Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by chad 2 years, 7 months ago
    Not able to find what the upshot of the novel is. Although the goal of any government is to always have war. It provides the reasoning for limiting the liberty and rights of man during a time of exigency it is necessary to control everyone in order to protect everyone.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 2 years, 7 months ago
    I've read it. Not a bad read, pretty entertaining.

    Being a fan of alternate history, I rather like the yarns spun by one Harry Turtledove... Started with his "Man with an Iron Heart", and went on (and on and on) from there.

    Having already demolished the currently known works of H. Beam Piper (a mean feat in itself, tho there are rumors of one or 2 more unpublished manuscripts in existence), I only wonder who my next "author victim" will be...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 2 years, 7 months ago
    MM, you distinguish romantic from naturalistic writing.
    Is your understanding of naturalistic writing Objectivist?

    That is, as I understand, a good description of events experienced by
    protagonists with little ambition and no capability to influence events.
    You say, " perceptions, reflections, and feelings."

    A romantic story on the other hand has characters who have aims, and values,
    and who strive to get what they want.

    I certainly agree with the fascination exerted by good writing. I am a great
    fan of Jane Austen, her settings are remote from my life and experience but
    her work is a delight to read.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 2 years, 7 months ago
      Yes, i adhere to Ayn Rand's definitions. It is not so much that in naturalism the actors have little ambition; some may have great ambitions, or great expectations... But, as you note, they have little ability to bring that to fruition. Instead, they are pushed by events. Most of the "great" writing (in the sense of college Lit 101) is naturalistic. I found The Forever War to be in that vein, also.

      And, yes, while Jane Austen may not be romantic in the Objectivist sense, she was a great writer. I read Pride and Prejudice and Northanger Abbey. (But I confess that I missed the implicit irony of a gothic about a girl caught up in gothic until I read a critical analysis by a college professor. Sorry: B+ in Art History; D in studio. In other words, I learn well, but am short on talent. That applies to literature, also.). We might argue that Austen was, indeed, Romantic, perhaps among the first. The characters have values, quite clearly, and their conflicts are based on those differences. And the resolutions come from intentional actions, not happenstance.

      All of that is different from the resolution to The Forever War. That does not leave the novel irredeemable.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo