OK, I’ll admit it…I’m not a frequent reader of Glenn Reynolds’ Instapundit. For one thing, he refuses to return my phone calls, even with the “special” caller ID thing I hacked worked out. And then there’s all the links he’s throwing lately toward Discoshaman and TulipGirl, whom he wouldn’t even know about without lurking for hours on end in my blogroll. I mean, what’s the big deal? Are they the only people in the world living in a country with a disputed presidential election? I think not.
Nevertheless, I’m willing to set aside old grudges for someone who appreciates good science fiction, and he merits that category for this reference to John Steakley’s Armor, a novel which I’ve always felt was underappreciated. I’ve even bookmarked Old Man’s War for ordering when it becomes available to us mere mortals, based solely on Glenn’s recommendation. If you yearn for the good old days of hard sci-fi, instead of the vast wasteland of wimpy wizard-and-warlock “fantasies” that have taken over booksellers’ shelves, this sounds like your ticket out.
All’s forgiven, Instabuddy. Call me.
Eric, thanks for the tip. I’ll check it out. Do you think it would appeal to someone who started with the “ABC’s” of science fiction (Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke) as a youngster?
Jeff, it’s certainly not as mild, language-wise, as the old masters, but it’s got plenty of human-vs-alien battlefield action, complete with gizmos and gore.
I’d offer to loan you my copy but I can’t find it; I think it’s in a box somewhere, hiding during our neverending remodeling project.
I think part of the reason “Armor” is under-appreciated among science fiction fans is because it uses the same basic plot as Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers”. Once again, we’ve got soldiers in mechanized armor suits fighting hordes of insect aliens.
Granted, both authors explore very different issues within that framework. Heinlein’s focus is mainly political where Steakely’s is psychological. Also, Heinlein’s noble and glorified depiction of the military is radically different from Steakley’s uncaring, bureaucratic bunglers. Which depiction is closer to the truth is something best answered by those who’ve actually served.
If Steakely had used an entirely original plot, his book would be much better recognized for its strong points. What he focuses on is important and the way he handles it is well done. He could have just as easily set the novel in Korea, the trenches of WW1, or a futuristic version of either. Unfortunately, he didn’t and there’s a large part of the problem.
Most of us would have little trouble labelling a book “derivative” if another author today wrote a story about a boy who finds out he had wizards for parents and ends up going to a magical boarding school for sorcery. The author may have something entirely different to say, but using someone else’s plot idea detracts from that message.
“If you yearn for the good old days of hard sci-fi, instead of the vast wasteland of wimpy wizard-and-warlock “fantasies” that have taken over booksellers’ shelves, this sounds like your ticket out.”
…muchas gratias for pointing out a temporary respite from the unending mob of Tolkien and Rowling imitators.
Mr. Freen, excellent analysis, as usual. I’m a bit handicapped in that I’ve never read “Starship Troopers” so the derivation of “Armor” wasn’t an issue with me. But you’re spot on about Steakley’s emphasis on the psychological issues of the soldiers he writes about.
With respect to fantasy, “The Hobbit” and the LOTR trilogy are the only books in that genre I’ve ever enjoyed. Even back in the old days, when Anne McCaffrey was the only one writing about dragons and such, I just couldn’t get engaged with those worlds.
There’s something just…I don’t know…too easy about magic.
I thought “Armor” owed more to Joe Haldeman than to Heinlein.
Well, there you go, Mr. Freen. The definitive word, straight from my close personal friend. I’ll always cherish the memories from the time we spent together as mercenaries in the Congo.
I have no idea what he’s talking about, by the way.