Joe Haldeman’s The Forever War, winner of the Nebula Award for best novel in 1975 and Hugo and Locus Awards in 1976, has the biggest disconnect between its value as a metaphorical take on a real-world event and its value as a straight work of fiction. While Haldeman manages to create a unique way of looking at the then-ongoing conflict in Vietnam, a war without apparent end, the story itself is dull and rote, enamored of its own technological descriptions of battles to the detriment of plot of character development.
The war in the book comes about because humanity has discovered “collapsars,” relativistic oddities in space (not that dissimilar to black holes) that allow for travel at speeds approaching that of light, leading to a brief period of exploration that hits a wall when one ship is attacked by an unknown alien species called the Taurans. The protagonist and narrator William Mandella is a physics student and conscript for one of the first strike forces asked to go out first to the fictional planet of Charon beyond Pluto (the book was written before the moon of Pluto given that name was discovered) and then to attack the Taurans in a suspected base on a hostile planet beyond one of the collapsars. Due to time dilation, Mandella and the other surviving soldiers have aged just two years but return to an earth vastly changed by several decades, a bombastic, unintentionally comic vision of an overpopulated planet under a one-world dictatorship that seized power in response to the Tauran threat. The novel then deals with Mandella’s difficulties handling the gaps in time between his returns to civilian life and the harsh reality of fighting an enemy for unknown reasons with no apparent goal or exit strategy.
Haldeman had served in Vietnam, and it’s only possible to read this book as a thinly-veiled autobiographical novel that serves to lampoon the military structure that sent American boys to die in a war without purpose while also displaying the effects the war had on the soldiers who survived. The war against the Taurans is a dull one, and Haldeman is not, here, much of a storyteller: the prose is dry and the descriptions technical, with lengthy explanations of futuristic weaponry and tactics that suck energy even out of the battle scenes, let alone the lengthy description of the soldiers’ training on the impossible world of Charon.
The sequence back on earth several decades after the soldiers have left reads like a short story inserted into a novel, bearing little resemblance to the story before or after, and on its own is just bad dystopian fiction by someone who read The Population Bomb. Haldeman drops in the usual food-shortage stuff along with the fear of authoritarian governments, but where he gets really bizarre is when he has “homosex” rising first as a natural consequence of the overpopulation and eventually something encouraged by government, becoming the new normal for humanity further into the future, with heterosexual urges treated as a mental illness. It seems to treat homosexuality as deviant and repulsive, using it as a tool to show the awful future of the human race.
Viewed as allegory, however, The Forever War seems to hit its mark. The war itself is as pointless as it gets: Humanity’s immediate response to the possible attack on one of our ships – which was somewhere else in the galaxy than our solar system – is all-out war, along with building up terrestrial defenses against an attack that isn’t threatened or even particularly likely. There is no attempt to communicate with the Taurans, or even any idea what they look like; soldiers are sent out to kill and destroy. The subsequent war becomes one of attrition, with battles waged over lifeless rocks that have no meaning to either side, and with neither side ever gaining anything like an advantage in the overall battle – with gauging advantage made especially difficult by the time dilation, so ships are sent off in one stage of the war and return in another entirely. (Haldeman obeys the laws of physics to the point of omitting faster-than-light communications.) Soldiers are given posthypnotic suggestions to make them want to kill the Taurans on sight, treating the aliens as enemies regardless of what actually happens on the field of battle.
One could make the historical argument that the Vietnam War was justified because the United States was trying to prevent a hostile dictatorship from taking over an entire country, subjecting millions of people to what turned out to be twenty-plus years of poverty and suppression. The U.S. justified it at the time by invoking the domino theory that each country that fell to communism further enabled the next revolution; perhaps showing the Soviet Union that funding additional insurgencies would cost them more because we were willing to spend to fight them. The war against the Taurans in The Forever War can’t even rise to those levels of reasoning, because the Taurans aren’t clearly threatening anyone; the metaphor works in the sense that neither the Taurans nor the Viet Cong were threatening “us,” so why were we trying so hard to kill them, putting our own men at risk by doing so? At best, the logic extended to protecting our ships if another should encounter the Taurans randomly beyond another collapsar, but without understanding what caused the first incident, even this – given the enormous expense involved – seems specious.
Books that seem to work strictly on that metaphorical or allegorical level generally leave me cold because of how much they miss, and The Forever War did just that, more than anything else because the characters are so one-dimensional. Mandella is intelligent but hardly wise or smart, and his return home after his first tour of duty – into the dystopian section of the book – is surprisingly emotionless. The closest thing the book has to another core character is his girlfriend Marygay, who has no personality to speak of, and of necessity disappears for a few chapters at a time. Without a compelling individual character at the heart of the book, the read becomes stolid and dull, even when we should be feeling the intensity of a battle scene. So for all its accolades – and the book’s cover has some very impressive quotes from other authors – The Forever War fell very short for me.
Next up: I’m currently reading Jeff Passan’s The Arm: Inside the Billion-Dollar Mystery of the Most Valuable Commodity in Sports.
Heh. I knew you wouldn’t like the book, because the characters really ARE thin. It doesn’t surprise me that Haldeman hasn’t written much else that’s highly regarded.
But I had a different take on the story’s central point: it wasn’t really about the pointlessness of the war. To me the real feature of the story is the effect of time dilation. It’s a rarity for a work of science fiction to deal honestly with it, and Haldeman does a good job of making it serve what I see as the book’s central Vietnam metaphor: the growing disconnect and eventual alienation of the soldiers from the civilian society they are protecting.
It’s a message that I think still has relevance, and the reason I really like the book despite the shortcomings you rightly note.
It’s been years since I read the book, but I (sort of) agree with your take. The war itself (and its ultimate pointlessness and misunderstanding) was, to me, a major point. It combined with the time-dilation resulting in the soldiers’ disconnect with society to drive the story.
Keith, I understand (I hope) your points, and agree with some of them. The characters are, in many cases, one-dimensional. However, I find the complaint about the lack of a compelling central character curious, given your enthusiasm for The Magicians. Some of your other points are straw men. The post-hypnotic was only used in the first encounter, then abandoned. Mandella’s reaction to the new homosex society is a depiction of his disconnect after time away; I think it’s a mistake to confuse this as *Haldeman’s* attitude. The war ends when Earth evolves to a clone society, which is then able to connect with the enemy’s group-mind. Depending on who you talk to, the allegory either hasn’t aged well (40 years later), or is still relevant (Afghanistan, etc.)
I did find the award curious, as I never thought it was *that* good a book. (And his follow-ons, Forever Peace and Forever Free, are IMO even less of a read.) Maybe the panel had a thing for social allegories.
It’s not often I disagree with you, but I think you’re a bit harsh in this case. Which is your right, and I look forward to your next review, as I’ve really enjoyed a couple of your suggestions. Thanks
I didn’t get the sense that Haldeman himself was anti-gay, but that he used gay as a sort of shock element that implied moral decay. It’s more subtle than just claiming gays are sinful or deviant.
You didn’t find Quentin compelling in the first Magicians book? He became less so in the next two books, but the secondary characters grew. This book doesn’t even have a decent second character around.
This seems like the kind of book that you could have realized was terrible about 5 pages in.
Funny how people can see things that differently.
I didn’t see any connotation of “moral decay” in the homosexual society at all,* and your interpretation, that we were supposed to be repulsed by the awful homosexual future, never even occurred to me. I saw a future that someone from our present wouldn’t be able to relate to; values (i.e. heterosexuality) that were taken for granted by the soldiers (and the society they came from) being regarded as odd or deviant by the society the soldiers returned to. It’s the hero who has, as a consequence of the nature of the war he fights in, come to be regarded as perverse, and to see himself as a misfit.
Substitute different values for heterosexuality and you come back to the book’s central metaphor, the alienation of the Vietnam soldier. I might even have described the use of sexual orientation in service to the book’s theme as elegant.
( * I am speaking specifically of the issue of homosexuality. I read the book a long time ago and it was probably the original abridged version. From other descriptions it seems like there was more there about a dangerous society… which sounds a bit like the race riots of the late sixties.)
Keith,
I found Quentin’s essential passivity off-putting for a central character, but perhaps that’s just me. I’ve been working myself up to reading the two remaining books in the Magician series; the growth of the secondary characters is encouraging. Thanks again.
It’s been years since I read the Forever War, and I was a teenager then, so my memories are no doubt clouded by both time and my-then youth. I don’t remember an anti-homosexual vibe, although I do remember that plot point. Then and now, I thought it was a bit unrealistic since sexuality is not something learned, although perhaps humans would be receptive, or adaptive, if the environment changed drastically. Haldeman writing that the government was treating heterosexuality as a “mental illness” could even been viewed as purposely counterintuitive to illustrate a point. When he wrote the Forever War, many viewed homosexuality as a mental illness, so perhaps he was using that as example of the evils of an authoritarian government.
Although I read the book, my point above is bordering on conjecture due to the passage of time, and it’s unlikely I’ll ever read the book again to see if I have a different impression. I remember being vaguely disappointed in the novel after reading good reviews and it and it also being a Nebula and Hugo winner. Expectations were high. It wasn’t bad, but I found the characters less than compelling, and surprisingly the story didn’t seem all that fresh. I felt as if I had already read similar anti-war, anti-authoritarian government stories, and done much better. Already world weary as a young teen, I guess.
Speculation, some of it even firm, continues that the Forever War will be made into a movie. Be curious how they handle that one plot point, or the overall movie’s theme. Some science fiction stories age well, even improve with time, others don’t. The Forever War was fine for its day as a novel, but it feels a bit dated now. That said, I don’t have much faith that Hollywood’s updating will make it any better, probably just the opposite.