{"id":1020,"date":"2011-03-07T04:26:06","date_gmt":"2011-03-07T04:26:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.mmcgrath.co.uk\/?p=1020"},"modified":"2015-07-26T17:52:48","modified_gmt":"2015-07-26T16:52:48","slug":"after-heinlein-politics-in-scalzis-old-mans-war-universe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.mmcgrath.co.uk\/?p=1020","title":{"rendered":"AFTER HEINLEIN: POLITICS IN SCALZI’S OLD MAN’S WAR UNIVERSE"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>The publication Old Man\u2019s War<\/em> brought John Scalzi both critical and commercial success. His work was widely praised for its fast-paced action and for its updating of classic science fiction tropes but the novel was also controversial and attracted considerable criticism. This article is not the place to rehash the extensive online debates about Old Man\u2019s War<\/em>, but those interested can still find perhaps the prime example on Nicholas White\u2019s blog \u2013 starting here<\/a>. The criticism \u2013 from what might be called \u201cliberal\u201d commentators \u2013 can be summarised in three broad categories:<\/p>\n

1. That Old Man\u2019s War<\/em> was crudely right wing \u2013 at best a poorly conceived rehashing of the out-of-date dogma of Robert A\u00a0 Heinlein;<\/p>\n

2. That it promoted a violent, jingoistic and militaristic world view; and<\/p>\n

3. That it provided no political insight into the universe in which it was set[i]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Throughout that argument, Scalzi defended his work by arguing that Old Man\u2019s War<\/em> should not be read in isolation, that it was just the first part of a much bigger story and that it would become clear as the series progressed that the protagonist of the first novel, John Perry, was an unreliable narrator with a poor grasp of the wider workings of the universe in which he lived. It is now almost four years since the first publication of Old Man\u2019s War<\/em> and in that time Scalzi has published three further novels, a novelette and two short stories set in what I call the Green Soldier Universe (GSU \u2013 because the soldiers of the Colonial Union are reborn in bodies with green skin). [ii]<\/a><\/p>\n

The publication of the latest GSU novel Zoe\u2019s Tale<\/em> appears to mark if not a conclusion then, at least, an interregnum in the stories of John Perry, Jane Sagan and Zoe Boutin and the last appearance of new major works in that universe for the time being.[iii]<\/a><\/p>\n

The obvious question, therefore, arises: Are we now in a position to judge whether Scalzi, given the wider view we now have into the GSU universe, was justified in arguing that the criticism levelled at his first book was misplaced. Or is the GSU just another crude piece of mil-sf designed to stroke the fetishes of a right-wing, predominantly American, audience?<\/p>\n

It is clear that his universe remains a violent place. In the opening passages of The Last Colony<\/em> he describes the background against which all the action takes place:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe universe is vast, but the number of worlds suitable for human life is surprisingly small, and as it happens space is filled with numerous other intelligent species who want the same worlds we do. Very few of these species, it seems, are into the concept of sharing: we\u2019re certainly not. We all fight, and the worlds we inhabit swap back and forth between us until one or another gets a grip so tight we can\u2019t be pried off.\u201d[iv]<\/a><\/p>\n

And green soldiers know their role, as Perry points out in Old Man\u2019s War<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\u201cOur job is to go meet strange new people and cultures and kill the sons of bitches as quickly as we possibly can.\u201d[v]<\/a><\/p>\n

But, given this basic set-up, in this essay I want to argue that, on the whole, Scalzi was right, that politics in the GSU is more complex than the early critics of the Old Man\u2019s War<\/em> allowed and to explore some of the ways it is similar to the work of Robert A Heinlein and some of the ways it differs.<\/p>\n

It is important to be clear that Scalzi has written a set of adventure stories, not a political manifesto. This article is not a critique of Scalzi\u2019s own political views \u2013 those seeking an idea of what Scalzi thinks about modern political issues should read his blog<\/a> \u2013 but of the political systems he has used to construct his Green Soldier Universe. That said, Scalzi has not shied away from tackling political issues in these books and in setting out to write in the style of the most controversial of the genre\u2019s \u201cbig three\u201d grandmasters (Heinlein, Asimov & Clarke), he was plainly aware of the political and ethical debates that continue to surround Heinleins\u2019 work. To understand the politics of the GSU, therefore, I want to first to briefly explore the politics of Robert A Heinlein, as expressed in his novels.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

SCALZI & HEINLEIN<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Reviewers of John Scalzi’s first novel set in the GSU \u2013 Old Man’s War<\/em> \u2013 were quick to identify the book\u2019s debt to Robert A Heinlein. Scalzi has acknowledged that debt and the GSU stories obviously borrow from, and are intended as tributes to, Heinlein\u2019s sf. Old Man\u2019s War<\/em>, as de Nardo[vi]<\/a> points out at some length in his review in SF Signal<\/em>, contains \u201cpurposeful parallels\u201d to Starship Troopers<\/em>, and this wartime adventure setting is carried on through the second novel in the trilogy The Ghost Brigades.<\/em> But as the series progresses it becomes more complex, the later books (The Last Colony<\/em> and Zoe\u2019s Tale<\/em>) owe more to other works by Heinlein, particularly The Moon is a Harsh Mistress<\/em> and to a lesser extent Red Planet<\/em>.<\/p>\n

But as well as recognizing the \u201cpurposeful parallels\u201d, I want to argue that there is more to the GSU stories than a simple restatement of Heinlein\u2019s position. Indeed what is most interesting about the GSU stories, from a political perspective, is the way in which they act to apply a modern lens to Heinlein\u2019s politics and, in some instances, go further, providing a critique of the SF grandmaster\u2019s political thought.<\/p>\n

Obviously there is not space here for a full discussion of Heinlein\u2019s political views and it is worth remembering that as he was a novelist not a political philosopher, it would be a mistake to expect a coherent political vision to emerge from his works. Heinlein\u2019s political views shifted during his own lifetime \u2013 from an early dalliance with socialism through the anarcho-capitalism that he dubbed \u201crational anarchy\u201d to a more stridently nationalistic tone in his later novels. So, throughout his output, one can find Heinlein extolling the virtues of a militaristic society with tight social mores and a limited franchise (Starship Troopers<\/em>) or espousing the drop-out society and hippy free love (Stranger in Strange Land<\/em>) or the rough and tumble justice of the frontier (Tunnel in the Sky,<\/em> Red Planet<\/em>) \u2013 he even has sympathetic hereditary rulers in Double Star<\/em> and Glory Road<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Accepting these caveats there remain a number of themes that are constant across Heinlein\u2019s novels and which are reflected in Scalzi\u2019s GSU. Here I want to discuss two.<\/p>\n

1.\u00a0 Disdain for democratic governance and bureaucracy<\/em><\/strong>
\nThis is an almost universal motif in Heinlein\u2019s work. In The Cat Who Walks Through Walls<\/em>, one character\u2019s (Bill) belief that government should provide free air, health care and other basic services \u201creflects his wrong-headedness in general … [he has] … the socialist disease in its worst form, he thinks the world owes him a living.\u201d[vii]<\/a> In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress<\/em>, Professor La Paz engages in long and detailed critiques of the failings of any system that imposes taxation and pleads with the newly free citizens of Luna not to repeat the \u201cmistakes\u201d of the past. Government, he says is:
\n\u201ca dangerous servant and a terrible master. You now have freedom \u2013 if you can keep it. But do remember that you can lose this freedom more quickly to yourselves than to any other tyrant… What I fear most are the affirmative actions of sober and well-intentioned men, granting to government powers to do something that appears to need doing.\u201d[viii]<\/a><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0 Justifying the means<\/em><\/strong>
\nIn The Moon is a Harsh Mistress <\/em>the Lunar revolutionaries bombard Earth knowing that they are inevitably risking the lives of innocent civilians and also suffocate their enemies on the Moon without regret. But Heinlein takes great care in establishing the special status of his protagonists \u2013 they are either justified in their actions because of provocation or because they have done all in their power to minimise deaths. In Starship Troopers<\/em>, the soldiers engage in brutal combat but bear no responsibility:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s never a soldier\u2019s business to decide when or where or how \u2013 or why \u2013 he fights. That belongs to the statesmen and the generals… We supply the violence; other people \u2013 \u2018older and wiser heads\u2019 as they say \u2013 supply the control.\u201d[ix]<\/a><\/p>\n

Throughout his work \u2013 from the early gun-toting, duel-fighting, brassard-wearing world of Beyond This Horizon<\/em> onwards \u2013 Heinlein\u2019s creates societies where violence is an acceptable means of problem solving but the use of violence, at least for his heroes, is also intimately linked to notions of personal responsibility and honour. Thus there are limit on what is considered acceptable even if the actions\u00a0might offend our own \u201ccivilised\u201d mores. In every case the means (violent action) must be justified by something more than the ends.<\/p>\n

There are many other issues that might have been discussed, such as the primacy of the individual, the portrayal of women, the importance of family, the position of teenagers, the emphasis on interconnected communities, the politics of sexuality \u2013 Heinlein had noteworthy\u00a0positions on all of these issues and there are reflections of them in Scalzi\u2019s work.\u00a0However, these particular issues\u00a0probably provide the foundation for\u00a0the most familiar facet of the politics of\u00a0Heinlein\u2019s fiction \u2013 a tough, libertarian, frontier style of social organization.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

THE POLITICS OF THE GREEN SOLDIER UNIVERSE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

In the following section I want to look at how these thematic strands are represented in Scalzi\u2019s work and the ways in which he both restates Heinlein\u2019s position and updates it.<\/p>\n

The Absence of Democracy<\/strong><\/em>
\nDemocracy in any form is notable in the GSU primarily by its absence. Some form of republican\/liberal democratic constitutions appears to survive on Earth (there\u2019s certainly some form of representative government there in The Last Colony<\/em>) but Earth is very much a special case, a museum preserved in aspic by the Colonial Union and hidden away from potential predation by aliens. The only representative of that government we meet is the blustering, self-important and ultimately doomed Senator Bender \u2013 to whom we shall return below.<\/p>\n

Elsewhere the universe appears to be ruled by various forms of dictatorship. The Colonial Union is run by a bureaucracy, organised hierarchically and ruled by diktat. There\u2019s no hint of the bureaucracy being subject to democratic oversight \u2013 a crucial difference from Starship Troopers<\/em>, where Heinlein is at pains to emphasise the ultimate power of the democratic government over the military.<\/p>\n

The only human colonies we see running in detail are those controlled by Perry and Sagan in The Last Colony<\/em> and in both instances they exercise control via power vested in them by the authority of the Colonial Union. On Huckleberry, where we find Perry and Sagan at the beginning of The Last Colony<\/em>, Perry acts as judge and jury while Sagan is the strong arm of the law. There is no democratic accountability \u2013 they have been installed by the Colonial Union and they only answer to other bureaucrats.<\/p>\n

On Roanoke, the new colony to which Perry and Sagan are appointed as expedition leaders, there is a body representing the different groups of settlers, but it has no power.<\/p>\n

\u201cNew colonies are administered under Department of Colonization regulation… The regulations require colony leaders to wield sole administrative and executive power.\u201d[x]<\/a><\/p>\n

On neither Huckleberry nor Roanoke does there appear to be any mechanism for ordinary people to influence the law.<\/p>\n

Scalzi does, within the GSU, offer a glimpse of an alternative to the bureaucratic dictatorship of the Colonial Union. The Conclave, a union of alien civilisations created by the charismatic General Gau, seems to offer an idea of an alternative form of government based around negotiation and formal structures of shared power. It doesn\u2019t last long. Following humiliating defeat at the hands of the Colonial Union and an attempt on his life, Gau (despite his own misgivings) is forced to take on the role of absolute ruler. His role in the Conclave then becomes that of a (relatively) benevolent dictator. Gau is, at least, aware of the temptations and long-term dangers of relying on such a means of governance but he accepts that there is no alternative in a time of crisis. Fortunately, everything we see of Gau leads us to believe that he is sincere in his desire to create a new and more stable form of government.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, throughout the GSU, whenever things need to get done, government falls by the wayside and decisions are taken by the exercise of authority. Such hierarchical forms of leadership appear to be the \u201cnatural order\u201d. These dictatorships of the competent<\/em> are common in Heinlein\u2019s work. Even in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress<\/em>, where much lip-service is paid to an anarchic form freedom from government, the main protagonists take power from and make decisions on behalf of their fellow revolutionaries because they have decided that their intelligence, abilities and knowledge make them the best people to be in control. Pretences at shared power are shams designed solely to make it easier for them to get their way.<\/p>\n

While examples of effective democratic government in Heinlein are rare, at least Heinlein occasionally presented the franchise and full citizenship of the polity as a prize worth making sacrifices and taking risks to win. In Starship Troopers<\/em> citizenship and the rights it confers motivate the young people enlisting for Federal Service. By contrast in Scalzi\u2019s Old Man\u2019s War <\/em>the old recruits give up the rights they enjoyed as citizens, without regret or a backward glance and with no prospect of their return. The prize dangled here is not the opportunity to be a full citizen but the promise of an extended lifespan.<\/p>\n

In Starship Troopers<\/em> Heinlein is able to conceive of a humanity united against an alien enemy with a good government directing a just war. It\u2019s a view that probably came naturally to an author who had lived through both world wars and was writing in Eisenhower\u2019s America as the Cold War ratcheted through its early stages. In the GSU universe, Scalzi reflects less certain times \u2013 post-Watergate, post-Iraq. Government turns out to be fractured, scheming and just as dangerous to its citizens as to its enemies. There is double and triple-dealing, there\u2019s deception on grand scales and, by the end of The Last Colony<\/em>, the Colonial Union has become the enemy to be overthrown.<\/p>\n

But we shouldn\u2019t imagine that the message of Scalzi\u2019s GSU is straightforwardly anti-government in the crude way of some libertarians or of Heinlein\u2019s Professor La Paz in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress<\/em>. The solution he offers within the GSU, and the one which Perry pursues, is not to reject government but to seek integration into a better system. Gau\u2019s Conclave may be imperfect but it is preferable to the alternative of the Colonial Union\u2019s paranoid, isolationist and manipulative bureaucratic dictatorship.<\/p>\n

And here, I think, Scalzi\u2019s intentions are revealed. He is against a government that keeps its people in artificial isolation, that takes unilateral action without allies, that breeds fear of outside threats to keep its people under control and that manipulates communications and straightforwardly lies to its citizens.<\/p>\n

Scalzi should, I believe, not be imagined to be attacking the notion of government itself but the policies of a specific government \u2013 the administration of George W Bush, the \u201cWar on Terror\u201d and the actions that lead to the second Gulf War.<\/p>\n

So the fact that during the course of The Last Colony<\/em>, John Perry begins the process of dragging humanity towards the possibility of an alternative form of government \u2013 one that is more open and honest, that works with its neighbours, builds alliances and that resolves its need for new resources through negotiation, suggests a writer who is actually rather optimistic about the potential for government, at least in the GSU.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ends and Means<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

As we\u2019ve seen, Heinlein sometimes portrays violence as a necessary social lubricant \u2013 to the point of extolling the positive benefits of limited, ritualised, violence (such as the duels in Beyond This Horizon<\/em>) in shaping a fit society. Heinlein\u2019s characters might, as we\u2019ve seen, be willing to do almost anything to ensure victory, but their actions were guided by powerful notions of honour and responsibility, which places some limits on their actions. The violence is wrapped in a moral code.<\/p>\n

Scalzi\u2019s GSU is built on the notion that the universe is an unavoidably violent place full of species willing to do the most horrible things imaginable to get their way. Amongst those who use violence, there is little sense of honour and any moral code is infinitely flexible.<\/p>\n

In The Ghost Battalions<\/em> the reader gets a real sense of what this lack of restraint implies. The crucial moment comes half way through the book (and therefore halfway through the original trilogy) and it is the pivot around which the reader\u2019s perception of the nature Colonial Union in the GSU must surely be intended to shift.<\/p>\n

Jane Sagan\u2019s unit of specially-bred and artificially-developed special-forces soldiers are sent into the capital city of the Eneshans, nominally humanity\u2019s ally but actually one of three races building an alliance designed to crush the Colonial Union. The soldiers\u2019 target is the child of the Eneshans\u2019 ruler and heir to their throne. The human soldiers first kill the child\u2019s father and then make the child sterile, so that the Eneshan queen must choose a new husband (one more sympathetic to humanity), and then, when members of her unit\u00a0falter, the utterly loyal Sagan cold-bloodedly murders the baby.<\/p>\n

Sagan appears to suffer no qualms and clearly feels that the means were justified by the threat to the Colonial Union, but it is clear from the reaction of her fellow soldiers that something momentous has happened. It is an action that raises fundamental questions about the wars\u00a0they have been created to fight.<\/p>\n

Before the mission Harvey, one of Sagan\u2019s fellow soldiers, says:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe point is we\u2019re going to use a young innocent as a bargaining chip. Am I right? And that\u2019s the first time we\u2019ve done that<\/em>. It\u2019s scummy… So we get it [the job] and everyone thinks we won\u2019t mind because we\u2019re a bunch of two-year-old amoral killers. Well I have morals, and I know everyone else in this room does too… This is bullshit. First class bullshit.\u201d[xi]<\/a><\/p>\n

Harvey is angry that the special forces (vat-grown, rapidly processed, super soldiers) are given jobs others don\u2019t want but he\u2019s also angry that they are asked to do a job that is clearly morally repugnant.<\/p>\n

Despite recognising the validity of Harvey\u2019s objections, Sagan doesn\u2019t hesitate.<\/p>\n

Scalzi places this action against a context in which aliens have murdered whole colonies and butchered humans, young and old, for food. He makes clear that the joining together of these three alien civilisations would overwhelm humanity. Nonetheless it is a shocking incident. He takes a character that, until this point, has been straightforwardly heroic and turns her into merciless assassin of an innocent child. Sagan recognises the moral dilemma but sees no alternative \u2013 if the enemy can\u2019t be broken militarily, they must be broken psychologically. The alternative, defeat for humanity, is unthinkable.<\/p>\n

The attack on Enesha is a turning point in the GSU story arc. It is the point where any illusion that the Colonial Union and humanity are somehow morally superior to their enemies amongst GSU\u2019s aliens is cast aside. It represents the moment when the almost\u00a0cartoonish carnage of the first half of the GSU arc is made to have consequences.<\/p>\n

However it is justified, the murder of the Eneshan heir feels<\/em> wrong \u2013 both to the characters and to the reader. It is dishonourable and for Heinlein there would be no question that the responsibility for this dishonourable act was Jane Sagan\u2019s to bear. Heinlein states baldly:<\/p>\n

\u201cthat concepts such as \u2018state\u2019 and \u2018society\u2019 and \u2018government\u2019 have no existence save as physically exemplified in the actions of individuals… it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame… as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else.\u201d[xii]<\/a><\/p>\n

But Scalzi is writing in different times. It is, today, much more difficult to imagine a straightforwardly \u201cjust war\u201d and the idea of honour seems an unlikely defence against the depredations of violence. In a world of suicide bombers, the Bush Doctrine and waterboarding, we\u2019ve become used to the idea that anyone \u2013 decent, ordinary people \u2013 will do vile things in the right circumstances. Sagan is born into a universe where violence is the norm and where horrible things happen all the time, her actions are part of a wider tapestry<\/p>\n

One might argue that Sagan is a special case. She is, after all, an artificial creation who only knows life in the military, exploiting her superhuman strength and enhanced intelligence but with only two years of conscious life and no moral hinterland. But we know she is capable of individual reason and her fellow soldiers, who express their outrage at the assassination and refuse to carry out the order, share precisely the same background as Sagan.<\/p>\n

The strike on Enesha is an example of what the Bush Doctrine calls a \u201cpreventative war\u201d \u2013 a pre-emptive strike against a foe thought to be preparing to attack. When the Eneshan Hierarch discovers that Sagan\u2019s troops are holding her daughter captive, she demands to know what is going on. Sagan replies:<\/p>\n

\u201cYou are negotiating with the person who has threatened to kill your child because you have threatened to kill our<\/em> children, Heirarch. And you are negotiating with me because at the moment I am the negotiator you deserve.\u201d[xiii]<\/a><\/p>\n

In doing so she articulates the justification for preventative war. Strike first to prevent an enemy from attacking you and use any means available to stop them from hurting your people. It is an argument that many decent people find persuasive, even if they migh baulk at the full implications of such actions, which in the case of Scalzi\u2019s imaginary raid on Enesha (as, too often, in reality) means the death of innocents.<\/p>\n

In Heinlein\u2019s writing the means had to be justified \u2013 violence took place within a moral code, honour was paramount and protagonists had to be provoked and even then they respond in a controlled manner. They are better than their foes. But also, in Heinlein\u2019s books, the consequences of violence tend to be kept at a distance or glossed over. In Scalzi\u2019s GSU, the ends justify the means and his protagonists are no more noble or honourable than the enemies they face. In making this choice Scalzi reveals some important, unpleasant, truths about a universe or a political system where violence is accepted as an inevitable, normal tool of persuasion.[xiv]<\/a><\/p>\n

Violence cannot be whitewashed, it stains everything and it has costs \u2013 and those who extol its use should be aware of the price that has to be paid if they are to make honest judgements about when its use is appropriate.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

CONCLUSION<\/strong><\/h3>\n

One of the incidents in Old Man\u2019s War<\/em> that created the most controversy was the fate of Senator Bender, \u00a0a former Earth politician who (like the other green soldiers) gives up his former rights and position to serve as a private in the Colonial Defense Force in return for the promise of a new life. Unlike most of his fellow soldiers, however, Senator Bender is not content simply to follow orders. His past experience leads him to believe that the Colonial Union\u2019s policies are flawed, that the Colonial Defense Force is misused and that rather than simply trying to exterminate every alien species, humanity should pursue negotiation.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe problem with the Colonial Defense Forces is not that they aren\u2019t an excellent fighting force. It\u2019s that they\u2019re far too easy to use\u2026 Have the Colonials even attempted to reach a peace with these [aliens]? I see no record of an attempt. I think we should make an attempt. Maybe an attempt could be made by us<\/em>.\u201d[xv]<\/a><\/p>\n

Senator Bender attempts to enact his alternative policies in the middle of a battle with the Whaidians and meets a predictable, but impressively brutal end, cut down by a volley of 40,000 needle-like projectiles: \u201cone of the most interesting deaths any of us had ever seen in person\u201d as Perry notes.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s clearly comedy value in Bender, he\u2019s a self-important blow-hard who gets what\u2019s coming to him. But it\u2019s easy to miss, in his brief life and messy death, that Scalzi takes the time to tell us that Bender\u2019s analysis, if not his action, was right. Viveros, the squad leader who\u2019d constantly argued with Bender confides to Perry that she agreed with what he said but that she would do things differently, she would become one of the:<\/p>\n

\u201c…people who are giving orders not just following them. That\u2019s how we\u2019ll make peace when we can. And that\u2019s how I live with \u2018just following orders\u2019. Because I know that one day, I\u2019ll make those orders change.\u201d[xvi]<\/a><\/p>\n

And later, in The Last Colony<\/em>, when General Gau describes to Perry how constant warfare has tied all the sentient species into \u201can artificial equilibrium that is sliding all of us toward entropy\u201d and that the only way out of this death spiral is cooperation and negotiation, he is merely restating Senator Bender\u2019s case though, though without his rash and inappropriate attempt to enact the policy.<\/p>\n

But if Bender and Gau are right, and the constant recourse to violence as the first and only tool of diplomacy is crippling everyone involved, then how are we to judge Scalzi\u2019s violent universe?<\/p>\n

Rather than glorifying violence, promoting jingoism or pushing a dogmatic political viewpoint \u2013 as the critics of Old Man\u2019s War<\/em> had it \u2013 Scalzi is offering a warning and a critique of the right-wing policies that have seen America embroiled in unwinnable wars. Violence is terrible and it is ultimately self-defeating, because in the absence of trust and in a universe where every side immediately chooses bloodshed over cooperation, every battle is merely the prelude to another war. Violence is corrupting, leading to a downward spiral into perpetual fear, increasing paranoia and growing brutality.<\/p>\n

In such a universe no one can enjoy the spoils of victory because, even if every external enemy had been eradicated, it could only come at the price of stripping away every decent instinct from the winning culture. All that would be left would be a hollowed out machine designed for fighting wars that, through its own success, had just made itself obsolete.<\/p>\n

Far from being crudely militaristic, the GSU stories offer a surprisingly sophisticated political analysis. What at first seems obvious is eventually undermined and newer, more complicated truths are revealed. Where there first appears to be just black and white, good and bad, the picture is steadily resolved into a more nuanced focus where no one is entirely pure, no cause entirely noble.<\/p>\n

Scalzi does, indeed, use Heinlein\u2019s work as a starting point but the idea that the GSU stories uncritically rehash Heinlein\u2019s political philosophy \u2013 as suggested by some commentators \u2013 is not borne out by a detailed reading of the text. Indeed, on fundamental issues, Scalzi\u2019s story seems to sharply diverge from their inspiration. In part this separation can be explained by the different eras in which the writers are working, but as the books progress, it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion that Scalzi\u2019s work is a critique of Heinlein\u2019s political writing that is designed to question the original work not bolster its ideological foundations.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

[i]<\/a> As James Whyte notes: \u201cI think Clausewitz had it right when he said that war must be considered as a political act, in a political context – “Der Krieg ist eine blo\u00dfe Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln”. <\/em>Politik is completely absent from Old Man’s War<\/em>. We have absolutely no idea of who is in charge of the army, or who appointed them, or how the policy might be changed.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[ii]<\/a> On his blog, Whatever<\/em>, John Scalzi sets the chronology of the GSU works as:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Old Man\u2019s War<\/em> (novel \u2013 Tor 2005)
\n2.<\/strong> \u201cQuestions for a Soldier\u201d (short story published in Subterranean no. 8<\/em>)
\n3.<\/strong> The Ghost Brigades<\/em> (novel \u2013 Tor 2006)
\n4.<\/strong> The Sagan Diary<\/em> (novelette \u2013 Subterranean Press 2007)
\n5.<\/strong> \u201cAfter the Coup\u201d (short story published online by Tor 2008)
\n6.<\/strong> The Last Colony <\/em>(Tor 2007) & Zoe\u2019s Tale<\/em> (Tor 2008) (novels) (novels takes place simultaneously).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[iii]<\/a> In regard to the future of the GSU, Scalzi notes: \u201c…first, and as noted earlier, no further OMW universe books are currently under contract. And anyway, four novels in the same universe in three and a half years is, you know, a lot<\/em>. So for the next year or two at least, anything new in the OMW universe is likely to come in the form of short stories.\u201d (http:\/\/scalzi.com\/whatever\/?paged=6)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[iv]<\/a> Scalzi, J., (2007) The Last Colony<\/em>, Tor US.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[v]<\/a> Scalzi, J. (2006), Old Man\u2019s Mar, Tor, New York, page 188.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[vi]<\/a> For de Nardo’s full review visit: http:\/\/www.sfsignal.com\/archives\/002845.html<\/a>, other examples of reviewers making the link between Scalzi and Heinlein include Stewart Carter at SFSite, http:\/\/www.sfsite.com\/04b\/om222.htm; <\/a>Thomas M Wagner at sfreviews.net, http:\/\/www.sfreviews.net\/oldmanswar.html<\/a>; and Justin Howe at Strange Horizons, http:\/\/www.strangehorizons.com\/reviews\/2006\/09\/john_scalzis_.shtml<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[vii]<\/a> Heinlein, RA, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, p119<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[viii]<\/a> Heinlein, RA., (1968), The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Medallion Edition, p190-191<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[ix]<\/a> Heinlein, RA., Starship Troopers, p38<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[x]<\/a> Scalzi, J. (2007), The Last Colony, Tor, New York<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[xi]<\/a> Scalzi, J. (2006), The Ghost Brigades, Tor, New York<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[xii]<\/a> Heinlein, R.A., (1968) The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, page 50<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[xiii]<\/a> Scalzi, J. (2007) The Ghost Brigades, page 167<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[xiv]<\/a> It is worth pointing out here that The Last Colony<\/em> does, in fact, include a group of pacifists. One-twelfth of Roanoke\u2019s colonists come from an Amish-like sect. Their representation is positive \u2013 they are decent, reliable people who when the colony is abandoned by the Colonial Union save the lives of their fellow colonists because they are used to living and farming without technological aids. Their leader is killed when he attempts to make peaceful contact with the primitive but intelligent species the colonists discover on Roanoke, but then the natives had already finished off a good number of more bellicose individuals, so we need not necessarily take this as a failure of this particular group or their particular creed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[xv]<\/a> Scalzi, J. (2006), Old Man\u2019s Mar, Tor, New York, page 168.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[xvi]<\/a> Scalzi, J. (2006), Old Man\u2019s Mar, Tor, New York, page 179.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This article was originally published in Vector<\/em> 258 (Winter 2008), the critical journal of the British Science Fiction Association<\/h5>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The publication Old Man\u2019s War brought John Scalzi both critical and commercial success. His work was widely praised for its fast-paced action and for its updating of classic science fiction tropes but the novel was also controversial and attracted considerable criticism. This article is not the place to rehash the extensive online debates about Old […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":1032,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[21],"tags":[131,133,46,35],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"http:\/\/www.mmcgrath.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/old-mans-war.jpg","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p27AP7-gs","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcgrath.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1020"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcgrath.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcgrath.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcgrath.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcgrath.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1020"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcgrath.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1020\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2758,"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcgrath.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1020\/revisions\/2758"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcgrath.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1032"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcgrath.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcgrath.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.mmcgrath.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}