Science Fiction Fantasy Chronicles: forums - View Single Post

cape_royds · 19th September 2007, 05:57 AM

Starship Troopers is a quite sophisticated book, and probably Heinlein's "tightest," best-constructed, work.

Heinlein adopts a classical narrative sequence. Like an ancient epic, the novel begins in the middle of the story, and finishes before the end of the story. The story doesn't end with the end of the war, since we are told early in the book that the war continues even after the Fall of Klendathu. We don't even find out what happens to Rico.

The story is told in the first person, but the narrator's voice is not necessarily the author's voice: Juan Rico is not necessarily Robert A. Heinlein. RAH uses Rico as a narrator to give us a close-up view of a future society. Rico is so immersed in his world and in his times that he can make us take those circumstances as much for granted as he does.

RAH did espouse some of the political doctrines taught to Rico in his "History and Moral Philosophy" classes. But when you consider Glory Road and Stranger in a Strange Land were both written within a fairly short time after ST, it's obvious that Heinlein is not merely posing as Colonel Dubois! RAH had a lot of different political and social notions, many of which clash with the ideals exhibited in ST.

The didactic sections of ST also use a classical story construction: that of the Socratic Dialogue. My first exposure to philosophy and political science came when I first read Starship Troopers at the age of 12. (A couple of years later, I got my first inadvertent taste of cultural anthropology in Citizen of the Galaxy). In Rico's classrooms readers are educated in the values of his society.

ST is meanwhile a coming-of-age story. Rico progresses from being an "aimless youth" from an affluent family, at odds with his father, to being a man and a leader of men, largely indifferent to material considerations, working alongside his father. Heinlein was very good, and very practiced, at writing such coming-of-age stories, and ST is perhaps his best.

ST is in addition a "soldier's story" in which along with Rico, we learn about comradeship which, despite hellish experiences, gives soldiers their most cherished memories. Like with the coming-of-age story, Heinlein is making brilliant use of a narrative convention.

But like the epic sequencing and the Socratic teachings, the coming-of-age and soldier's stories serve to immerse us in a future world, in which Earth has become a social-Darwinistic empire governed by a military elite, bent on an endless quest for galactic Lebensraum.

If Rico has few qualms, and those easily dispelled by several stages of philosophical indoctrination, that's because Rico doesn't live in the world of Heinlein's readership. Instead, we visit Rico's times, and for Rico, it's all normal--indeed, a world with which he is perfectly satisfied, the best of all possible worlds.

Is Starship Troopers a true satire? It's too ambiguous to be classified with Brave New World. Unlike in BNW, we don't really have a John Savage or Bernard Marx to serve as foils for the future reality that is presented to us.

Is ST a true dystopia? Again, our protagonist and narrator, unlike Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four, comes to embrace, rather than reject, the values of his society. Seeing only what Rico looks at, we don't know whether the Terran Federation is a dystopia or not.

ST is a sophisticated and ambiguous work. Despite the often didactic tone of the novel, Heinlein isn't telling us what to think. Sometimes I think Heinlein is exploring the ideas himself, grokking them, as it were.

Heinlein loves to poke his reader's soft spots and exploit any contradictions in their thinking. Sometimes he does this blatantly, like in Farnham's Freehold, where he reverses the roles of blacks and whites.

In Starship Troopers Heinlein is more sophisticated: he presents us with a future world free of racism or sexism, with an almost completely meritocratic government. However, the meritocracy is based solely on a warrior class, while violence and greed are directed outward at other sapient species!

It's almost like he's asking any good-spirited person, "Would you accept that deal? Are you tempted? Could you rationalize it to yourself?"

Heinlein himself isn't sure. He groks the dilemma. And that's why Starship Troopers is not only a great work of science fiction, it's also a pretty formidable work of American literature.

19th September 2007, 05:57 AM	#64 (permalink)
cape_royds Registered User Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 50	A satire? A Dystopia? Or what? Starship Troopers is a quite sophisticated book, and probably Heinlein's "tightest," best-constructed, work. Heinlein adopts a classical narrative sequence. Like an ancient epic, the novel begins in the middle of the story, and finishes before the end of the story. The story doesn't end with the end of the war, since we are told early in the book that the war continues even after the Fall of Klendathu. We don't even find out what happens to Rico. The story is told in the first person, but the narrator's voice is not necessarily the author's voice: Juan Rico is not necessarily Robert A. Heinlein. RAH uses Rico as a narrator to give us a close-up view of a future society. Rico is so immersed in his world and in his times that he can make us take those circumstances as much for granted as he does. RAH did espouse some of the political doctrines taught to Rico in his "History and Moral Philosophy" classes. But when you consider Glory Road and Stranger in a Strange Land were both written within a fairly short time after ST, it's obvious that Heinlein is not merely posing as Colonel Dubois! RAH had a lot of different political and social notions, many of which clash with the ideals exhibited in ST. The didactic sections of ST also use a classical story construction: that of the Socratic Dialogue. My first exposure to philosophy and political science came when I first read Starship Troopers at the age of 12. (A couple of years later, I got my first inadvertent taste of cultural anthropology in Citizen of the Galaxy). In Rico's classrooms readers are educated in the values of his society. ST is meanwhile a coming-of-age story. Rico progresses from being an "aimless youth" from an affluent family, at odds with his father, to being a man and a leader of men, largely indifferent to material considerations, working alongside his father. Heinlein was very good, and very practiced, at writing such coming-of-age stories, and ST is perhaps his best. ST is in addition a "soldier's story" in which along with Rico, we learn about comradeship which, despite hellish experiences, gives soldiers their most cherished memories. Like with the coming-of-age story, Heinlein is making brilliant use of a narrative convention. But like the epic sequencing and the Socratic teachings, the coming-of-age and soldier's stories serve to immerse us in a future world, in which Earth has become a social-Darwinistic empire governed by a military elite, bent on an endless quest for galactic Lebensraum. If Rico has few qualms, and those easily dispelled by several stages of philosophical indoctrination, that's because Rico doesn't live in the world of Heinlein's readership. Instead, we visit Rico's times, and for Rico, it's all normal--indeed, a world with which he is perfectly satisfied, the best of all possible worlds. Is Starship Troopers a true satire? It's too ambiguous to be classified with Brave New World. Unlike in BNW, we don't really have a John Savage or Bernard Marx to serve as foils for the future reality that is presented to us. Is ST a true dystopia? Again, our protagonist and narrator, unlike Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four, comes to embrace, rather than reject, the values of his society. Seeing only what Rico looks at, we don't know whether the Terran Federation is a dystopia or not. ST is a sophisticated and ambiguous work. Despite the often didactic tone of the novel, Heinlein isn't telling us what to think. Sometimes I think Heinlein is exploring the ideas himself, grokking them, as it were. Heinlein loves to poke his reader's soft spots and exploit any contradictions in their thinking. Sometimes he does this blatantly, like in Farnham's Freehold, where he reverses the roles of blacks and whites. In Starship Troopers Heinlein is more sophisticated: he presents us with a future world free of racism or sexism, with an almost completely meritocratic government. However, the meritocracy is based solely on a warrior class, while violence and greed are directed outward at other sapient species! It's almost like he's asking any good-spirited person, "Would you accept that deal? Are you tempted? Could you rationalize it to yourself?" Heinlein himself isn't sure. He groks the dilemma. And that's why Starship Troopers is not only a great work of science fiction, it's also a pretty formidable work of American literature.