#79

Post by Chathamization » Tue, Sep 22, 2015, 12:40 AM UTC

PuffinBlue wrote: post #33

gregjwild wrote: post #4

'“To say that The Forever War is the best science fiction war novel ever written is to damn it with faint praise.” It’s one of the best books about war, period' I'd probably raise that on Gibson. It's one of the best books, period. "The protagonist, an almost-anagrammed stand-in for Haldeman named Mandella, is hurled across far reaches of the galaxy to fight a poorly understood, apparently undefeatable foe." In that…

I often read comments like this about The Forever War and I'm never sure if I read the same book. I enjoyed it but it seemed an awful lot more shallow than it's given credit for. It just seemed to me that it raised lots of ideas but never really explored them fully. I found it a bit 'thin'. Perhaps that was intentional as a corollary to the breakneck pace of time-dilation Mandella faced and the societal change he fac…

I agree. For me, Forever War was a book with an interesting premise and a somewhat lackluster execution. None of the characters are pretty interesting or memorable, and the main character seems to be Hadelman inserting an idealized version of himself into the story. The story itself felt a bit forced or inconsistent in numerous places, and never really capitalized on some of the ideas.

I enjoyed reading it, but didn't think it was particularly great (same with Forever Peace, though that book had somewhat different issues).

Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War

#80

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Sep 22, 2015, 3:58 AM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #78

dragonwriter wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree that there's no particular reason to think that Heinlein is saying we'd all be better off if tomorrow we took away the franchise from everyone who hasn't served in the military. Even if the novel was strictly prescriptive, it wouldn't be saying that: federal service wasn't exclusively, or even mostly, military; federal service included the military, but it also included pretty much everything that would be…

That claim gets made but there's nothing in the actual novel to actually support it, e.g. "A term of service isn’t a kiddie camp; it’s either real military service, rough and dangerous even in peacetime . . . or a most unreasonable facsimile thereof. Not a vacation. Not a romantic adventure. Well?" He then goes on to talk about things like "field-test survival equipment on Titan" as an alternative. (It's also explici…

The merchant marine isn't civil service, now, either; to quote Heinlein's own response on this:

In Starship Troopers it is stated flatly and more than once that nineteen out of twenty veterans are not military veterans. Instead, 95% of voters are what we call today "former members of teh federal civil service."