Emily (Books with Emily Fox on Youtube)'s Reviews > The Forever War

Geeky me just calculated the speed they'd have to travel for that kind of time delatation (assuming this isn't due to gravitational relativity) and it's 99,7% of the speed of light... That wouldn't be a very comfortable cruising speed :P

GridGirl wrote: "Geeky me just calculated the speed they'd have to travel for that kind of time delatation (assuming this isn't due to gravitational relativity) and it's 99,7% of the speed of light... That wouldn't..."

These things are all very well explained at least! Not sure how accurate they are but we're given the explanations!

Hahaha omg "I'm okay with girls having sex with each other, but dudes? eewww" - creepy male fantasy much?? I have this on my "Want to read" shelf but I'm seriously considering taking it off. I 100% agree with you that classics should age well - this looks like it didn't fare so well in that department.

For what it is worth the author drew upon his experiences from fighting in Vietnam and then coming home when writing it. From the pointlessness of a foreign war to a sense of social displacement when Vietnam vets returned home. It very much spoke to a specific time and place in American society.

As far as cworking having to age well to be considered classic I would disagree. Some classics don't age well because they have had such a significant impact on their medium that subsequent works are influenced by them. Like Citizen Kane and We, what was ground breaking at the time became the norm later robbing these works of their innovation to a modern consumer of them.

But of course none of that means you have to give them a high rating if you didn't like them (and I agree that the sexual politics of this book are very much of the time and place it was written and age terribly).

I just finished this book and totally agree! I also gave this book two stars, and 1. couldn't get over the homophobic undertones and 2. don't understand how it's praised as a sci-fi classic.

Like you, I liked the concept, abhorred the sexism, homophobia, etc. Ugh, the passages you mentioned made me crazy.

i'm honestly not sure why i finished it.

Personally I feel like those quotes are exactly why it has aged well. He isn't saying that the future is bad, but that the main character finds it hard to accept. If you can't understand that a person from the 70s might find it harder to accept homosexuality than someone born some years from now, it's no wonder you couldn't comprehend the greater themes of this book

The book is not homophobic, especially not when you consider when it was published. The main character is somewhat homophobic, but the book presents a future where homosexuality is the norm and heterosexuals are thought of as "queer." And the book is also before it's time by portraying men and women fighting side by side in combat as equals.

Consider the passages where the main character talks to his mother's lesbian partner, who is clearly more enlightened than he is.

The book is definitely homophobic.

" a person from the 70s might find it harder to accept homosexuality than someone born some years from now" This doesn't even make sense. There aren't more gay people now than there were in the 70's. There's nothing wrong with using a homophobic character to explore a concept or prove a point, but the character is homophobic because he is homophobic, not because of when he was born.

I think the dated depiction of homosexuality actually adds to the book. The book peers both into into the future and the past. The point is: things change whether you like it or not. It helps further along the main character’s sense of alienation from being away.

Yes OPs first quote about sex starved men is laughably ridiculous example of how times have changed since this book was made. I don’t think it detracts from the book

This seems a missing the forest for the trees take. As a 20-year veteran, there's a clear reason this is on military professional reading lists. Why were the Taurans the enemy? Why were we fighting them? It's a reminder to answer fundamental questions, and not to be seduced by the "old warfighters" and their application of past experience to current paradigms.

Classics should age well in what way? The way you judged this book to be homophobic, Pride and Prejudice is just a book about a gold digger then.

I think you saw just saw *SEXISM!* and *HOMOPHOBIA!* and took it as that, while missing the point of why those things were included. It was also my initial inclination to be repulsed, but I realized that was the whole purpose. I was shocked when I finished the book and checked the date it was written. I found it incredibly prescient considering it’s time. I also find this to be one of the least ‘battle-y’ of most of the military science fiction I’ve read since this book. This is the book that opened me up to reading military science fiction, actually. Give it another chance. I’ll definitely be reading it again some day!

Imagine taking two quotes spoken by a fictional character in a book that travels across time and space completely out of context and then tagging something as “homophobic.” Everyone is entitled to their opinion on whether it’s a good book or not (I think it’s great) but you’re opinion can’t be that it’s homophobic because, quite simply, it’s not. Critical thinking and nuance, let’s not lose sight of those important pillars of intellect. I invite people to read what other great authors, including some modern favorites like Ta Nehisi-Coates have said about this novel.

Imagine taking an earnest, self-professed subjective review of a piece of fiction and dismissing it through ad hominem attacks because, of course, one's own subjective opinion is actually objective.

My two bits on the 'aging poorly' and homophobia expressed by William in the novel pretty much follow what some others have already said. Also sorry if I'm lacking specific details/quotes, it's been a while since I've read it(and only once at that!).

Anyways, I feel it's important to consider that characters (as well as the book itself) were originally from the 1970s. Gay marriage wasn't even legal back then, being gay wasn't a "normal" thing. It doesn't excuse homophobia but it's there because it makes sense given the period. The world changes drastically for the characters in the story (with it being an allegory for the Vietnam war as people said), portraying the disconnect from society veterans feel returning home. Given William's background before his deployment, his reactions to everybody suddenly being gay make sense. Even today, being gay is accepted but not the norm. Even in more progressive times, I guarantee that most men would be (at least) weirded out or deeply uncomfortable by everybody suddenly "turning" gay because, along with any other deeply rooted societal phenomenon, people don't just exchange core ideas of normal and "right" like they're dirty and outdated clothes. Even particularly progressive people would have a bit of a bruh moment if something that big just flipped.

I'd also like to believe that Haldeman isn't just writing William's character as a projection of his own personal thoughts on the LGBTQIAetcetc community. He didn't add it just because it reflects his viewpoint and "I believe this and it's *bad* because it's not normal*". I can't say I believe it has any negative impact on society either. People who accept gay people and such won't be swayed to think otherwise by this and not many normal people are going to leave this book feeling empowered to hate or dislike gay people. Those kinds of beliefs exist in people before they consume sci-fi novels and in that case this book is not a big concern. So if the effect on society is not the a big issue then it comes down to our personal viewpoint clashing with that of the characters. However, that basically proves the point Haldeman is making with the characters since we already experience the disconnect with the opinions of the characters from the 70s and our own, so imagine that but multiplied by centuries of change. Jeez this is getting long and I'm really damn tired...alright I'll wrap this up.

Overall what I'm saying down isn't extraordinary or original. It's just that in the story it's consistent with the times, and the views of the characters are used as way to communicate the societal detachment, not as a way to make jabs at homosexuals. Overall, I enjoyed the book a ton and I really hope peeps can read it without being turned off by the old-timeyness of it's characters viewpoints. That stargate orgy "compliant" thing was weird as hell though, I agree on that part.

This is an American SF classic. If you want something different, try one of the British SF New Wave authors, eg. Gwyneth Jones, Robert Holdstock, Barrington J Bayley, M. John Harrison, Christopher Priest, Garry Kilworth... For me, a much, much more rewarding read.

The only homophobic theme about this book is that homosexuality is depicted as a choice, i.e. claiming that because of overpopulation, homosexuality became the norm (as if it's the only way to avoid pregnancy). Even then, you could interpret it as a way to demonstrate how the soldiers are left behind and can no longer adapt to civilian life, so the only option left is to keep going back to war.

I think both of those parts are critiques, not endorsements. Also, I think the book actually does quite well at exploring how being queer can be alienating, including having your sexuality characterized as a mental illness. The book isn't trying to endorse those views, rather using analogy (which the whole book is) to demonstrate the absurdity of heteronormativity.

a big part of this book is about how cultures evolve, what was weird has become the norm, and the difficulty of soldiers facing that evolution, which for them was sudden. how out of place you feel, on top of the normal sense of it that soldiers feel anyway when returning from combat. try to imagine what you would feel if you fell into a coma for a 200 years (and neglect the obvious physical changes (hey, its science fiction!)). you wake up. everyone you know is dead. they speak weirdly even though its English (or whatever language you now commonly speak) due to evolution of language, slang terms, plus references to things/events that happened while you were in a coma that you have no idea about. heck, im 50+ years old now, in that time pot became legal in many states, homosexuality became more acceptable (yay!), more people know it's not a choice, gay conversion has been debunked, more women have risen to power, had a woman almost become president, another who is, had a nonwhite president, computers in pockets, people sharing cat pictures worldwide being a big thing, all things that would have been radical 50 years ago. who knows what will be acceptable in 50 years? we have the privilege of being gradually introduced to it (or dying before our prejudices which we all have no matter how enlightened we think we are are shown to be bad). we are all just short lines in the timeline, and this book is positing what happens to some who whose lines aren't continuous, but jumping, and how they cope with it. Haldeman picked sex, understandable because, as adults, we all enjoy it, are frustrated by it, emotionally crushed by it, daydream/pine/wonder etc, and what would happen if what you like is no longer the norm?

This is frustrating. While the character mandella might think and say things that come across as homophobic, that does not make the story nor the author homophobic, and Infact these elements of mandellas character and ongoing narrative contribute to a really quite candid example of changing and evolving social norms.

At one point in the story, heterosexuality is considered deviant, the point being that ultimately in the face of adversity, one's own judgement becomes irrelevant. Time changes and people change with it.

It's unfortunate to see legitimately good fiction get wrapped up in this culture of nailing authors to every word they wrote, holding them accountable for any words uttered by fictional characters.

This isn't a manifesto of homophobic propaganda.

To all of the commenters here who find this book offensive, I suggest you never again read anything more than a year or two old. Every author writes with the "Voice of the Time" in which he grew up.

Remember, just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right.

Thanks for those quotes you saved me a ton of time. This should never be compared to starship troopers.

The book is really focused on developing ways to make Mandella feel alienated and uses homosexuality as a stand in. But it doesn't really engage with queer culture or queer individuals much. And it also talks about homosexuality as a form of soft eugenics. That's a pretty risk approach and the issue is that the book doesn't engage with what that means. The narrative just introduces insane political developments but doesn't explore them. Like the book could have shown the folly of eugenics or engaged more with intolerance. But it just didn't. It's political writing is lazy.

So the book was not politically correct enough for 2022 standards. Yea, I guess it's a bad book then /s

I think sadly you missed the point Haldeman was trying to make with machismo and homosexuality. The book was written when homosexuality and the inclusion of women in the military were two huge taboos. By including both and getting rid of the whole American puritanical views about free sexuality and promiscuity, and confronting his macho and homophobic main character to a complete social shift that highlights his prejudices, Haldeman was also attacking the contemporary vision of the US military in a rather provocative and to an extent satirical way. It was at the time a whole lot more "progressive" than it may appear today. Reading it as sexist or homophobic in 2022 is missing the subtext.

No book can avoid being the product of its time and place, and forcibly there are some rather unfortunate elements (how things end up for the main character's gay friend, the caricatural depictions of gay men, for e.g.) but Haldeman has commented long since that he sees these things as problematic himself and would never do this if he were to write the book now. But it was written in the 70s.

What do you suggest? Should we start burning books written in the past that don't conform with the current worldview? You people are insane.

Brad wrote: "To all of the commenters here who find this book offensive, I suggest you never again read anything more than a year or two old. Every author writes with the "Voice of the Time" in which he grew up..."
Exactly that

Go away and continue watching Netflix please.

The hostile responses are unnecessary. People are allowed to dislike things.

people outraged by this review, going as far to call her “insane” for simply disliking a book, you all seem very nice.

and those who keep foaming at the mouth to explain how she “missed the point” of those sexist/homophobic remarks.. glad you took away so much from bigoted narrators but maybe consider that for others the payoff just wasn’t enough!

Wants classic novel to withstand the test of time. Also wants prevailing sexual ideals to magically match 21st century. Okay....

Y'all are too wound up. I didn't say the book was bad or should be condemned. I said that the book didn't really engage with homosexuality. My read was that this change in society was meant to show radical social change and create a sense of alienation. But it could have been anything. It could have been that everyone was super libertarian or that everyone has red hair now. Which felt weird reading about homosexuality but not really reading about gay people. For sure, this is an influence of the book being of the 1970's. But reading it today, it definitely reads strangely. It doesn't hold up and made the book harder to engage with.

Matthew Archer wrote: "Wants classic novel to withstand the test of time. Also wants prevailing sexual ideals to magically match 21st century. Okay...."

Then it's not a classical novel, is it? It didn't "stand the test of time". It's not relevant to our current society unless it is to annoy 21st century readers. Please tell me it how it was ok then to say that women were required by law to satisfy men. It seems more like a male fantasy to be honest. The book was written in 1974, it's not like feminism wasn't a thing

Ironic enough that while the book has dated culture, it fits well with people (men in this case) from the 60s adapting to a Post-Obama administration, when time dilation occurs.

You think nowdays is "pretty much however" a single man and woman cloned with a shared conciousness living as an intergalactic civilisation?

What are you smoking and where do I find some?

Patrícia⁷ wrote: "Matthew Archer wrote: "Wants classic novel to withstand the test of time. Also wants prevailing sexual ideals to magically match 21st century. Okay...."

Then it's not a classical novel, is it? It ..."

Patricia, that's not really what's meant with "withstanding the test of time" .. most classic novels (if not literally all classic novels) do not in fact withstand the "test of time" like you want it too. Also, at no point does the book claim that it's required by law for women to satisfy men. The military encourages the soldiers to have copious amount of sex, all of them. Men and women. "by law" refers to soldiers having to be compliant. Promiscuity is the custom and also very much encouraged by the millitary in the book. But never in the book is it forced, never is a woman forced to have sex against her will or to "pleasure men". But all the soldiers are exceptionally promiscuous. In fact when the main character starts a more steady relationship with his love interest, they are essentially in a polyamorous relationship. She keeps having sex with a (space) navy officer called Singh and he keeps having sex with some female doctor / officer because he's always wanted to have sex with an officer (they're technically not allowed to have sex with higher ranks, for obvious reasons. But no one really cares in space)

It's kinda messed up you take quotes out of context like this. All the soldiers in the book are encouraged to be super promiscuous. This is written by a man that just came out of the counter culture movement era of the 60's, spending his 20's in that era. When it says "by law" the law is referring to soldiers having to be compliant by law. The promiscuity is heavily encouraged but at no point is any woman forced to do anything against her will. Men and women are both encouraged to do the same. When Haldemand and Marygay start dating, they are both also still having sex with others and are essentially in a polyamorous relationship.

And I don't see how it would be strange that a man that's grown up in a environment without any gay people would have an easier time accepting lesbians than gay men. Lesbians are just two women, he likes women. So even though it's strange to him it isn't as off putting. But men, is something he doesn't like. So when he sees a man kiss a man he can't help but imagine kissing a man which is off putting for a lot of straight men. That's not homophobic. I also don't like seeing or thinking of two people that I might find extremely unattrative going at it. That's what that is. There are plenty of gay men who will recoil at the thought of sleeping with a woman or touching a vagina. There is nothing strange about that.

Michelle wrote: "Hahaha omg "I'm okay with girls having sex with each other, but dudes? eewww" - creepy male fantasy much?? I have this on my "Want to read" shelf but I'm seriously considering taking it off. I 100%..."

I want you to imagine two people you'd never want to imagine having sex ... now try imaging them. That's essentially what that is, written by a guy in the early 70's. I don't get how that is so "homophobic". He likes women, so he has an easier time dealing with lesbian women being promiscuous around him. He doesn't like men, so it's harder for him to deal with that. At no point does he act or behave homophobic to any of his crew (who are at that point all gay). And he becomes close friends with one of his gay male soldiers.

It's no less strange than a gay man recoiling at the thought of a vagina or having to do anything with a vagina. Or a lesbian thinking penises are disgusting. It's really mind boggling how that's so hard to understand and immediately labeled as "phobic" by some people nowadays. Are you people this out of touch?

My interpretation of the orgy scene that you quote at the beginning of your review was that it was supposed to demonstrate the total degeneration of social norms that had occurred amongst the soldiers. I don’t really think the author was portraying it as a positive thing.