I caught this via Instapundit. The two books that I've torn through these last couple weeks written by John Scalzi -- Old Man's War and The Ghost Brigades -- are reviewed by the obviously inept Dave Itzkoff. Not Scalzi's books themselves, that is to say, but the trashing of influence (not to mention scifi great) Robert Heinlein.
The object of the trashing is Heinlein's spectacular Starship Troopers which, yet again, is dubbed "fascist" -- indeed, an endorsement of fascism. Puh-lease. Itzkoff remarkably says the novel "has not aged well, to put it mildly." Riiiiight. Amazing how some people can be so utterly clueless.
I wrote (in part) about the philosophy behind Troopers here.
Instapundit points to an essay by Spider Robinson from 1980 that, he says, lays to rest any illusion that Heinlein "endorsed fascism." One of my favorite portions:
“Heinlein is a fascist.” This is the most popular Heinlein shibboleth in fandom, particularly among the young and, of course, exclusively among the ignorant. I seldom bother to reply, but in this instance I am being paid. Dear sir or madam: kindly go to the library, look up the dictionary definition of fascism. For good measure, read the history of fascism, asking the librarian to help you with any big words. Then read the works of Robert Heinlein, as you have plainly not done yet. If out of forty-two books you can produce one shred of evidence that Heinlein—or any of his protagonists—is a fascist, I'll eat my copy of Heinlein in Dimension.
UPDATE (12:28pm on Dec. 25): Scalzi gives Colossus a mention on his blog dubbed "Whatever." Thanks, John!
Heck, the characterization of Scalzi as a centrist is sufficient to prove that Itzkoff doesn't know squat about politics -- regardless of Sclzi's self-description of himself as a "Rockerfeller Republican", he is certainly closer to John Kerry and John Murtha than to Rudy Giuliani or John McCain.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at December 24, 2006 09:33 AMRwR is right. I love all of Scalzi's work but he's no moderate. Worse, he seems to miss that in a two-party system you can't vote Democrat and not be voting for Murtha and Kerry and the other extreme leftoids. So his alleged moderation still leads him to support crazed lefty America-haters.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward at December 24, 2006 11:46 PMI'll look for Old Man's War on the used rack, it sounds interesting.
but a thought on a premise of the book, that human expansion into the stars would happen at a rate that would creat the need to take planets by conquest.
currently, no advanced society has a positive growth rate.
While the third world is growing, it's citizens lack the education, skills and culture needed for space travel, colonization and conquest.
SW: The Colonial Defense Force in OMW is comprised almost exclusively of people from First World Nations, while the colonists are exclusively from 3rd World countries. First Worlders aren't even allowed to be colonists.
And interesting premise.
Posted by: Hube at December 26, 2006 04:31 PMI've read both and have the 30 page short "Questions for a Soldier" which bridges a little of the gap between the two books. Loved all three. At the risk of offending anyone, whatever happened to just liking the book because if was a good read?? I could care less about the politics of either the writer or the book. Is it a good read? IS is interesting?? Those are my rules for good FICTION.
Posted by: MarkH at December 26, 2006 09:46 PM