Well, recently I decided to go ahead a read Armor, mainly because I found a first printing paperback at a used book store. What kind of SF fan can turn down a book covered like this?
After reading I went back and re-read Starship Troopers. How do they compare?
Well, you get the gist of the different view points each author espouses by reading the following quotations. The first if from Starship Troopers.
"However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings the the historically untrue - and thoroughly immoral - doctrine that 'violence never settles anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it...Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for with their lives and freedoms."
Here's a quote from Armor.
"It was then, for Felix, it began. The hatred for the Briefing Officer had expanded to include his superiors, the Captain of the ship, the commanders of Fleet itself, and finally the thick-headed idiot humans who had undertaken something as asinine as interplanetary war in the first place."
Both of these novels are about human space marines caught up in interplanetary war. The cool gimmick of Starship Troopers, which is borrowed shamelessly by Armor, is the exoskeleton body armor that allows the wearer to run faster, jump higher and blow stuff up better than an unadorned human could do. In both novels the people of Earth are fighting a race of giant hive-minded insect-like creatures. Starship Troopers was written in the late 50s, while Armor was written in the early '80s. One reflects the almost holy respect for soldiers in the post WWII era, while the other evokes the skepticism and distrust of the post Vietnam era.
Starship Troopers is a much better book. Heinlein's world is extreme but he keeps it honest. The characters in his book put an immense amount of trust in the government, a level of trust I can't imagine in today's world. Though he does attempt to explain why the government is more trustworthy than ours. And despite the fact that violence is presented as the cure to all mankind's ills, it is actually a quite non-violent book. There are only three chapters dedicated to fighting with bug-eyed aliens. The majority of the book is the protagonist going to high school, or boot camp, or officer training school and expounding at length on social, governmental, and military philosophy. The military action, however, when it does show up, is feels very realistic.
Armor, despite its anti-war sentiment, is full of violence. Lengthy sections are devoted to blood-and-guts hand-to-hand fighting with "ants". There's a long middle section devoted to humans betraying and killing each other. Finally it switches back to the "ant war" and a surprise conclusion that is telegraphed to the reader from 2 light years out. At the end everyone renounces war and lives peacefully ever after. So is violence good or bad? Armor would have us believe its good for entertainment, but otherwise unsavory. The action certainly is entertaining, though the military tactics are ludicrous. I suppose that's in keeping with the notion that everyone running the war is an idiot.
I can't imagine anyone would find the system of government described in Starship Troopers to be a desirable one. I can't even imagine Heinlein himself took it too seriously considering how staunchly libertarian he was. As an allegory it's wonderful and makes the reader think. It was written for teenagers, but it is intellectual to the point that it puts most youth fiction to shame. At least Heinlein's throwing ideas around. That's more than I can say for Armor.
1 comment:
Hey I loved this blog post!
I do disagree with your review/interpretation of Armor, but it was fun to read nonetheless. They are covering different subject matter and offer different perspectives. I personally loved the violence in Armor. I read it when I was much younger, but it seemed to me that the violence described in the book made for a very engaging and visceral experience. The power armor "gimmick" is taken to its full potential. It may be largely unbelievable seeing as the protagonist is some sort of cosmic prince, but the employment of myth and destiny in a science fiction novel as an outspoken element is a welcome contrast to the implied mythic status of other protagonists.
I mainly disagreed with your statement about violence as entertainment. Felix's friends and colleagues were slaughtered over and over again. That wasn't entertaining. Everything Felix does is fucking horrible. He NEVER enjoys it. The human culture he is a part of glorifies violence and seems to embrace it for entertainment but that is never his M.O. He makes for a great tragic hero. The quotes you used do make the book seem poorly written, so I may have to read it again for a better idea of which book is actually better!
I will have to read starship troopers now as well! Thanks for the post. I had fun responding and reading.
Post a Comment