Starship Troopers: SF Classic or Militarist Tract

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Starship Troopers is often called a controversial novel. Originally written as a juvenile novel, it was deemed too violent for youngsters and released as a general reading book instead.

The story itself, such as it is, follows the passage of one Juan Rico from a raw recruit, who has signed up more out of boredom and a need for peer approval than anything else, to a proud, competent member of the Mobile Infantry in humanity's ongoing cosmic war against vicious, insectile enemies.

The battle scenes are gritty, utterly compelling and it's a shame that there aren't more of them. However, Heinlein's sole intention with this book was not to create a guts-and-glory sf war tale - this book is very transparently a vehicle for political exposition that may or may not reflect Heinlein's views at the time accurately.

(The book was written in 1959 by the way, and Heinlein's memories of his military service during WW2 clearly contributed to a lot of the vivid atmosphere and the ideals herein.)

One of the first points that Heinlein makes is a stern argument in favour of flogging as well as capital punishment in the context of military discipline. He also goes on to idealise a gruelling training, depicted in loving detail, and its end result in an ideal military man, disciplined and deadly.

However, Heinlein does not just want to turn out efficient killing machines. Rico's rise through the ranks promps him to sign up for Officer Training school. Here, we get a second dose of exposition. The political system in Heinlein's future earth is militarist meritocracy - only those who have succesfuly served a military term earn citizenship and the franchise. The system works, Heinlein says, not only because it ensures that only those who proven their commitment to defending the state can vote or run for office, but also because by its very nature it ensures that the very people who are most likely to launch a revolution instead have their energies diverted into military action.

These seem rather weak arguments - what would happen to the whole system if and when galactic peace is achieved? Also, Heinlein had clearly not heard of the concept of civil disobedience as an alternate means to political upheaval. Like any meritocracy, Heinlein's is ultimately flawed because there can be no one universal standard to deem a person to be a fit citizen.

So I don't really agree with all the arguments in this book. But I would not agree with those who call it a fascist work either - fascists emphasise the state over the individual, and even here, it is clear that Heinlein values the individual a great deal indeed, even if that individual has to be a military person to warrant approval.

I didn't really agree with much of what he had to say here, but oddly, I didn't find any of the exposition superfluous - except the three or four pages dedicated to explaining the workings of a combat suit. Perhaps that was just because it is a concept that has since been used much later SF.

To refer back to the topic title, I'd say this book is both SF and tract - because of the subject matter and the expository passages, it does serve the purpose of building a certain case for the military way of life as the finest expression of human values. On the other hand, if science fiction is supposed to be a literature of ideas, then this book surely qualifies, as a well-crafted vehicle for Heinlein's political ideas at the time.

[cymric]

Okay here is Henliens Philosophy in that book in a nutshell. Only those who have defended the state should be armed with political Franchise. That is right Armed. If u read the book carefullly there are quit a few refrences that political franchise is a weapon that can be used to force ur own agenda on ppl. Henleins great speculation on a modren Spartan State was a great one. Only those willing to do what is neccesary to ensure the states survival should be allowed to vote in my opinion. Also another thing is how unnerving it is to read Heinlins predictions on the predicement of society as it is seen today. this can be mostly seen in his dissucion with his teacher about the way Juvelniles are treated in the past society which is happening today. The Militatorcay is about one thing: Social Responsibilty

[Leto]

Strangely, when I read this book I see the total opposite to that. To me, it's a fable on the dangers of a military autocraty, especially the way it destroys people's individuality.
Although I agree that's certainly wasn't the intention of Heinlein.

[polymorphikos]

The film follows your opinon to a tee, Leto, and is a much-misunderstood work as a result.

[Leto]

Yes,maybe mostly because most movies reviewers just saw the action and the arachnids. Finally, the cartoon following the movie is much closer to Heinlein's original intention ?

It's not the first time an Heinlein novel gives fuel to interpretation both by left-wings and far right-wings people. Maybe it's one of the reasons why his work is classic and reflects perfectly the society Heinlein was living in. Or i am still sleep deprived ?

[The Master™]

I just read the book to see how different it was to the film... And enjoyed both immensely... But I must be naive, 'cos I never saw any underlying messages...

[Leto]

IMO, it depends on your political (in the wider meaning of the word) sensibility.
Personnaly, although I intellectually understand the need for legal uses of violence (as in army and police), I've got a physical allergy to uniforms and authoritarism (sp?). As such, Heinlein's ode to military always gives me the creeps. Even if I loved the book.

[guthrie]

I enjoyed it as a teenager, when I was younger and stupider. It was a fine protrayal of self sacrifice, comradeship and big guns! And Suits of armour! and explosions! And nihilistic pointless destruction!

And so on. Its an adolescents book. When I re-read it again as an adult, it was rather pathetic. The arguments were all one sided, there was no depth of character to anyone, and the army was too good to be true. The only worhtwhile things left were the suits of power armour.

And whilst it may not have been Heinleins intention to make it a praise book for military autocracy, that is what it is to probably most adolescents who have read it, therefore he miscalculated.

(And people always forget why the Spartans were like they were. It was becuase they were the nobility, outnumbered hugely by slaves, and had to be tough to keep the slaves in line.)

For a far better more mature read (apart from the naievety of the central character and the absence of sex), I reccomend "Citizen of the Galaxy" its the book that got me into Heinlein when I was 11 or such.

[Hotjets]

Military service is not a prerequisite for franchise in ST. Volunteering for any form of government service is considered perfectly acceptable. Examples of other forms of service were mentioned in the book, though volunteering as a subject for medical experiments is the only example I can remember, having last read ST quite a few years ago. Still, those who served in the equivalent of the Peace Corps would have earned their right to vote in the ST universe.

[Preston]

Well I'm about half way through this book, so my opinons of it may change, but so far I enjoy it quite a bit, and although it does go against some of my political feelings, I had prepared myself for this before reading it. I have just read the part about spanking babies, and how to raise them like puppies, and I would have to classify that chapter as purely soap-boxing (regardless of whether you agree with the philosophy or not).

So far the description of the military has been easier to swallow, I find the military has been run quite fairly so far, seeing as so many boys are steered away from recruiting, even by the army itself.

If anything I would like to read some counter-arguments for some of the "facts" the Mr. Dubois presents in his lectures, as they are not present in this book.

On the whole, the story is fantastic, and I gotta say I like the action elements too!

[Leto]

After it would get harder, but frankly as I've said earlier, I love this book even if it's a very good diatribe against military autocraty.

[lazygun]

SF Classic!

Maybe a very strict Social Tract,but that is omnipresent in all of his work.
This particular story being about a War,is it surprising there is a strong Miliitary element/theme?.
Always found the,"With responsibility comes reward" and "There's no such thing as a free lunch" ideals in almost all of his stories.
Not the worst ideals in my book.

On the film,even with the liberal Directors' obvious subversion/perversion of the subject matter;I still enjoyed it.

[ThulsaDoom]

I really enjoyed the book. Admittedly, it did feel like a podium upon which he could vent a lot of his views through a fictional scenario, which he blended with some fantastic ideas on the future of warfare. As a book, I didn't mind that, to be honest.

I find a lot of his ideas intrigueing. His idea wasn't that military service (and that could include everything from pencil pushers through to the troops, so not everyone needed to go through the scenario's Rico had to) would necessarilly make better people, or even more thoughtful or smarter people. (In fact, he states the instances of crime were no different from ex-soldiers etc, to civilians, and many civilians were smarter than those who had been in the military, etc) His idea, was that through that service, they became conditioned to thinking of the societal 'whole' rather than the individual, and since they were the only ones allowed to vote, it resulted in a society far more balanced than the 'individual' centred one we have now.

It's frightening to read just how much of his opinions of the way society would go, are really spot on to today. He's certainly accurate, as to how the lack of discipline in children has resulted in a generation lacking any responsibility or moral conduct, which is steadilly increasing in a snow-ball effect.

[asdar]

I felt he tried to portray Sparta in Space, and mix it with Hollywood and the propaganda machine. It had to be intentional and aimed at Sparta. I'm old and read this a long time ago but 1959 was probably the hey day of the US/Russia propaganda machine.

I thought the movie matched my impression of the book. From the cheesy, but false commercials for joining the military to the discipline in the army, it all seemed to get what I felt the essence of the book was.

Maybe I need to do a re-read.

[steve12553]

Originally Posted by asdar

I felt he tried to portray Sparta in Space, and mix it with Hollywood and the propaganda machine. It had to be intentional and aimed at Sparta. I'm old and read this a long time ago but 1959 was probably the hey day of the US/Russia propaganda machine.

I thought the movie matched my impression of the book. From the cheesy, but false commercials for joining the military to the discipline in the army, it all seemed to get what I felt the essence of the book was.

Maybe I need to do a re-read.

The cheesy commercials hit the mark though because team concept always seems cheesy. It's a trade off for society. If everyone is a truly free individual and doesn't think about society as a whole, everything breaks down. That's why only balance works. Unfortunaely today's society uses much more subtle nearly sumliminal persuasion. Heinlien was on the mark with many things and at minimum he made you think.