Old Man's War is one of those Sci-Fi books that comes along that has everyone jumping on it, reading it, loving it, but if you miss that jumping-readiOld Man's War is one of those Sci-Fi books that comes along that has everyone jumping on it, reading it, loving it, but if you miss that jumping-reading-loving, it turns into a bit of a shackling encumbrance. It sits there in your mental or physical bookshelf, just taunting you, teasing you with its unread presence because you know you should read it so you can see what all the fuss is about while simultaneously refusing to do so in case it fails to make you love it the way everyone else does.
I've waited 14 years to read this thing, and I wish I hadn't waited. Old Man's War is really quite good, and I should have been on top of this series right from the off.
Not only is Old Man's War an excellent novel for a first time writer -- as Scalzi was back when this was released -- it is an excellent novel ... period. In it, we follow old man John Perry as he leaves his earthbound retirement (he is a 75 year old ex-ad man) for the Colonial Defence Forces (CDF) way out there in space. He gets a shiny new him, some bad ass weaponry, and faces off against a few ultra-violent alien races (much like our own human race), shooting up the ranks as he shoots up the aliens and finds love all over again.
Old Man's War is entertaining, first and foremost, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Scalzi is trying to do a little more than entertain. I will have to reserve judgment on that until I have finished the series (how many are there now?), but there is something about the ultra-violence, the casual acceptance of forever wars and slaughter, the almost satirical embracing of humanity as bloodthirsty savages who gain the respect of the universe's most bloodsoaked aliens -- the religiously fundamentalist Consu -- that feels unfinished, like a seed planted for future seasons.
Of course, it could just be a Heinlein sort of blindspot (not beyond the realm of possibility considering that Scalzi thanks Heinlein in the acknowledgements that close the book), but it could be so much more. I hope it is.
Regardless, I enjoyed John Perry's voice more than enough to carry on, and I have finally unlocked the shackles of Old Man's War, which means that the whole universe of Scalzi is finally opened to me. Gory be. ...more
This review was written in the late nineties (just for myself), and it was buried in amongst my things until today, when I uncovered the journal it waThis review was written in the late nineties (just for myself), and it was buried in amongst my things until today, when I uncovered the journal it was written in. I have transcribed it verbatim from all those years ago (although square brackets indicate some additional information for the sake of readability). It is one of my lost reviews.
This volume of the Mars Trilogy departs from its predecessors in one tremendous leap -- this is a work of philosophy and politics before it is a story. And this change makes it the best of the series. All of the characters are here, but it is what they say and believe and do that is so special.
This novel changed me. It altered the way I perceive my world, particularly the words of Vlad concerning "capitalist feudalism." But more importantly, it reinvigorated my desire to make a difference and not just live my life in isolation. I was reading this novel while the U.S. and NATO were attacking Serbia over Kosovo. A few weeks later, the Columbine [shootings] happened in Colorado. Then came Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace. It all seems so depressing and overwhelming and meaningless, but really these events are all of a piece, and all are incentives to change those things Robinson so rightly criticizes.
I don't know if I can change anything, but I am sure going to try.
[A note of personal interest: those changes that Robinson catalysed are still with me today, but they were also something of a breakpoint for my first marriage. The changes pushed us too far apart to ever be together again.]...more
This review was written in the late nineties (just for myself), and it was buried in amongst my things until recently, when I uncovered the journal itThis review was written in the late nineties (just for myself), and it was buried in amongst my things until recently, when I uncovered the journal it was written in. I have transcribed it verbatim from all those years ago (although square brackets indicate some additional information for the sake of readability). It is one of my lost reviews.
Until I went into class and passionately held my position that the important story of Absalom Absalom was not Sutpen's tale, I thought I hated this novel and there was no way I was going to finish. Then I came home and attacked the pages with fury, looking for more proof to support my claim that the story is Quentin's -- and the entire Compson clan's.
I suppose the argument can go either way, but I now know that my belief is supported both inside and outside the text, and therein lies Absolom, Absalom's greatness: its intertextuality.
The Sound and the Fury and Quentin's short stories inform this narrative, and Faulkner invites us to read it intertextually at every turn. Moreover, my feeling that we cannot know the truth of Sutpen's tale (although some indisputable events do exist in the telling) stands. For me, the best way to seek the story of Absalom, Absalom! is to consider how it is told and imagined by every narrator in the book and every reader who reads it -- including myself.
That is the key to Faulkner's thoroughly unenjoyable but miraculously rewarding text....more
Loading...
