[ghost8772]

Anyone else notice how RAH seems to leave out something critical to how things work or won't work in his books? the society in ST is all well and good, however the idea that it works beacuse all the people with fighting spirit are now in the government didn't hold. I'm aware the he mentioned that the military run state worked because, well, it worked. was fairly close to how things really go on, but beyond revolution? I don't think so. the rules RAH had in the book were that you didn't becoime a citizen of the state unless you did a term of military service. this does not mean that all the people wishing to change the world joined up. just the ones who thought they might like to change the world, could handle following orders, could get the job done as required by the current regime, and didn't die trying. this did not mean that someone who left, didn't sign up in the first place, or just didn't care to join the military in the first place. didn't have the fighting spirit, intelligence, or force of will to "cry revolution" and pull it off. if the government doesn't annoy the masses to the point where they decide to do something different to make life better, then the government is really doing its job. when the majority of the people are starving in the streets, dying because of unopposed invasions, or even having their creature comforts taken away (by their personal defiinition) THEN the cry of revolution is made. (my take at least) personally I liked the book, still get tickled by the 30 second bomb. yeah I saw the comments about society in general, and the pictures he painted about why "this" won't work, or "how in all the holies did THAT work?" (specifically comment about 90% dead headers and 10% combatants in wet navy) wonder if he wasn't a navy man in Korea..... (if he was he was probably a morale officer), but overall I thought it was a decent book about the workings of the average mind of the average person, doing an average job, and being just a little brainwashed about the perfection of society and his place in it.

The Movie. I don't care about political satire etc.... if yer gonna name a movie after a book, do a little bit more than grab the stupid names!!!!!. more books than I care to think about have been butchered in that way. some more subtely than others. (Dracula.... a LOVE STORY? HUH!?!?!?!!??!?!) they could have at least done SOME kind of a nod towards the equipment heinlein described (in as close to loving detail as anything I've seen him describe)
okay enough of my preachiness for now.