throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (11/26/86)
POSSIBLE SPOILERS! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! > rls@ihuxz.UUCP (r.l. schieve) > Indeed there are many similarities between > the story plots but no similarity between the two author's styles. True, true. > "Armor" kept me glued to the book with what I think would be a more > realistic slant on human nature. Ghak! "Realistic slant on human nature"? You think a story about an architypical hero-figure is realistic? A story where soldiers are used and abused as badly as they were, yet where desertion and revolution is not a problem is realistic? Where a single man in a lightly armed exoskeleton takes on an entire starship and a passle of ground troops, and makes mincemeat out of 'em? And that's just off the top of my head! REALISTIC? Gimme a break! Part of the charm of the thing was that it was *NOT* realistic, it was a hero-myth. Now, you may (as I do) disagree with many of the fundamental assumptions and beleifs about the world spouted by the characters in ST, but the story was much more realistic than Armor, or so I believe. Or do you find government by retired military unbelievable? Is the fact that they try to indoctrinate high school students with the idea that this government is a Good Thing unbelievable? The fact that men would lay down their lives for "manifest destiny" in one form or another unbelievable? Just what is "unrealistic" here? G'wan! Kwicher kidd'n, ya crazy galoot! > I enjoyed and would recommend "Armor" to any science fiction > reader looking for something new (with much less moralizing). I > appreciate some of the posting and replies that provided information > about Steakley and I hope he continues to write science fiction. Well, I soit'ny agree with the recommendation, and the hope for future SF from Steakley. But... uh... did you *REALLY* not think he was preaching? I mean, really! One of the main themes is the big, bad, military industrial complex chewing up cannon fodder and spitting it out... and he's not preaching? Whew! By contrast, while RAH preaches about manifest destiny, "expand or die", and laces the story with invalid social darwinism and other silly things in ST, I certainly don't think he preached any *more* than Steakley did in Armor. I suspect it is just that Rich agrees with Steakley and disagrees with Heinlein, and thus notices the pulpit pounding in the latter case but not the former. -- Nature abhors a Hero. --- Solomon Short -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw