Robert Heinlein: Starship Troopers

[Urlik]

even the glorification of the warrior isn't neccesserily fascistic
the political setup of ST is a militaristic meritocracy and its main aim is to be able to defend its borders
there is no conscription and all the warriors are volunteers who want to serve
the only penalty for not serving is not having a vote.
the unfranchised civilian population are free to earn a living, they aren't slaves except in the sense that they are wage slaves, just like us.

[BeerClark]

Originally Posted by Tobytwo

I don't know: Fascism occured in so many variations that even Orwell, who knew it backward, had trouble defining it much beyond "bullying". Nazism (rather than, say, Japanese fascism) works as an allegory up to a point, although the absence of a leader-god weakens it hugely. I don't think either Heinlein or the ST world is fascist, although it is militarist. In the ST world, anyone who is not MI is to some extent a sissy pansy pinko, who should be forever counting their blessings that the army is there to defend their lily-white backside. However this doesn't necessarily mean the ST system of government is fascist rather than just plain brutal (and a bit dim).

On the subject of brutality for its own sake, here is a slightly queasy proposition, made (perhaps) in mockery by Brian Aldiss: the real theme of Starship Troopers is not politics, but masochism

The more I think about this, the more one thing keeps coming back to me: ST is not a great dystopia, or utopia. It simply isn't in the same league as 1984 or Farenheit 451, and the RAH who wrote it would see their basic kindness and humanity as signs of weakness. It lacks the decency of either of those books, and I think it's this that really stops it being a first-rate vision of another society. Whether or not Heinlein was himself a nice guy, the ST world lacks any sort of kindness or pity. And as the British and Americans demonstrated in WW2, you do not necessarily have to become pitiless in order to defeat pitiless people. I'm not sure that Starship Troopers truly understands this.

I don't remember Rico looking down on civilians throughout the book. Maybe he saw himself and MI as elite over EVERYONE else (vets included!) almost as MI men being self appointed heros. But to me he seemed more proud of protecting the civilians as part of his career.

And as far as the pity... well, there wasn't much. But I thought he at least showed a glimmer when he threw the random bomb into the group of Skinnies.. I thought he actually felt a little relieved that it was one with a warning timer. Of course, any pity he might have shown was detached at best. But regardless, what soldier has the convenience of pity? Its kill or be killed. They may not want to kill their enemy, but they can't sit around feeling bad about killing them too much. I don't think WWII American and British soldiers were much different from Rico. I'd say thats especially true in the Pacific given the Japanese attitiudes during the war.

The only real brutality I saw in the book was when Rico made mention that humanity HAS to expand and conquer. That its just humanity's nature.

[Tobytwo]

Certainly there's little pity for the aliens, but I wasn't really thinking of them so much as for other humans. The aliens don't do anyhting much to deserve pity (they take prisoners, but who knows how they treat them), and it would be pretty reasonable for a soldier to despise them. What I really meant was that the only run-ins Rico has with civvies tend to be fights, shopping (I'm sure he says of one planet that the civilians were ok because they called him "sir") and experiences where he looks down on them.

This makes sense given the voting setup, but my point is that it encourages a situation where the MI look down on the very people they are there to protect. Being a caste apart encourages them to do this.

Of course, things might be different among voters who merely accepted hazardous jobs instead of being in the MI, but Heinlein doesn't really go into that. Maybe the fleet have a different viewpoint altogether? I suppose we come back to Rico's very narrow viewpoint, which conceals a lot and makes a lot of different interpretations possible.

[Urlik]

I think everyone who reads ST should then read Revolt in 2100 before making assumptions on RAH's politics

just started rereading revolt and I'd forgotten just how good it is and how quickly the story grips the reader

[icundell]

the only penalty for not serving is not having a vote.

But apart from that....

[Urlik]

well not having the vote does remove one from the decision making process

[Zanussi]

Never mind the History and moral philosophy, get on with the action! I tried to like the book but it failed of my expectations, guess I am just a low-brow shoot em up fan at heart, I was vaguely reminded of a series of books I read a huge amount of time ago that sadly I cannot now recall title or author, but were set in WWI and the author preached of the "honour" of using the bayonet and refraining from "touching trigger" in a trench fight. Both authors managed to eject me from the story and left me looking puzzled at the book in my hands and wondering if they had been written in soft crayon by the occupants of a padded cell.

What a shame the film was hijacked by the anti-war theme, all those Nazi/Stalinist propoganda clips, boy the Director had a low opinion of our intelligence did he not? Hello! We get it okay? Enough already! Harry Harrison did it a lot better in "Bill the Galactic Hero."

[ghost8772]

Actually, the feel I got from the story that if it was a pure translation from book to screen, it would be like all the other war movies, monotone main character describing their situation as it plays across the screen

[Beamer]

Ok it amazes me the responses this book still generates. When written it was actually aimed toward a young audience. I believe it was supposed to be part of his juvenile book commitment to his publishers. From what I have read they thought it might be a bit too controversial and he went on to get it published elsewhere. While I will agree he was preaching that we have to be responsible and willing to help defend our nation in time of need, I don't believe he was advocating a particular type of government. Like all speculative writers he created a world and then built his story upon it. Some might be reading too much into that world.

Also someone mentioned in the thread that they thought he wrote this in part because he did not like the anti-war sentiment over our involvement in Vietnam. As I was all of about 5 when this was published I can not say for certain but since we had not really sent troops to Vietnam till after it was published I am not sure how much of a anti-war movement was going on. I understand there were small numbers of the infamous "advisers" and we had sent supplies and agreed to help train the South Vietnam army, but very few US troops were in Vietnam at that time.

[Tobytwo]

I heard that part of it refers to Korea. There's a strong theme about "leave no man behind": I read somewhere that there was a lot of concern over abandoned POWs in Korea - The Manchurian Candidate plays off this slightly. Though to be honest I'd have thought the bugs were just "commies".

[bobbo19]

watched the film last night until 2 AM, and thought it was pretty crap, but satrical at the same time which saved some face. Is the book any better?

[Connavar]

Its a crappy movie that has not much in story,tone in common with the book. The book is controversiel,talked about,thoughtprovoking even after 50 years. Does that sound like the movie you saw? The book is much better. You can enjoy it as serious sf story and good military sf .

Have you read Robert Heinlein do you know who he is and his place in SF history ?

[AE35Unit]

Yea the film is typical american gung ho disengage the brain type movie but thats ok,I still found it enjoyable. People should stop comparing Hollywood to books,they tend to be two different animals. I'm sure the book is completely different but its possible to like both.

[Ursa major]

I've never read the book - although I will one day.

As for the film, it's a romp (crossed with a black comedy) and can be enjoyed as such (i.e. parts of brain responsible for criticism switched off, disbelief set to maximum).

[Connavar]

Please lets not talk about that movie again. Im sick of hearing about it. Its the biggest romp,black comedy,satrical yeah yeah.

Nothing personally against what you are saying Ursa but why must we mention movies versions all the time and specially one like this. We are book readers.