December '06 SF BOTM: The Forever War by Joe Haldeman

[Erfael]

The discussion is now open for The Forever War.

Lord Balthazar sent some discussion questions all the way from Tokyo, where he is vacationing. Here are some things to get the ball rolling:


A number of military scifi novels makes use of “the other”, the mysterious alien enemy who engenders little if any sympathy from the reader. How does Haldeman make use of this conceit in The Forever War and how does it differ from its use in other books like Ender’s Game and Old Man’s War?

The Forever Was was written in response to Haldeman’s personal experiences in Vietnam. How good a job does the novel do in reflecting our contemporary world?

The latest EOS printing of the novel includes a section titled “You Can Never Go Back” which did not appear in earlier versions. What do you think this section adds to the book? Do you feel it works as part of the overall narrative or does it feel out of place?

[LordBalthazar]

First off, many thanks to Erfael for getting the ball rolling while I'm in Tokyo.

Secondly, thanks to everyone who has held off on commenting in deference to me. I honestly didn't think I'd get around to discussing this book (which I read over the course of my 14 1/2 hour flight to Asia), but as luck would have it I'm shaking off the after-effects of a bad bowl of snake soup. Who'd have thought you had to specify "the non-poisonous variety" when ordering.

Anyhoo, I really like The Forever War and particularly liked Haldeman's exploration of the effects of FTL and near-FTL travel on not only the war, but the individuals who take part. In fact, I thought it was such an interesting notion that I felt let down he didn't really explore it as much as he could have. It reminded me of an anime short I watched ages ago called Voices of a Distant Star in which a young female soldier tries to keep in contact with her boyfriend back on Earth. As she travels further and further, remaining forever young, her communications take longer and longer to get back to Earth where her boyfriend ages. It was very effective and I guess, in comparison, The Forever War didn't really deliver as well although I did like William's coming to terms with the fact by the time he returned to Earth, Marygay would be long-dead - and really loved the clever way Marygay ensured she age at the same speed as William, by riding the relativistic shuttle that goes five light years out and back until his return. And speaking to this concept, and getting around to my question #2, I quite liked William's return to Earth and the shocking changes he faces given the length of his time away, his relationshp with his mother in particular.

With regard to my question #1 - the use of "the other" is, of course, not limited to science fiction, but it is certainly easier to establish given the fact that, more often than not, the enemy is, quite literally, alien. In my opinion, Haldeman's use of "the others" pretty much parallels Card's use in Ender's Game and Scalzi's use in Old Man's War (although we did know more about some of the enemy in OMW, they were still unsympathetic and fairly one dimensional). Not that this is a bad thing for this type of story where the enemy is intended to align the reader firmly behind our protagonist, thereby allowing Haldeman to more fully explore William as a person, his relationships, and his responses to the war.

Finally, like many books that are written in response to a certain period in history, The Forever War not only stands the test of time but transcends it, offering insight not only into our past, but our present and future.

[Archren]

I wanted to let you guys know that October's "New York Review of Science Fiction" had a fascinating in-depth article comparing "Starship Troopers," "Forever War," and "Ender's Game," specfically in how they treat militarism and their aliens. Both Ender and Starship Troopers go for bugs as their aliens: easy opponents that trigger instinctual revultion from the reader. "Forever War" doesn't do that: it's enemies really aren't that different from us, when you think about it.

Hopefully I'll get a chance to say more later, but finals are coming up. Happy Holidays all!

[Ropie]

Both Ender and Starship Troopers go for bugs as their aliens: easy opponents that trigger instinctual revultion from the reader.

This was one of the things I disliked about Ender's Game - how predictable to have over sized insects as the enemy. Or tiny crab-like creatures, or orange cat-like creatures, or eeeevil robots. I'm glad to hear Forever War avoids this horrible, pulpy cliche.

Anyway, I will start reading it just as soon as I finish Hyperion Part II... I'm already sensing parallels regarding the effects of FTL travel and time-lag, which is very important in Hyperion too.

[LordBalthazar]

I wanted to let you guys know that October's "New York Review of Science Fiction" had a fascinating in-depth article comparing "Starship Troopers," "Forever War," and "Ender's Game," specfically in how they treat militarism and their aliens. Both Ender and Starship Troopers go for bugs as their aliens: easy opponents that trigger instinctual revultion from the reader. "Forever War" doesn't do that: it's enemies really aren't that different from us, when you think about it.

Hopefully I'll get a chance to say more later, but finals are coming up. Happy Holidays all!

I'll have to check it out when I'm get back home. Even though the enemy in Forever War weren't bugs, there was certainly no attempt made to instill them with any sort of humanity or sympathetic elements. Not until the end of the book when we find out that this war has been one giant misunderstanding. While I liked the sentiment, I found this revelation a little too on the nose and was annoyed by the fact that it was never fully explained. The clone-connection broadstroke explanation didn't really do it for me.

Oh, and good luck on your finals.

[Colonel Worf]

It's been about a year since I've read Forever War, but I do want to put in my two cents comparing it to Starship Troopers. I read a little bit of Heinlein in Dimension by Alex Pan... I give up already. Anyway, he said that Starship Troopers played out like a military training video and pretty much hated the book. I don't feel that way about it, but I can't decide i I like Troopers or the Forever War more. The Forever War really grabbed my attention with the effects of aging and the perception of time, though. I really wouldn't mind a reread right about now if I didn't have so much other stuff I'd like to get through first.

[Hobbit]

Without seeing the New York Review Article, it might be worth pointing out that Haldeman's Forever War has been seen by himself and others as his Anti-Vietnam book and has therefore also been seen as a book with a lot of similarities to Heinlein's ST, but a polar-opposite view of Heinlein's.

Whereas the troopers in Starship Troopers fought for strong moral values - freedom, loyalty, duty - Haldeman's troops fought for survival in a war few of those taking part understood. Heinlein's troops followed orders because they were orders; Haldeman's troops followed orders whilst questioning what they were doing.

What works for me with Haldeman's book is the sense of a strong plot and good characterisation; you care for the characters at the end. With Heinlein's you appreciate the sentiment yet care less about the people - or is that just me?

Hobbit

[ArthurFrayn]

I didn't want to read this again right now, but it is my favorite SF novel still, and I figured I'd just say a couple of things about it, that I always think about.
First of all, as I have pointed out before, it's short; it's concise. Big plus in my book.
Second of all, is Haldeman does one of my favorite SF writer things to do -he takes his own experience ( in this case his service in the military in Viet Nam) and does a SF extrapoltation on the specifics. So we have the rather in depth section about the fighting suit, which parallels the in depth concentration one would expect in say instruction on how to use one's rifle. And the accidents that can occur with the suit are exceedingly well thought out.
I also like the concentration on small disasters, like when the heating system in one the soldiers suit fails and the have to build an elaborate permaplast bunker to change him into a new suit or he's dead.
I like the satiric thrust that pops up in an all too true way, like even though their service has made them rich, the R&R station is set up with purchasable items that strip them of their wealth, like a ham sandwich costing a thousand dollars.
Finally, I like how the conflict resolves without them because of the light travel that they have engaged in. I thought it was a terrific metaphor for the cultural displacement soldiers experienced returning home to the counterculture.
I like how he outlines the job that a soldier has to do, and whether anyone likes it or not, that job has nothing to do with being gung ho.The final resolution of conflicts often runs contrary to stated objectives, and to the patriotic absolutes that are fed to both people in the armed forces and in the civilian population.

What works for me with Haldeman's book is the sense of a strong plot and good characterisation; you care for the characters at the end. With Heinlein's you appreciate the sentiment yet care less about the people - or is that just me?

I think this is a great observation. One would argue that stems from the exactly the difference in idealogies, with Heinlein's conception of civic duty being more concerned with community and responsibility as abstracts, and the other novel being concerned with an individual's dealing with the reality and how it conflicts with ideals.

[gpackin]

Whereas the troopers in Starship Troopers fought for strong moral values - freedom, loyalty, duty - Haldeman's troops fought for survival in a war few of those taking part understood. Heinlein's troops followed orders because they were orders; Haldeman's troops followed orders whilst questioning what they were doing.

I would say that this is very indicative of the time in which it was written. It echoes much of the same sentiment that soldiers who served in Vietnam displayed. Not to mention coming home to a world that is different than when they left, and feeling out of place.

[Archren]

This may be a reflection on the time I was reading this stuff, but I found "Forever War" a little less memorable than "Starship Troopers." I was thinking about why that might be, and here's one of the reasons I came up with: there's a lot more to argue with in "Starship Troopers." Heinlein has some weird, controversial philosophy there. In "Forever War" I think I just agreed with almost everything Haldeman was saying about war and soldiers and moved on, instead of mulling it over.

Does that make any sense?

[Raule]

The latest EOS printing of the novel includes a section titled “You Can Never Go Back” which did not appear in earlier versions. What do you think this section adds to the book? Do you feel it works as part of the overall narrative or does it feel out of place?

I'm in the middle of this book right now, and have an older, used copy (Del Rey/Ballantine). I just scanned the posts below because I'm obviously not done reading it yet, so I don't know if your question has been addressed yet, but can you elaborate a little on what the EOS edition adds to it? Just wondering what I'm missing out on, if anything. Did everyone else read the EOS edition?

[LordBalthazar]

I'm in the middle of this book right now, and have an older, used copy (Del Rey/Ballantine). I just scanned the posts below because I'm obviously not done reading it yet, so I don't know if your question has been addressed yet, but can you elaborate a little on what the EOS edition adds to it? Just wondering what I'm missing out on, if anything. Did everyone else read the EOS edition?

Hey Raule,

I'm in Montreal and don't have my EOS edition handy. In the introduction, Haldeman gives a brief history of the changes the book went through in its various editions. The EOS edition includes a section that didn't appear in previous versions, I believe detailing his return to Earth, his disillusionment and ultimate decision to return to service.

[Ropie]

I'm reading an old Orbit edition from '76. I haven't read much so far though. Too early for comment.

[Hobbit]

Got both an old UK Orbit copy which I read to death in about 78 and an EOS book. The EOS is pretty much as described by Lord B, though there is no change to the main body of the story, if I remember right.

Hobbit

[Raule]

I finished this last night and enjoyed the book. I'll admit up front that I am usually not a fan of authors trying to project a future that is 20-50 years out, because they tend to date themselves too quickly, but I think that mattered less with Mandella's later missions as the time dilation becomes greater.

Overall, I think the theme of this book is what keeps it relevant even today. One of my favorite aspects of this book, though, was Haldeman's sly and ironic, sometimes satirical sense of humor in the face of the absurd or difficult situations. For example, I enjoyed that scene where William gives us a summary of the talents of some of the other soldiers in the first tour of duty:

Ho could crank out a perfect score on the Rhine extrasensory perception test, every time. Bohrs was a polyglot, able to speak twenty-one languages fluently, idiomatically. Petrov's talent was that he had tested out to have not one molecule of xenophobia in his psyche.

Or toward the end, when finds out that they have a cat as mascot and when he asks why a cat and not a dog, someone replies that dogs can't withstand the free fall. Well, the book seemed to have snippets of this kind of humor that made it seem more real and accessible.