John Scalzi publicly positions himself as very liberal and against discrimination - yet the more I think about it, the more I'm troubled by the casual discrimination running through this novel.
Firstly, the obvious - ageism. Old people don't have physical relationships, are obsessed with being young again, and otherwise have nothing to contribute to ordinary society. All in all, it's a damning portrayal of age that at best can be described as ignorant. Apparently, society doesn't regard ageism as a big problem as yet, but IMO it remains a form of discrimination and is therefore unwelcome in civilised society.
Secondly, the sexism - where would Kathy die? As a woman, her place is in the bedroom and the kitchen. But she can't die in the bedroom because pensioners are incapable of sexual relations. So it must be in the kitchen, then. Which is exactly what happens. When Kathy's clone appears, she is not allowed to develop as an individual, but instead is made to define her identity in relation to the dead wife. She may be genetically the same as Kathy, but so would a identical twin. Where does that put Scalzi's argument? Surely he wouldn't argue that if two women are identical twins, and one dies leaving a bereaved husband, that the other should marry the widow?
Thirdly, racism. Scalzi has a character early on who is plainly a caricature of a white liberal's idea of what a racist is. In Scalzi's mind, racism is all about the Ku Klux Klan, mob lynchings, and lack of equal rights. He doesn't seem aware of the greater issue of microaggressions and casual racism. And then proceeds to demonstrate exactly that among his characters - all of whom, except one minor supporting character, are given white anglo-saxon names, the lead character of which comes from a family of "white saviours" trying to campaign for those poor helpless Indian folk. There is *no* racial or ethnic diversity in this book - it is a very white book.
[There is a gay man in this book. But he's just a token supporting character who adds nothing to the narrative. Issues of gender and sexuality are not addressed and play no role in the story.]
And then there's the overall problem that Scalzi has nothing to say in Old Man's War. It's a boy's own adventure story that attempts to begin as serious, but gradually becomes more ridiculous. At no point does Scalzi offer up any insights into war, civilisation, or society. The comparison with Heinlein is completely superficial.
All in all this might not normally be regarded as an issue. But Scalzi is a Hugo Award winner, formerly president of SFWA, and positions himself as a campaigner for social reform. All of which leaves me wondering why the casual discrimination and lack of meaningful commentary in Old Man's War has otherwise not been remarked upon.
Or did I completely misunderstand it?
