Sci-fi and Heroic Fantasy discussion

This is the discussion for our chosen May, 2013, Classic SF/F Novel read and discussion:


The Forever War by Joe Haldeman

Nebula, Hugo & Locus Award winner (1975).

How do you feel about the use of time dilation in this book? Have you read the other 2 books in this trilogy? Do you like them?

It's interesting to compare this to Starship Troopers. It's even more fun to read Armor afterward. I think Old Man's War would make a good dessert. There's a lot of similarities between the stories, but they all reflect a different view & attitude about war.

I think the time dilation was wonderfully done. It was a good mechanism for making his points & I didn't care much for the other two books. This is best read as a standalone, IMO. Of course, it was for me for over 20 years, so that might just be me. Still, I think Haldeman changed too much over that period to make the books flow together. I feel the same way about other authors & series they've picked up after many years, too. Farmer's World of Tiers comes to mind.

Xdyj wrote: "How do you feel about the use of time dilation in this book?..."

I love Haldeman's treatment of relativistic "twin paradox". He was really the first author to take a "hard science fiction" look at what that might mean. He approaches the effect from several different directions:

On a societal/cultural level, the troops experience huge time-shifts with regards to their own homeland, becoming 30-year veterans at age 23. They lose all continuity with Earth and its colonies, experiencing "Future Shock" after each mission as their government and culture change drastically out from under them. (Toffler's Future Shock was a popular non-fiction book written shortly before The Forever War, and is even mentioned in the novel.) Haldeman has a lot of fun postulating multiple centuries of human cultural shifts.

On a military technology basis, Haldeman points out that every time a ship is sent into Tauran space, it is traveling into the future. The human ship arrives with "old" technology based on the era when it left, while the enemy has had time to develop new technologies in its timeframe with which to surprise the attackers. The opposite applies when the Taurans attack human space.

On an interpersonal level, as people who were once the same age drift apart, and on meeting an old friend from home or basic training, it's necessary to exchange subjective ages as well as greetings. And once you're separated from someone, you might as well consider them dead.

I read this four or five months ago, but I think it's still fresh enough that I don't have to reread it for this discussion.

I enjoyed the book. I liked how he aimed for showing "true consequences" of time dilution and made it a main theme. The dramatic shift from one battle to the next (in regards of opposition they met and technology) made it different enough to be fun reading. Many battle books describe similar battles several times (though that might sometimes be what they aim for), and I find that boring. This book, I did not find boring. It also showed the outplay of interstellar war (to kill an enemy not yet born when you go for battle).

What I didn't get was the necessity of (view spoiler)[making homosexuality the main sexual orientation. I would believe bisexuality would be easier to explain (to take the tension off the guys (and women)) in case the were too few of either sex. (hide spoiler)] I don't find it realistic (though I do find "wormhole travels" "realistic".. :) Or he could go for the promiscuity of brave new world or somewhat in Starship Troopers.

What I didn't like about the book was the final solution for mankind, or Man. In the same way I didn't like Asimov's "Gaia solution", this is also something I don't think humankind would ever aim for. Or is this the point where I should start reading Forever Free?

I know that I should read Old Man's War. The kindle version I bought of Forever War included an introduction by John Scalzi where he talked about how people didn't believed he had read Forever War before he wrote his own book.

I love this book set. It is one of the few sci fi books I managed to get my hubby to read and he enjoyed it too.

I thought the time dilation part was a clever concept. The poor soldiers going off to war knowing that they cannot see their families in the same way again. In a way this is what happens to soldiers anyway.

I do like the end of mankind and it always makes me think of the song 2525. It shows for me the futility of war. Not everyone's cup of tea but I really enjoy it every time I read it.

Xdyj wrote: "Have you read the other 2 books in this trilogy? Do you like them?"

Fredrik wrote: "Or is this the point where I should start reading Forever Peace?..."

Despite the title, Forever Peace isn't a sequel/prequel in the conventional sense. To quote Haldeman from the forward: "This book is not a continuation of my 1975 novel The Forever War. From the author's point of view it is a kind of sequel, though, examining some of the novel's problems from an angle that didn't exist 20 years ago."

It's more a philosophical companion. It takes place in the near future, and deals with operators of military drones conducting US operations against a disperse opposition across the Third World. (Remarkably prescient given it was written in 1998.)

Fredrik wrote: "What I didn't get was the necessity of [spoiler redacted] I don't find it realistic ..."

(view spoiler)[The explanation given in the novel is that this was engineered by Earth government (who a century earlier had already perfected mass psychological and genetic conditioning) as a tactic of population control, continuing the human race at a planned level via artificial insemination and artificial wombs.

Thematically, I think Haldeman introduced it to add yet another layer of alienation that returning troops felt with their homeland, and secondarily emphasizing the separation of the few veteran soldiers from the new recruits. (hide spoiler)]

G33z3r wrote: "Fredrik wrote: "What I didn't get was the necessity of [spoiler redacted] I don't find it realistic ..."

The explanation given in the novel is that this was engineered by Earth government (who a c..."

Exactly.

Jim wrote: "It's interesting to compare this to Starship Troopers. It's even more fun to read Armor afterward. I think Old Man's War would make a good dessert. There's a lot of similarities between the stories..."

I thought that way too, which was why I re-read Starship Troopers before I popped The Forever War off the shelf again.

I'm going to put on my old man hat (you know how the kids love it when we do :)

Heinlein wrote Starship Troopers after World War II (he was a Navy veteran, pre-WW2, himself.) It's very gung ho.

Haldeman, in contrast, was a veteran of the US Vietnam War, and had quite a different impression. Forever War emphasizes the harshness of warfare and the alienation returning troops felt from their friends and family back home, and ultimately war's futility. Between the start of the Vietnam conflict and its sputtering conclusion, US civilian attitudes towards the conflict shifted dramatically, leaving veterans returning to quite a different civilian attitude.

I also liked Haldeman's "elite draft", which was pretty much the opposite of the US conscription policy during the late 60's and 70's (the US military draft was abolished in 1973 in favor of a volunteer army.) In The Forever War, the draft is of the "best and the brightest", whereas back in the 60's student and critical-industry deferments and use of influence on local draft boards meant the elite could generally avoid being sent overseas. Haldeman has flipped that on its head by drafting only college graduates for his starship troopers.

I wish I still had my draft notice so I could frame it; I may have had to turn it in when I reported for the physical. (I do know what became of my draft card, but as that hypothetically might involve a criminal act,...)

This novel was very much a product of its times. Haldeman served in Vietnam & wasn't any happier about that than most of the country was, especially our generation. The anti government & military theme is laid on as thick as Heinlein laid on the reverse in "Starship Troopers".

the August 2012 issue of Lightspeed Magazine has a story by joe haldeman set in the "Forever War" uinverse...it is free in the kindle bookstore, but i recomend checking out the Lightspeed Magazine web site first

So, I gather Forever Peace and Forever Free are more spiritual successors than outright sequels. Would you all say that they're as worthy reads as Forever War?
What I tend to find most interesting in sci-fi like this is when it puts forth ideas that you really have to think through. The impact of the time dilation is obviously massive considering how much time flys by each time in between - and each time the author has to imagine all the possible effects time has had on the world. It reminds me of the Jaunting in the Stars my Destination and the scrying in The Light of Other Days - where one concept has to be thought through to its conclusion...or near enough.
Which is why I think the idea of (view spoiler)[ a totally homosexual society is fine within that fiction that he's exploring (hide spoiler)] - and totally works to create the feeling of alienation for the main character.

I wouldn't have minded not reading them, Val. I didn't think they were a waste of time, but they really didn't do much for me.

Val wrote: "So, I gather Forever Peace and Forever Free are more spiritual successors than outright sequels. Would you all say that they're as worthy reads as Forever War?..."

Forever Peace won as many awards as The Forever War, but to my mind was nowhere as near as satisfying.

The Forever War was a milestone, a forerunner to many other post-Vietnam War novels and the definitive anti-war crusade, suited perfectly to the younger audience of its time. Haldeman covered the effect of dehumanizing the enemy, the effect of high casualties on troop morale, and the dislocating effect of being in a war theater compared to being home (Haldeman was in Nam in 1968*, a pivotal year in US attitudes towards the war.) And significantly, it did it with some amazing hard science fiction writing, using the Twin Paradox of time slip to illustrate alienation and posthypnotic conditioning and drugs to explain inhuman action by humans.

In contrast, Forever Peace is an interesting book, but I found it much less convincing in terms of the science and even less interesting in terms of its rather idealistic "human understanding brings peace" message. It anticipated drone warfare, among other things, but it wasn't a great book. I think the easiest way to explain why Forever Peace won so many awards is that 1997 was a lean year for SF&F.

(*1968 US: Lyndon Johnson, who became President after the Kennedy assassination and was reelected in a landslide a few years before, was confronted by a little-known anti-war senator, Eugene McCarthy, who won enough votes in the New Hampshire primary to convince Johnson not to run for another term. Civil rights leader Martin Luther King was assassinated, provoking urban rioting. Robert Kennedy was assassinated after winning the California presidential primary, and anti-war protests at the Democratic national convention turned Chicago into a city under siege. (The massacre by US troops at Mai Lai didn't become public until 1969, but presumably Haldeman had heard smaller tales during his deployment.) And at the very end of the year, almost incongruously, three guys from Earth orbited the moon. Oh, and more personally, I still had my student deferment. Most importantly, the attitude among college students turned sharply against the war; I have no doubt when returning veteran Haldeman ran into his old college chums again, they looked at him as strangely as if he were the last heterosexual on the planet.)

I had the fortune of taking a science fiction writing class from Joe when Forever Peace came out.

As people have noted, it's a spiritual successor to The Forever War. Still, I found both books equally satisfying for different reasons.

The Forever War uses time dilation as a means for us to understand how the soldiers who went off to Vietnam felt when they came back to a country that was changing almost too quickly for them to keep up with, especially since they were off in a completely alien (to them) world. This is where the true genius of the novel shines through, in my opinion.

My uncle served in Vietnam and after I read The Forever War I better understood what he went through.

Haldeman is a great science fiction writer. One of the best in my opinion. A real world companion to The Forever War is 1968, also by Joe.

His Worlds trilogy and All My Sins Remembered are also great reads.

I went to Amazon to check up on Worlds, read the blurb and thought "That sounds really interesting" So I read the first bit of it and then realised that I've read this before! I can't remember the end though, so I may have to re-read it...if I can find it!

Val wrote: "I went to Amazon to check up on Worlds, read the blurb and thought "That sounds really interesting" So I read the first bit of it and then realised that I've read this before! I can't remember the ..."

Maybe I need to stop recommending books that I have not read in over 10 years. I read Sins and Worlds during the summer of '99 and they stuck. I think Joe's early works are his best, which is why I recommend to people that they read everything before and including Forever Peace.

I've been considering reading this and I was wondering if someone could tell me if the bulk of the story was actual war or if a lot of other stuff happens. I hate reading page after page of fighting.

Amazon has some new version under $5 that says "..although a large chunk of the story had been cut out before it saw publication. Now Haldeman and Avon Books have released the definitive version of The Forever War, published for the first time as Haldeman originally intended". Might be a good time for me to get it.

Rose wrote: "I've been considering reading this and I was wondering if someone could tell me if the bulk of the story was actual war or if a lot of other stuff happens. I hate reading page after page of fighti..."

Other stuff does happen but the core theme of the novel is, indeed, war seen through the eyes of the protagonist who, as a "failed pacifist" is trying to craft a little piece of happiness in the ever shifting timeframes and hostile environments.

Thanks Vardan. I don't mind a war theme. I just want to make sure there is something more to the story than just war. Perhaps I will try it.

Rose wrote: "Thanks Vardan. I don't mind a war theme. I just want to make sure there is something more to the story than just war. Perhaps I will try it."

There are really only two battles in the book, plus training camp, and the first battle is pretty short and one-sided. In between is spent on battle cruisers traveling between stars, solving problems, on leave back on far-future Earth, getting to know new squad mates, that sort of stuff.


Rose wrote: "Now Haldeman and Avon Books have released the definitive version of The Forever War, published for the first time as Haldeman originally intended"...."

The book has either three or four editions, depending on how you count. Originally it was serialized in Analog magazine. When first published as a book, it omitted one of those serialized sections (You Can Never Go Back.) A second version put the missing section back in, but didn't update the rest of the text that had been edited to smooth the removal. The third version by Avon supposedly restored it to the original text. (The reason for the original redaction was either for space or because the editor found it too depressing, depending on who's version you believe.)

Thanks G33z3r,
I was hesitant because I recently read a book that was fight, fight, travel across the river to fight, go into town to fight some more, etc. I don't think I could stand another one like that.
I've been eyeballing this one for a long time and just really needed a bit of a nudge to get it. I think I'll buy it.

It's a short book. Very fast read. Joe's writing is concise. The man doesn't waste words. In that way he's similar to the likes of Heinlein and Clarke.

I agree, there is also some undertones of melancholy and bitter humor, which I feel is almost autobiographic in a sense but also very true of being in the army. I have served two years in the Armenian armed forces and at one point or the other that melancholy and the best way to deal with it - sarcasm and humor come through so it is indeed something that comes through the military no matter the country or the state of peace/war...military is military - hurry up and wait and wait and wait and be sent to a place that one can hardly find on the map and spend massive amounts of time getting there only to be told that there was a slight change of plans and you would be moved in a totally opposite direction. There is a novel written by a Czech novelist Yaroslav Gashek called the Adventures of brave soldier Schweik, which is the pinnacle of anti-war humor (and horror of it all). Parallel to Forever War, I would highly recommend it - it deals with the journey of a conscript for the Austro-Hungarian empire during the First World War. Unfortunately, the novel is unfinished...Gashek died while writing the second book of the trilogy but what he has managed to write is simply put pure genius.

Christopher wrote: "It's a short book. Very fast read. Joe's writing is concise. The man doesn't waste words. In that way he's similar to the likes of Heinlein and Clarke."

I have to agree, from reading Marsbound and Camouflage. I still need to read The Forever War, because I constantly see it suggested as an sf classic.

You guys were so right. This book was fantastic. The science was incredible, the story was incredible, and the ending when they tell how the was started sounded like something that would actually happen (probably already has). Thanks!!

Now that this group read the military SF novels Starship Troopers and the more current Old Man's War, I highly recommend this contrasting book.

If you're interested, you're welcomed reading my review.

If you want to keep going on the military SF sub-genre, you may want to try Armor from your to-read list. Yet another flavor of cynical.

I think that this book is wonderful to read and I love the theme that the books presents and the story was easily a page turner. Also, I can't imagine myself continuing the series and I feel like this is the would be one of the best stand alone in science fiction books of all time in mind.

G33z3r wrote: "Jim wrote: "It's interesting to compare this to Starship Troopers. ... Heinlein wrote Starship Troopers after World War II (he was a Navy veteran, pre-WW2, himself.) It's very gung ho.

Not to turn this into a Heinlein thread, but there's an analysis that claims:

In 1958, President Eisenhower was considering a unilateral cessation of nuclear weapon testing, based on a Soviet promise to make it joint. The Heinleins were adamantly opposed, given the Soviet Union’s poor record of promise-keeping, and the Patrick Henry League was the result.

Eisenhower suspended nuclear testing. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union ignored its promise and resumed testing with some of the largest and “dirtiest” weapons ever detonated.

Heinlein was infuriated. He stopped work on the novel that would become Stranger in a Strange Land and wrote Starship Troopers in a white-hot fury.

Which rather reinforces your point. If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that both authors wrote in emotional reaction to their feelings about war and its aftermath, but they had very different takes on that.

That's really interesting. I hadn't known that, but was thinking that both the times & their war time experiences influenced their writing. Thanks!

Jay wrote: "If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that both authors wrote in emotional reaction to their feelings about war and its aftermath, but they had very different takes on that. ..."

I think it would be more fair to say that they had different takes because they experienced two very different wars. Starship Troopers was written 1959, the aftermath of World War II and the Korean War. Haldeman wrote in 1974 based on his Vietnam War experience. Soldiers who returned from Vietnam didn't get the kind of reception their predecessors received. That's reflected in Haldeman's cynicism.

I think you're on to something there. WWII became popular & was very polarized; us versus them. The Japanese were a different race with different ways that made it very easy to hate them. Hitler & his Nazis were easy targets, too. The media was firmly on the side of the war.

That carried over into the Korean War, but Vietnam was completely different. It was very hard to tell who the good guys were & the political situation was a wreck - all sorts of rules that made no sense to those on the ground. When a bunch of people could shoot at you, then hide their weapons or walk a few miles & become untouchable, it's frustrating.

Rampant corruption & spies among the indigenous allies made it all worse. The strategy & tactics were all wrong to start. The terrain & people were completely alien too & after enduring all that, the soldiers came home to a crappy situation. A large number reviled them while those who sent them over wouldn't even call their 'police action' a war - they weren't even members of the VFW.

It's no wonder Heinlein & Haldeman had completely different takes on their wars.

It's easy to get sidetracked by the Vietnam parallels in this book, but I think the thing that makes them work so powerfully is how well embedded they are with the irresistible character development and the coldly logical progression of the science.

Really, this is my favorite description of interstellar travel out of any book I've read. It comes closest to what Einstein described.

I don't think the Vietnam parallels are a side track, but the main track. I agree with you on the rest, though.

Well, I just finished this one. Some great comments above. I thought it had a much more "authentic" feel to it than Starship Troopers which I chalked up to Haldeman's service in Vietnam, but then again it could also mean that since I was born in the late 1960s my perception of war is more aligned with Haldeman's generation than Heinlein's. Both books had battle sequences in the beginning and the end and got a little boring and talky in the middle. A solid 3 star rating from me.

Looking forward to moving onto Armor in a couple weeks.