
The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War - NoGravitas
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/forever-war-forever-joe-haldeman
======
KingMob
For all those who haven't read it, check out the "sequel", The Forever Peace.
I place "sequel" in quotes, because it's only thematically related, there's no
continuation of characters or plots.

In fact, it's set much closer to the present, and the use of remote-controlled
robots makes it feel super-current. Unlike The Forever War, it envisions one
way war could end. The final line of the Vice story is "When war is
unthinkable, it will stop", and in The Forever Peace, Haldeman shows one way
it could be achieved.

As much as I love TFW, I personally think The Forever Peace is a stronger
novel.

~~~
justin66
> As much as I love TFW, I personally think The Forever Peace is a stronger
> novel.

Honestly, a number of his novels are better, as he freely acknowledges (though
not in this interview). It'd be pretty odd for a writer with a long career to
perform his best work right out of the gate. (he's written several books in
the last decade which are put together a lot more masterfully than The Forever
War... I felt Camouflage was pretty close to being a perfect SF novel when I
read it the first time)

It's certainly his most influential book, which is about being in the right
place at the right time.

~~~
ghaff
I should probably re-read The Forever Peace. I, on the other hand, have The
Forever War on my favorite SF list but nothing else of his that I've read--and
I have at least a half-dozen on my shelf--have ever grabbed me enough the
remember them.

~~~
justin66
I think that you should be able to find something you like among Camouflage,
Old Twentieth, The Accidental Time Machine, and Work Done For Hire. Together
they're actually a pretty good spectrum of what he does.

I honestly haven't cracked the Marsbound books yet, although I have them.
There's something just a bit off-putting about series books to me...

~~~
ghaff
Thanks. Although, the one I've read amongst those, The Accidental Time
Machine, I remember as being a quick enough read but otherwise shallow and
unmemorable.

I'm generally with you on series books. I understand why publishers and
authors like them but there are so many out there that take an original
concept and even get a good novel or two out of them but then continue on
endlessly until all life has been squeezed out of the writing.

There are exceptions but they're a small minority--at least to my tastes.

~~~
KingMob
I agree on The Accidental Time Machine (nice, but fluffy). Camouflage was
good, though, and a number of people really recommend Marsbound, though I
haven't read it yet.

------
gregjwild
'“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 regard, it's as much a commentary about war today as it is the future.

~~~
PuffinBlue
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
faced. I always felt out of place and behind as a reader, never really finding
myself fully immersed in the story Haldeman was telling, always wanting to
stop and see more about how things had changed. I guess the 'world building'
wasn't as good as I hoped for.

The Forever Peace on the other hand seemed to painstakingly explore the build
up to societal change, then ended as it was about to happen.

Either way, both frustrating books.

~~~
gregjwild
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 :)

~~~
briholt
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.

------
UnBe
For anyone in the Vancouver area, Joe is a Guest of Honor at VCON
([http://vcon.ca](http://vcon.ca)), in the first weekend of October. It's a
smallish convention, so GoH are usually easy to find and chat with.

Full disclosure, I am helping put on the convention, but it's a non-profit
convention put on by volunteers.

------
griffinmahon
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
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...

~~~
sampo
> _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
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.

~~~
Jtsummers
> 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
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.

~~~
InclinedPlane
If you can say with a straight face that it wasn't satirizing anything then
you know nothing of the director's work and didn't pay much attention to the
movie.

~~~
logfromblammo
It wasn't satirizing anything _about the book_. Militarism and fascism and
propaganda and jingoism are all big enough to be satirized without having to
pass them through Heinlein's filter first.

I must admit that I haven't made much of an attempt to evaluate the movie on
its own merits, as it already started off on the wrong footing with me, due to
the attempt to trick people into watching it by pretending to be something it
was not. It might have been just fine as _Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine_. But they
chose to wallpaper a licensed property over the facade instead.

As a film adaptation of a book, it is the least faithful interpretation I have
ever seen. It wasn't even sci-fi. It was more like a World War II movie,
except I couldn't actually tell if the humans were supposed to be the Axis, or
the Allies, or a little of both.

------
justin66
The following post on Joe Haldeman's livejournal came up in a previous
interview/story. It's relevant to some of the discussion about Heinlein's
_Starship Troopers._

[http://joe-haldeman.livejournal.com/51726.html](http://joe-
haldeman.livejournal.com/51726.html)

I pretty strongly suspect that Joe wouldn't actually _mind_ if the teenage
boys the novel was targeted to read it as a satire, but...

------
prodmerc
Reminds me of the new Metal Gear game - the part about extreme proliferation
of nuclear and biological WMDs so even small groups can have more power and be
more equal to the big powers than ever before.

Also, private military forces so countries can use them and deny their
involvement and small countries can afford top military on demand, creation of
a private military industry who will create conflicts just to have
business/clients - interesting points...

------
cturner
Just a thought. If you enjoyed these books, you might like _Old Man's War_.

~~~
angersock
I didn't really care for _Old Man 's War_. It's a fun read, but it's popcorn.
It was a bit too juvenile nanotech wankfest for me.

Nominally it looks at subjects like long life, implanted AIs, etc., but it
doesn't really _do_ anything with them other than go "squeeeee look at the
tooyyyyyys".

EDIT:

If you want to just bask in the sheer glory of superior firepower and gallows
humor, and maybe even occasionally see something with a little bit more to say
about politics and men who fight, I'd suggest the _Hammer 's Slammers_ series
by David Drake. Future tank company modeled loosely off of the Foreign Legion
just after WW2, the most mercenary of mercenaries, probably the coolest and
most reasonable command-and-control for ground forces I've ever seen in a
scifi book not set in the near future, and so forth.

~~~
aetherson
The greatest crime of _Old Man 's War_ is that it has a wonderful hook: we
don't want 18 year olds, we want our recruits to be canny and wise and
experienced, so we recruit 70 year olds and rejuvenate them...

And then it does basically nothing with that. The 70 year old soldiers
distinguish themselves in no way from the 30ish protagonists of every other
scifi story.

~~~
angersock
Exactly!

If your entire setup is "But we want to use old folks!", then you should
really delve into old prejudices, being unable to change worldviews,
reflections on what it means to move to what is effectively a Valhalla of
endless figthing and fornication divorced from your previous life, etc.

None of that stuff shows up though.

By contrast, look at the entire handling of, say, Mandella and the changing
standards towards homosexuality portrayed in _The Forever War_ , and the
dissonance of the veterans with younger troops about the purpose of the
mission and the validity of the government and its past actions.

------
empressplay
I don't think the author of this post ever actually read Starship Troopers, I
imagine they've only seen the movie, since the book is hardly pro-war.

~~~
rmah
I don't think the movie was pro-war either. It was, imo, a satirical in
flavor.

~~~
doktrin
The movie was deeply satirical, but the book wasn't (either that, or the
satire was well masked).

For instance, Haldeman (the author of Forever War) is on record stating that
Starship Troopers glorifies war, and he's not the only one.

~~~
shepardrtc
The book was definitely satire. Heinlein doesn't come right out and say how
absurd the whole thing is, he lets the reader figure that out. I guess some
don't.

Edit: Just because you think I'm wrong with saying Starship Troopers was
satire doesn't mean you should downvote me. Also, read this:
[http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2012/11/the-joke-is-
on-...](http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2012/11/the-joke-is-on-us-the-
two-careers-of-robert-a-heinlein/)

~~~
justin66
> The book was definitely satire. Heinlein doesn't come right out and say how
> absurd the whole thing is, he lets the reader figure that out. I guess some
> don't.

Everyone's entitled to their interpretation but you're getting downvoted
because you come across as kind of a douche when you state things this way.

The notion that _Starship Troopers_ was an antiwar satire is rare enough that
you can't really link to a Locus story advocating it and then, boom, drop the
mic. Successful writers who knew Heinlein, from Haldeman to Pournelle, have
always characterized the book in a very different way.

~~~
shepardrtc
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 espousing the
views of a military-oriented society, but if you examine what's being said, it
becomes clear that its criticizing it. Let me be clear, though, I don't think
Heinlein is criticizing the individual soldier. I think he sympathizes with
them the most. But he takes the idea of a military-run central government to
an extreme to examine what it would be like. And while reading the novel we
get to examine it from the perspective of those most affected by it. And guess
what... Everything is miserable.

Heinlein celebrates people who would give themselves up to fight for other
people, but he shows that war itself is absurd and terrible.

~~~
justin66
> 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 exercise.

> completely superficial perspective

See, you're doing it again with the douchiness.

I mean, the story links to an interview with a well-respected science fiction
author (who has won so many Hugo and Nebula awards that it's like they are
shooting them at him with a t-shirt cannon and who also teaches an SF class at
MIT discussing _Starship Troopers_ ) and he disagrees with you about the book.
Do you think he's just being superficial? I mean I guess it's technically
possible that he just hasn't thought about the book as much as you have...

Acting as if the people who disagree with you just don't get it is making you
look a little silly. That's what the downvotes are about.

~~~
shepardrtc
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.

~~~
justin66
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.

------
fractallyte
The cover story in Scientific American, August 2015, is about 'How We
Conquered the Planet' \- 'Our species wielded the ultimate weapon:
cooperation'. This is a much more nuanced examination of what made homo
sapiens so successful (and dangerous).

From the article: "Everywhere _H. sapiens_ went, massive ecological changes
followed. The archaic humans they encountered went extinct, as did vast
numbers of animal species. It was, without a doubt, the most consequential
migration event in the history of our planet." ... "The sad story of those
first victims of modern human ingenuity and cooperation, the Neanderthals,
helps to explain why horrific acts of genocide and xenocide crop up in the
world today."

The article also brings up another tendency among humans, best summarized by
writer Slavenka Drakulic: "Once the concept of 'otherness' takes root, the
unimaginable becomes possible."

Our species is still evoluting. Perhaps, given new understanding and the right
constraints, some of the most damaging behaviors can be bred out...

------
mark_l_watson
I read The Forever War several years ago and have been planning on re-reading
it. It is a great book and I recommend you read it as both great fiction and
for being faily much spot on given the current world situation.

------
mcguire
This is a spectacularly bad article.

The author starts out with the right idea,

" _It’s about as pitch-perfect metaphor for what it’s like to go to war a
civilian can ever hope to absorb—not only is the organized violence of the
battlefield interminable, but the dislocation brought about to those subjected
to it is total and unrelenting, too._ "

but then drops off into the convenient and easy, but completely false,
proposition that science fiction is about predicting the future. And does so
_badly:_

" _In fact, when we begin our discussion in earnest, and I tell him his book
has seemed to have proved prescient, that all signs seem to point to a
perpetual state of forever war, he laughs._ "

The forever war of the _Forever War_ is a completely different kind of beast
from the forever war discussed in the article. That first quote above is a
very good description of the book, that war permanently removes even those who
survive it from the society they were part of before, but the "military
adventuring" that they go on to discuss has more in common with the late 19th
century exploits of the British Empire (and the fiction regarding those) and
with Vietnam itself than with the story of the _Forever War._ (As an aside,
does anyone have any information about the longest period the United States
has gone without using military force somewhere? I have this suspicion that
post-Vietnam may be it.)

Then we get things like

" _...3D printers may soon allow anyone with the right hardware to manufacture
deadly weaponry at home. Obscene weapons are increasingly obscenely easy to
find._ "

(Does someone need to point out that, historically, everyone has normally had
access to something equivalent tothe most deadly weapons of their time? How
about the fact that "3D printers" doesn't do anything but advertise that this
is a "techy" article?)

and

" _His words resonate, depressingly, when you consider that the US now
averages one mass shooting per day[1], and that the trend is only accelerating
upwards._ "

(The link defines "mass shooting" as "any single incident in which at least
four people are shot, including the gunman." If you're having to defend your
ideas with statements like "But there's an uncomfortable assumption here that
some crime victims' lives should be valued differently — or are less worthy of
attention — than others." you have likely gone off some kind of edge
somewhere.)

And what am I supposed to do with quotes like, " _' I don’t know what we do
about that,' he adds. 'I wouldn’t feel uncomfortable taking away that freedom,
and I don’t even have guns.'_" and " _' The idea of abolishing war has been
with us for thousands and thousands of years,” he adds. 'I think we’re more
likely to invent the speed of light.'_"

[1]
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/26/we...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/26/were-
now-averaging-more-than-one-mass-shooting-per-day-in-2015/)

------
pm90
Mankind has been at war for most of its existence. Only after WW2 and the
development of nuclear weapons has war become much too risky due to MAD and
has made diplomacy a much more viable option....for the more powerful nations.
Meanwhile, we still have civil war in Syria, unrest in Africa etc.

Once we colonize other worlds and space travel becomes more feasible, earth
will become less valuable: the powers that be can relocate to another planet
and just fight their proxy wars on earth.

~~~
jcranmer
Actually, mankind has probably not been at war for most of its existence. Homo
sapiens comes into existence ~200kya. By contrast, there is no evidence of
warfare for most of the Paleolithic, and the first unambiguous evidence only
comes ~10-12kya. In other words, the development of warfare is only roughly
contemporaneous with the development of agriculture and sedentarism.

~~~
at-fates-hands
The avoidance of war was probably due to the low population numbers and the
ability of groups of hunter/gatherers to avoid each other.

As the population grew and humans came into more frequent contact with each
other, warfare was a natural by-product of the increased contact between
groups.

~~~
s_kilk
Agriculture also brought in a massive change in how humans regarded territory.
For hunter-gatherer societies there was basically no impulse to fight over
territory. Everything they needed could be foraged, and the things they
foraged were plentiful.

Once we switched from foraging in a bountiful nature to scrounging a meager
living from the dirt, defending that dirt or seizing more of it became a much
bigger thing.

~~~
mrec
> For hunter-gatherer societies there was basically no impulse to fight over
> territory

I'd dispute that. Don't confuse sparse population density with "bountiful
nature"; hunter-gatherer economies are severely limited in that they can only
sustainably forage as much as the environment can regenerate. The fact that
they're territory-limited rather than labour-limited gives ample incentive to
fight over territory, and also explains the popular factoid that these
societies had vastly more leisure time than we do.

