Starship Troopers

Well, I started Starship Troopers a couple of days ago and finished it just before dinner. Here's a slightly elaborated version of the review that I posted (part of this elaboration may be considered a spoiler):

First of all: it's Heinlein. Some people don't like his prose style. If I didn't, I'd have stopped reading his writing by now. On a similar note, Heinlein often tends towards the preachy. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't still be reading it.

As a matter of fact, in this case, I would gladly have exchanged a few pages on how the M.I. suits work for a little more preachiness.

Now, for the controversial part: I disagree with the charge that the book glorifies war. It acknowledges that so long as humans are what they are, there's never going to be a permanent end to war. What it glorifies is soldiers, and the only time that's a problem is when somebody starts suggesting that outright sadists should be forgiven if they happen to wear a uniform: Heinlein doesn't suggest that for a second. The one deserter who kills the little girl is taken back to the M.I. and hangs. When the military takes care of its own, that means executing its own, not trying to sweep things under the rug in the name of honoring a soldier. Now that would have been offensive.

So, if Heinlein doesn't glorify war, does that mean what is offending people is the fact that in this book, only veterans have the franchaise? Why waste time being upset by a form of government in a science fiction novel? The emphasis here is on the word fiction; isn't there enough real politics in the world to take up your time being upset about?

A bit of a mea culpa here: I heard it said before reading this that civil service also counted towards earning the franchise, and I have repeated that myself, only to realize that I didn't see it in the book when I read it. I wonder if this isn't a misreading or misstatement of the fact that there is a wide variety of military service, and therefore it isn't just active combat positions that qualify, or an assumption that the civilian support (such as some clerks that are mentioned) will qualify as well. If anybody can tell me a place in the text that mentions civil service also being eligible, I'd appreciate it. In any case, I really think "it's fiction" is all the defense that should be needed against this argument, even if only veterans are eligible.

The only case where I might be concerned about an author's politics would be if I knew for a fact that what I was reading was his actual personal politics, not an interesting political system written in a book. Then, if I found his beliefs to be repulsive enough, and he was still alive, I might feel the need to do my part not to give him any more money that might be contributed to groups which support said repulsive views. And if he was a really good writer, I'd still read his books that I had already purchased or get one from the library now and then.

Heinlein writes an entertaining story, for my money, and brings up interesting ideas. You can object to his prose if it's not your style, and many do, but it's a waste of time being offended by his subject matter.

It's going to be a week or so before I get to reading Double Star; I have a few series to catch up on.

I tried reading Starship Troopers and could never get into it. I guess because I saw the movie first, loved it, and the two are so completely different.

>2 :, since I haven't read it yet I'm not sure, but that sounds like it might be right.

Does the The Prisoner of Zenda have anything to to do with a campaign team hiring an actor to impersonate a dying political candidate? If not, then not.

>3 DeusExLibris: The movie is pretty-much-intentional assassination or exploitation of the book (Heinlein sold the movie rights back in the 70's, and Ginny wasn't able to exert any creative control). Paul Verhoeven (sp?) admitted that he hadn't read the book, just the script. And didn't really care whether he was being faithful to the book, anyway.

1> Estelle, congratulations on griding through it. I agree with your impression that it was meant to glorify soldiers, not war. He did dedicate to the sergeants, after all.

>2 : Yes and yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prisoner_of_Zenda

>3 DeusExLibris: Are you serious? Movie was a huge disappointment to me but I'd read the book first and am a big RAH fan.

>5 wyrdchao: Similar but different. Personally I like the storyline behind Double Star better than the storyline as outlined for Prisoner of Zenda but I haven't read it so I can't really comment on it.

On page 30 of my copy, Rico and Carl are just signing up and they get the speech about what they're in for. It's pretty definite:

"A term of service isn't a kiddie kamp; it's either real military service, rough and dangerous even in peacetime... or a most unreasonable facsimile thereof."

The facsimiles mentioned are digging tunnels on Luna, something unspecified (but "dirty, nasty, dangerous") on Antarctica, playing human guinea pig for new diseases, and field-testing experimental survival equipment on Titan.

It's also made clear that the people signing up don't get a choice. They will be assigned something to do, and it will be a military post if they qualify.

In the same section, the doctor examining Rico refers to the service as "military service" and contrasts it to being a "civilian employee".

So, yeah, I think it's fair to say that the government in Starship Troopers requires military service for the franchise.

I read this many years ago and was stunned later to hear that so many people thought it glorified war, as what I read said that only citizens who were prepared to xxx* for their country should be considered 'full' citizens.

As with all Heinlein, he is wrapping an exciting story aimed mainly at teenage boys round what he believes is an important moral principle.

* Insert appropriate word or phrase: fight; do a dangerous job that needs to be done

However it must be said that Heinlein may not have meant military veteran when he wrote that only veterans could vote. Although all the textual references in the book seem to point that way Heinlein himself distanced himself from that position in Expanded Universe.

My memory of Starship Troopers - and it's been forty years since I read it, so it's quite possible that I'm talking through my hat here - is that the franchise is granted to anybody who has an honorable discharge from Federal service: which service includes slightly more than soldiering.

And, further, my memory is that Heinlein's Federal Service is pretty much obligated to take - and find a job for - anyone who voulunteers. It's the willingness to put yourself at risk for the common good that's the test, whether or not you are ever actually put to the test. Usually this means military, but my memory is that in the universe of the book there are other jobs that need to be done.

So if you're 4-F, you can still do your national service in some non-combat service and still earn your franchise.

(I'm almost curious enough if my memory is accurate to go take a look.)

>11 AsYouKnow_Bob:, that is accurate, but as >8 Amtep: said, they're all military jobs. They just aren't necessarily combat positions. So if you had a civil service job, that doesn't count as federal service for the franchise. Again, if you can find anything that indicates that any non-military positions that qualify, tell me where.

I think supporters of R.A. Heinlein tend to downplay his political beliefs, his militarism, whereas his detractors simplify them. In my view, you accept an author's personal flaws and judge him/her on the overall literary merit of their canon of work.

To me, one of the finest literary writers of the 20th century was Louis Ferdinand Celine...he was also a rotten human being with execrable politics, a virulent anti-Semite who collaborated with the Nazis. Still, even Samuel Beckett (who was the polar opposite in terms of political beliefs and lost a number of friends to the Nazis) admired Celine's writing.

Heinlein's right wing opinions did inform his work (some feel to its detriment) but it is the QUALITY of the writing that annoys me. To me, he should have stuck with YA fare (HAVE SPACESUIT, etc.). Once he started using SF as a platform for his philosophies, he started to sound very silly (if I reread STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND today I would probably collapse into peals and guffaws of laughter). His simple approach and workmanlike skills are more suited to 14 year olds...or eternal 14 year olds.

I prefer the more grown up efforts of Alfred Bester (if I was picking one of the older guys) or the trippy takes on reality of Phil Dick at his best...

I just finished Starship Troopers, I actually like both the book and the movie. Granted the only thing the book had in common with the movie was the title and some of the character names.
I have always liked books that give a more human element to war. (Something I hope to never experience.)

Since there is some interest (except from CliffBurns, apparently, *smirk*), does anyone want to do a group read/re-read of Double Star? I really did think this was one of his best 50's novels (Citizen of the Galaxy is close, though), and so did the Hugo voters that year...

> 15
Yes! Having never read it myself, and thinking it's possible I haven't got around to reading *any* Heinlein yet - I know, I know.. that's just *wrong* of me. Only so many hours in the day, etc.

You'd have to give me time to locate a copy though..

15>

Yes - excellent plan. I'll dig my copy out.

The challenge of getting at my copy is somewhat considerable. However, it needs to be done if I am ever to catalogue the 700 books sitting in the garage.

>15 wyrdchao:

Since it's the fourth book on my TBR pile right now anyway, might as well count me in.

>15 wyrdchao: I'm down with it. Even found my copy!

Okay. I will start another thread here, give EC a few weeks to catch up, and we can tear the poor thing apart... *smirk*

There is both an implied and an explicit statement about what 'service' qualifies: From Major Reid in OCS school: "... you have forgotten that in peacetime most veterans come from the non-combatant auxillary services and have not been subjected to the full rigors of military discipline...yet their votes count." Note the "non-combatant auxillary (sic)" statement. Also, the requirement was for Federal service, not necessarily military - see the statements about everyone being eligible, regardless of physical condition, and that people did not have to accept a medical discharge. The intention was to make service difficult and memorable (Sgt Ho), to ensure that those wishing to get the franchise know that they had earned that privilege, even if it consisted of counting the fuzz hairs on a caterpillar by touch.

Some interesting analysis of the federal service question: http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/ftp/fedrlsvc.pdf not my work.

Surprisingly, ST is a book I have never read in forty years of reading SF; but my interpretation, based on the film, was that veterans seemed to be directed into civilian posts anyway (i.e. teachers), thus solving the problem - at least for those who don't think too closely about what a civil servant actually IS or DOES. That could well be way off-topic for this forum - I could debate that one for hours, personally, though...

I'm reminded of the letter from a volunteer in the Indian Army back in the 1930s - "Sir, I would consider it an honour to die for King and Country - preferably in a clerical position."

The film is NOTHING like the book.

The film is excellent. I've never read the novel, although I've heard plenty about it over the years. I've mooched myself a copy, so I intend to read it this year.

Okay, someone chime in here. I've never read Heinlein. I did see the movie version of Starship Troopers, and it was the worst film I think I've ever seen. Too much camp, and the "message" was like a 2x4 to the head.

Please tell me it will be worth it to read the novel.

It isn't a novel I particularly care for but I wouldn't judge it by the film it differs quite markedly however Heinlein is quite preachy in the book (and some of his other work).

If you haven't read Heinlein I would suggest you start elsewhere. Personally I enjoy his short stories best of all and think that his best novel was The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.

Heinlein's juveniles are always a good place to start - Citizen of the Galaxy, Space Cadet, Have Spacesuit - Will Travel...

I'm with andy. It is different from the movie, definitely, but it is a book I find quite dull.

I have a copy of the book in my TBR pile - I *love* the movie though, very funny.

The movie completely butchers and twists the book into an anti-military screed. I was disgusted. Paul VerHooeven (sp?) admits that he never read the book.

I read the book because it was on the summer reading list for the U.S. Naval Academy. It was excellent, and I have since re-read it several times. It is not a "fascist" or "right-wing" book. The concept of "Federal Service" was intentionally broad, to include almost any type of government function. It does not glorify war, per se, as the good guys don't win every battle, and the main character loses quite a few close friends in horrifying ways. The work does show a lot of respect toward the PEOPLE in the military, however.

SST's version of earth was not Heinlein's ideal world. (He is much more of a libertarian) He simply asked himself the question "If the entire human race was threatened with extinction by an enemy that showed no mercy or willingness to negotiate, how would society adapt? (and, most importantly, 'what would I do?')"

Take a look at the commentary surrounding The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I don't think that system was Heinlein's ideal, either. The loonies set up their system to adapt to the demands of living in an environment much different from earth's.

Even if you don't agree with all of the book's premises (his view on corporal punishment is a bit medieval), it is still a thought-provoking (and quick) read.

While all I know about the movie is that it has almost nothing to do with the book, I will point out that if you don't like the message to hit you in the head like a 2X4, Heinlein might not be for you in general. It's just that he has a way of doing it that makes me like it.

I'd second the The Moon is a Harsh Mistress recommendation. It's probably the least preachy of his adult novels that I have read, while still raising interesting ideas.