5 ms·

I read Starship Troopers and The Forever War back-to-back in like three days, and I wasn't so much of a fan of Haldeman's book, the writing just didn't seem as

I read Starship Troopers and The Forever War back-to-back in like three days, and I wasn't so much of a fan of Haldeman's book, the writing just didn't seem as good to me as Heinlein's and in any case they're nearly identical -- though obviously the relativity thing and time making the "forever" part true was a very good point.

notahacker 11y ago
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...
- griffinmahon 11y ago
  I actually don't think it's much of an ode to war or anything. I go to the Naval Academy like Heinlein did, and when I read the small details of military life and the grandiose calls to serve, I read them as criticisms or as satire.
  - notahacker 11y ago
    As I understood it Henlein wrote the book at a time when he'd just formed a campaign group denouncing opposition to nuclear testing as a 'communist plot', and spent a great deal of time after the book's publication defending some of the book's more controversial ideas and their compatibiity with his otherwise mostly libertarian views Agree that it might actually read better with a healthy dose of irony, but just as with Henlein's awkward sex scenes, that's not really the intent.
- sampo 11y ago
  > paen to the military I always thought Starship Troopers was meant to be a satire, not praise for war. Just like Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A. isn't a patriotic song.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Given Heinlein's history and politics, I don't think so. Now the movie, that was definitely meant to be satire. Which is why so many fans of the book hate it.
    - phlakaton 11y ago
      I suspect the best way to read any of Heinlein is not to consider whether the story and arguments really represent his views; rather, simply to consider why they should not be yours. Rico is not necessarily a reliable narrator, so even if the book isn't a satire itself, it's fertile ground for one...
    - Jtsummers 11y ago
      > Now the movie, that was definitely meant to be satire. Which is why so many fans of the book hate it. Ironically, many people hated the movie because they didn't recognize that it was satirizing the (apparently) pro-military book.
      - logfromblammo 11y ago
        Some people, such as myself, dislike the movie because it was an almost completely unrelated script that was just reworked to have some of the same superficial elements as the book. It wasn't satirizing anything. It was just capitalizing on name recognition. But if they didn't do that, fewer people would have watched it, and we would not now be discussing movie vs. book, because they would have always been two separate things. They still are, really. When I read the book, I didn't see it as either pro-military or anti-military. It was a fictionalization of actual contemporary military experiences into a future sci-fi setting. The reaction should be in the eye of the beholder. The book may have seemed to glorify the military, because the entire premise of the book was that the military had essentially staged a coup against every human government, this making it the keystone of all human society. The rest is just how Heinlein thought things would work if the military were in charge of everything. Some things would work better; some would be worse.
- benihana 11y ago
  >a brazenly cynical protagonist whose thoughts of war mostly involve hoping to find a way out of it... Catch-22?
  - justin66 11y ago
    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.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Saying they're "nearly identical" seems to miss the point that the former is a paen to the military Its been quite a long time since I read Starship Troopers, but IIRC it doesn't read like much of a paean to the military on any but an extremely shallow reading.
  - efuquen 11y ago
    Then I guess I, and Heinlein, read it pretty shallowly, since he's has been quoted as saying his novel glorifies the military. I still really enjoyed the book, but I don't know how you could possibly read it as not a pro military sort of novel. Obviously the point isn't to glorify violence for violence's sake, he attempts to morally justify the use of force in the same as has been customary for generations.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  For citizens, it was the basis of all political morality/legitimacy . There was a pretty well-kept wall between the citizens and the rest of the populace. By joining up, Rico is disowned by his father. And otherwise, Rico is a square-jawed fkup. I always took that as a way to keep the economy and the war-machine separate. You get the general vibe that it's an otherwise post-scarcity society. If you were a citizen, you were part of the part of society that used force. It's the basic Libertarian trope about force in that regard. SFAIK, ST was based on ideas from the Swiss system, obviously drawn to the exponential.
angersock 11y ago
You should probably go back and read the books again, maybe with some more time between readings, and paying more attention to the people and less to the tech. The jaded, alienated Mandella in The Forever War has a lot more to say about the evolution of his society than Rico does. Armor is yet-another excellent contemporary to both of those books.
- megaman22 11y ago
  Armor is fantastic. It's up there with Ender's Game on my list of military sci-fi.

notahacker 11y ago

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...

griffinmahon 11y ago
I actually don't think it's much of an ode to war or anything. I go to the Naval Academy like Heinlein did, and when I read the small details of military life and the grandiose calls to serve, I read them as criticisms or as satire.
- notahacker 11y ago
  As I understood it Henlein wrote the book at a time when he'd just formed a campaign group denouncing opposition to nuclear testing as a 'communist plot', and spent a great deal of time after the book's publication defending some of the book's more controversial ideas and their compatibiity with his otherwise mostly libertarian views Agree that it might actually read better with a healthy dose of irony, but just as with Henlein's awkward sex scenes, that's not really the intent.
sampo 11y ago
> paen to the military I always thought Starship Troopers was meant to be a satire, not praise for war. Just like Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A. isn't a patriotic song.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Given Heinlein's history and politics, I don't think so. Now the movie, that was definitely meant to be satire. Which is why so many fans of the book hate it.
  - phlakaton 11y ago
    I suspect the best way to read any of Heinlein is not to consider whether the story and arguments really represent his views; rather, simply to consider why they should not be yours. Rico is not necessarily a reliable narrator, so even if the book isn't a satire itself, it's fertile ground for one...
  - Jtsummers 11y ago
    > Now the movie, that was definitely meant to be satire. Which is why so many fans of the book hate it. Ironically, many people hated the movie because they didn't recognize that it was satirizing the (apparently) pro-military book.
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      Some people, such as myself, dislike the movie because it was an almost completely unrelated script that was just reworked to have some of the same superficial elements as the book. It wasn't satirizing anything. It was just capitalizing on name recognition. But if they didn't do that, fewer people would have watched it, and we would not now be discussing movie vs. book, because they would have always been two separate things. They still are, really. When I read the book, I didn't see it as either pro-military or anti-military. It was a fictionalization of actual contemporary military experiences into a future sci-fi setting. The reaction should be in the eye of the beholder. The book may have seemed to glorify the military, because the entire premise of the book was that the military had essentially staged a coup against every human government, this making it the keystone of all human society. The rest is just how Heinlein thought things would work if the military were in charge of everything. Some things would work better; some would be worse.
benihana 11y ago
>a brazenly cynical protagonist whose thoughts of war mostly involve hoping to find a way out of it... Catch-22?
- justin66 11y ago
  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.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Saying they're "nearly identical" seems to miss the point that the former is a paen to the military Its been quite a long time since I read Starship Troopers, but IIRC it doesn't read like much of a paean to the military on any but an extremely shallow reading.
- efuquen 11y ago
  Then I guess I, and Heinlein, read it pretty shallowly, since he's has been quoted as saying his novel glorifies the military. I still really enjoyed the book, but I don't know how you could possibly read it as not a pro military sort of novel. Obviously the point isn't to glorify violence for violence's sake, he attempts to morally justify the use of force in the same as has been customary for generations.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
For citizens, it was the basis of all political morality/legitimacy . There was a pretty well-kept wall between the citizens and the rest of the populace. By joining up, Rico is disowned by his father. And otherwise, Rico is a square-jawed fkup. I always took that as a way to keep the economy and the war-machine separate. You get the general vibe that it's an otherwise post-scarcity society. If you were a citizen, you were part of the part of society that used force. It's the basic Libertarian trope about force in that regard. SFAIK, ST was based on ideas from the Swiss system, obviously drawn to the exponential.

angersock 11y ago

You should probably go back and read the books again, maybe with some more time between readings, and paying more attention to the people and less to the tech. The jaded, alienated Mandella in The Forever War has a lot more to say about the evolution of his society than Rico does. Armor is yet-another excellent contemporary to both of those books.

megaman22 11y ago
Armor is fantastic. It's up there with Ender's Game on my list of military sci-fi.