Starship Troopers
- Thread starter McCoy
- Start date
Meh, just because you dont like the film doesnt mean you didnt "get it".
I used to like the book, but every subsequent read through, I find things that make me dislike it more and more.
He's the Aryan wet dream. It wasn't casting choices for the demographics - it was to underscore the 'satire' - that the only way you can like this thing is if you are a white supremacist nazi.
Feel free to expound on your point. It's stated explicitly that the Federal Service has to take anyone that is mentally competent, even if they aren't capable of serving in the military.
Heinlein is on record saying that in his vision the vast majority of individuals that are citizens aren't former MI.
If you mean by attitude to join Federal Service you have to like killing things, that's quantitatively not how the book presents it.
A fair assessment.
I think context is important though - most scifi doesn't hold up 50 years later.
If you place it in the context of the times, citing equality of the sexes (if anything implying women were superior), complete lack of racial inequality, and an argument that philosophy is a scientific instrument, it was far ahead of its times.
In the military context it argued for an all volunteer high tech force - exactly where we went. Conscription was still an issue through the end of the Vietnam war.
Rii
Rear Admiral
Starship Troopers posits a society where its citizens are those who're willing to place the interests of others above their own. In all contemporary democratic systems, that any given subset of society will act in favour of its interests, and against threats to its interests, is taken as read. Heinlein challenges this, positing a society where farmers might vote against a measure that would increase their profits because it would harm others, where Christians personally opposed to gay marriage might support legislation enabling it regardless; in short, where reason and compassion might triumph over selfishness.
The question of whether Federal Service actually lends these qualities to a citizen is a reasonable one, and I suspect the answer is 'no', but it's an interesting thought experiment.
Criticism of the novel suggesting that its society is militaristic, fascist, or racist says more about the source in its prejudiced reading of the text than it does the text itself.
I enjoyed the film and have it on DVD, but it's a horrific interpretation of the novel.
The question of whether Federal Service actually lends these qualities to a citizen is a reasonable one, and I suspect the answer is 'no', but it's an interesting thought experiment.
Criticism of the novel suggesting that its society is militaristic, fascist, or racist says more about the source in its prejudiced reading of the text than it does the text itself.
I enjoyed the film and have it on DVD, but it's a horrific interpretation of the novel.
Complaining about Starship Troopers the movie not being a faithful adaptation to the book is worse than complaining that Troy is not a faithful adaptation of The Iliad. As a great work of literature, The Iliad is owed respect, which Starship Troopers the novel isn't. The plot in the book is: Boy loses girl, joins the army, finds fulfilment and a career by imitating his drill sergeant. It's Private Benjamin with lectures, but no jokes. The moral of the story is: INFANTRY RULES!
There are people who viscerally recoil at such a simple minded story. When pressed for reasons why they mumble about fascism etc. Heinlein acolytes then cite a few quotes and triumphantly declare victory, but still whine about how their hero gets picked on. Others are a little more reasoned but fall afoul of what appears to be duplicity on Heinlein's part.
First, the claim that any Federal Service earns the franchise certainly doesn't fit with the repeated instances of a veteran in a civil service job, usually missing a limb no less. Federal Service has veteran preference! Also, Heinlein deliberately talks about paying contractors to perform nonmilitary functions, rather like Rumsfeld and his libertarian war by contractor in Iraq. What nonmilitary Federal Service exists to provide this widespread franchise? Short answer, none.
Second, not allowing the men and women in service to vote (particularly since they serve for the duration) does not keep the military from being an undemocratic influence in the polity. The officer caste has historically been the enemies of democracy but their control of the soldier franchise has rarely (ever?) been their power base. Typically, it is the use (or threat) of force in service of the ruling class that gives the military undemocratic power. (Patronage in contracts, to industrialists and politicians are also an aspect.) Heinlein puts in chatter like that to obfuscate the realities. It's very similar to the drivel about how whipping is a fair punishment because the rich scar as easily as the poor, while ignoring that the rich tend not to get charged, much less convicted. In fact, not allowing the cannon fodder to vote against a bad war is profoundly undemocratic.
Third, there is an extremely revelatory scene which totally undercuts the claims that the military can't turn anyone away. There is a vignette where a paraplegic who wants the franchise is tormented by fraudulent tasks til he gives up. Counting the hairs on a caterpillar was mentioned if I remember rightly. Formal rights to enlist can be undercut very simply. And Heinlein makes sure the witting know what he really means, which is not what the apologists say.
Fourth, the ancient Greek democracies, like Athens, had the franchise linked to military service. The basic thesis, that such a link provides stability is falsified by well known history.
There's a lot of foolishness said against the novel but the defenders have won the idiocy contest. Or is that lost?
There are people who viscerally recoil at such a simple minded story. When pressed for reasons why they mumble about fascism etc. Heinlein acolytes then cite a few quotes and triumphantly declare victory, but still whine about how their hero gets picked on. Others are a little more reasoned but fall afoul of what appears to be duplicity on Heinlein's part.
First, the claim that any Federal Service earns the franchise certainly doesn't fit with the repeated instances of a veteran in a civil service job, usually missing a limb no less. Federal Service has veteran preference! Also, Heinlein deliberately talks about paying contractors to perform nonmilitary functions, rather like Rumsfeld and his libertarian war by contractor in Iraq. What nonmilitary Federal Service exists to provide this widespread franchise? Short answer, none.
Second, not allowing the men and women in service to vote (particularly since they serve for the duration) does not keep the military from being an undemocratic influence in the polity. The officer caste has historically been the enemies of democracy but their control of the soldier franchise has rarely (ever?) been their power base. Typically, it is the use (or threat) of force in service of the ruling class that gives the military undemocratic power. (Patronage in contracts, to industrialists and politicians are also an aspect.) Heinlein puts in chatter like that to obfuscate the realities. It's very similar to the drivel about how whipping is a fair punishment because the rich scar as easily as the poor, while ignoring that the rich tend not to get charged, much less convicted. In fact, not allowing the cannon fodder to vote against a bad war is profoundly undemocratic.
Third, there is an extremely revelatory scene which totally undercuts the claims that the military can't turn anyone away. There is a vignette where a paraplegic who wants the franchise is tormented by fraudulent tasks til he gives up. Counting the hairs on a caterpillar was mentioned if I remember rightly. Formal rights to enlist can be undercut very simply. And Heinlein makes sure the witting know what he really means, which is not what the apologists say.
Fourth, the ancient Greek democracies, like Athens, had the franchise linked to military service. The basic thesis, that such a link provides stability is falsified by well known history.
There's a lot of foolishness said against the novel but the defenders have won the idiocy contest. Or is that lost?
ST-One
Vice Admiral
And which other none-military jobs would those be?
A few examples: Civil service, bookkeeping, cargo shipping, construction, medicine, engineering, heck even *cooking* would all qualify.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Those are all none-fighting jobs within the military, right?
I asked for none-military jobs.
BTW: What makes someone who couldn't do more than 'just' cook within the military more worthy to have the right to vote than a civilian cook?
That's not what's in the book. What does happen is the recruiting sergeant says that if someone who was blind and confined to a wheelchair wanted to do his federal service, the government would have to find something he could do to fulfill the requirement, and uses counting the hairs on a caterpillar by touch as an example. There is no implication that the task is intended to discourage the subject, and he does not "give up" because he's just hypothetical.
The MI is just part of the military establishment. There are plenty of space navy examples in the book, as well as mentions of combat engineers (space Seabees), K-9 corps, intelligence, logistics and communications troops and so on.
The theory in the book is that the military cook would put the needs of society ahead of his own self interest, because he has been instilled with values of collective loyalty and obligation by his service.
Whether a society like that would work as depicted in the book, I have my doubts. But the book says it works, and as read there is little evidence that the society depicted is authoritarian or un-democratic, and I accept it on its own terms. The book is basically a "military procedural," based on Heinlein's speculation on how the basic fighting man of the ages, the infantryman, would be able to function on the nuclear battlefield. The philosophical parts that I never questioned as a teenager now seem a little suspect to me, not to mention indulgent. But what Heinlein does in ST is what he did so well: Create a thoroughly-realized, concrete and believable futuristic setting for adventures. And on that level the book is OK. I would never dream of proposing it as a blueprint for a perfect society, it's just entertainment.
As for the movie... I can buy that it was intended as satire. That does not make it good. A good satire movie is very hard to pull off. Dr. Strangelove, MASH, The Producers and Network were good satires. Starship Troopers was just a dumb, crappy movie with some sensationalized aspects.
--Justin
I enjoyed the movie more than the book too. Then again, I'm not exactly a huge Heinlein fan, while I like Paul Verhoeven's sci-fi movies (he still manages to come up with utter trash like "Showgirls" though 
).
And we also better forget about the sequel movies...
).And we also better forget about the sequel movies...
Lots of misperceptions here.
Complete strawman. Troy is an attempt to tell the story of the Illiad without the gods, but it still respects the basic subject matter. It still deals in the greek heroic ideal, the futility of the conflict, and the tragedy of the fall of the city.
Starship Troopers the movie isn't just not a faithful adaptation, it is openly insulting to the subject material. The director clearly despises the book, and says so.
Remember, the time was 1959. Many of the things we take for granted about the military today were clearly not true in that time frame.
The novel discusses quite a few other things that 'Infantry Rules', as I and others have stated elsewhere.
However, after Col Dubois letter to Johnny at boot camp, it's revealed that Johnny had no idea Dubois was MI and though he knew he was a veteran he thought he was a professor type. It's clearly stated in several locations that there are non-military roles in Federal Service, and that they too are deemed 'veterans' regardless of whether they fight or see combat.
Indeed, the other major tenet is that of sacrifice for the vote so it is appreciated. The sacrifice isn't over while the individual is still in Federal Service. It is something you earn, and it isn't awarded until you complete your service.
Here's what wiki has to say on Athenian democracy:
Other Greek cities set up democracies, most but not all following an Athenian model, but none were as powerful or as stable (or as well-documented) as that of Athens. It remains a unique and intriguing experiment in direct democracy where the people do not elect representatives to vote on their behalf but vote on legislation and executive bills in their own right. Participation was by no means open, but the in-group of participants was constituted with no reference to economic class and they participated on a scale that was truly phenomenal.
Clearly Heinlein was influenced by Athenian democracy that required individuals to serve a military term before allowing the vote. Ultimately it ended not due to a lack of stability in the political system but simply because it was overwhelmed by a greater power - in this case, Alexander the Great of Macedon who went on to found one of the largest Empires in ancient times.
It did however do exactly what Heinlein detailed - his belief was that future democracies fell due to the disengagement of the voter in the political process - and with the voter turnout in the last 50 years, he certainly had a point. Athenian democracy was known explicitly for the engagement of the polity in the process, therefore serves as an excellent underpinning for his philosophical basis for this society.
Scifi has come a long way since 1959, but Starship Troopers had something to say in terms of social engagement.
It's why it's still debated today, and why so many people still fill the need to ridicule it or support it.
If it makes you feel better I feel much the same about the Foundation novels, particularly because Asimov so clearly lacked any understanding of the military in his writings. It would be nice if every malevolent military crusader was a complete idiot, but it's also completely fanciful. Individuals like Alexander the Great, Napoleon and even Hitler have had amazing ramifications on our societies. Believing that they can't effect us because we are more enightened then they is belying all of recorded history, and is a damn dangerous thing to do.
Complete strawman. Troy is an attempt to tell the story of the Illiad without the gods, but it still respects the basic subject matter. It still deals in the greek heroic ideal, the futility of the conflict, and the tragedy of the fall of the city.
Starship Troopers the movie isn't just not a faithful adaptation, it is openly insulting to the subject material. The director clearly despises the book, and says so.
Again, the Hugo award disagrees. This isn't Sgt Rock and Easy Company. It invented a subgenre of scifi that exists to this day - military science fiction. And as all great speculative fiction does, it challenged the perceptions of the time.
Remember, the time was 1959. Many of the things we take for granted about the military today were clearly not true in that time frame.
Boy never had girl, and the relationship between Carmencita and Juan while highlighted in the movie is almost irrelevant in the book.
The novel discusses quite a few other things that 'Infantry Rules', as I and others have stated elsewhere.
The greatest science fiction writers of the time certainly did not - nor did the award committee at World Con, beating out offerings by Kurt Vonnegut and Gordon Dickson, among others.
Ah, standing up for a novel that you believe has merit is now 'whining.' This goes a long way to undermining you position. Try leaving the histrionics out of it, and discuss the work on its relative merit.
We see a handful of Federal Service jobs - teacher of moral philosophy, recruiter, and the doctor who does the health screenings. The later is a civilian.
However, after Col Dubois letter to Johnny at boot camp, it's revealed that Johnny had no idea Dubois was MI and though he knew he was a veteran he thought he was a professor type. It's clearly stated in several locations that there are non-military roles in Federal Service, and that they too are deemed 'veterans' regardless of whether they fight or see combat.
As the Terran-Arachnid war is the first war in known memory that's a matter of theory not reality in this setting. The argument isn't made that the military shouldn't vote because of its effect on democracy - ridiculous when you consider that they only allow veterans to vote. It's made because of military considerations - the military isn't allowed to exercise power over who is elected because especially in this case that means they could influence policy.
LOL - how exactly does the officer caste threaten force in service to the ruling class without the support of the soldiers they command? I don't recall that part of the book, but I doubt very seriously you comprehended what the author intended.
Clearly you don't recall the military courts martial enacted in the book. And Johnny was rich (the quote was his father could have bought the school he attended), and he had the distinction of receiving the worse corporal punishment in boot camp of any of the individuals that weren't drummed out.
The MI are hardly 'cannon fodder', and Heinlein makes a distinction between allowing those who serve to make potential policy decisions. No currently serving federal service individual has the right to franchise. If you wish to go career, you lose the franchise for the duration. As no soldier joins without volunteering there isn't an issue of conscription influencing the political base either.
Indeed, the other major tenet is that of sacrifice for the vote so it is appreciated. The sacrifice isn't over while the individual is still in Federal Service. It is something you earn, and it isn't awarded until you complete your service.
Already correctly disputed by another poster.
LOL, this is the silliest argument of the bunch.
Here's what wiki has to say on Athenian democracy:
Other Greek cities set up democracies, most but not all following an Athenian model, but none were as powerful or as stable (or as well-documented) as that of Athens. It remains a unique and intriguing experiment in direct democracy where the people do not elect representatives to vote on their behalf but vote on legislation and executive bills in their own right. Participation was by no means open, but the in-group of participants was constituted with no reference to economic class and they participated on a scale that was truly phenomenal.
Clearly Heinlein was influenced by Athenian democracy that required individuals to serve a military term before allowing the vote. Ultimately it ended not due to a lack of stability in the political system but simply because it was overwhelmed by a greater power - in this case, Alexander the Great of Macedon who went on to found one of the largest Empires in ancient times.
It did however do exactly what Heinlein detailed - his belief was that future democracies fell due to the disengagement of the voter in the political process - and with the voter turnout in the last 50 years, he certainly had a point. Athenian democracy was known explicitly for the engagement of the polity in the process, therefore serves as an excellent underpinning for his philosophical basis for this society.
Scifi has come a long way since 1959, but Starship Troopers had something to say in terms of social engagement.
It's why it's still debated today, and why so many people still fill the need to ridicule it or support it.
Actually so far I'd say the post I just discussed is ahead on points.
If it makes you feel better I feel much the same about the Foundation novels, particularly because Asimov so clearly lacked any understanding of the military in his writings. It would be nice if every malevolent military crusader was a complete idiot, but it's also completely fanciful. Individuals like Alexander the Great, Napoleon and even Hitler have had amazing ramifications on our societies. Believing that they can't effect us because we are more enightened then they is belying all of recorded history, and is a damn dangerous thing to do.
Last edited:
Good post Rii, I agree in large measure.
Definitely - the problem is they can't posit a government based on military service allowing for the franchise without postulating that it has to be fascist.
Of course, they ignore the most famous democracy in ancient times having exactly this measure, and it lead to an astonishing level of participation clearly greater than any sitting democracy today.
That which we earn to easily we esteem to lightly - as Thomas Paine said.
Again, this I disagree with. It's not just that it isn't a faithful adaption, it's an outright attack on the very principles that the book propounds. Putting the name Starship Troopers on it is an offense to Heinlein's memory, and it certainly couldn't have been done while he was alive to protect his intellectual property.
Definitely - the problem is they can't posit a government based on military service allowing for the franchise without postulating that it has to be fascist.
Of course, they ignore the most famous democracy in ancient times having exactly this measure, and it lead to an astonishing level of participation clearly greater than any sitting democracy today.
That which we earn to easily we esteem to lightly - as Thomas Paine said.
Again, this I disagree with. It's not just that it isn't a faithful adaption, it's an outright attack on the very principles that the book propounds. Putting the name Starship Troopers on it is an offense to Heinlein's memory, and it certainly couldn't have been done while he was alive to protect his intellectual property.
The MI isn't the military, it's one branch. As Justin said, the fleet qualifies. However, there are non-traditionally military jobs rolled into the Federal Service - clearly there are scientists employed by the Federal Service, even though not all specialty rolls are filled by individuals in the Service, such as the screening doctor. The psychologist isn't stated to be civilian, for example. Another example given is engineering - digging tunnels on Luna or being a laborer in Antarctica.
And of course there are the 'make work' jobs that they are required to give if the individual doesn't possess a useful skill that the service needs.
Its intended to be painful and difficult, for the exact reason that those are the lessons that Heinlein posits are needed for civic virtue - Paine's that which is earned to easily is esteemed to lightly.
Another quote:
Of course, this is also during peacetime - remember Johnny's dad believes the entire process is unnecessary and parasitical at the time because war is unthinkable.
By the end of the book I doubt there was much use for catepillar counters - casualties were too high. The MI training was cut by two weeks and the survivors promoted quickly because of attrition, as is the case with Johnny's dad.
It's interesting that it implies that the military industrial complex we are used to isn't really in place and that the standing service in peacetime has far more applicants than it has useful jobs. Heinlein was in the service between WWI and WWII, he probably envisioned it the same way - there were massive demobilizations in a democracy between wars.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
I can't see anything positive about that quote.
Why should I, or anyone else, have to prove to the government that I'm worthy to cast a vote in an election or that I'm worthy to be voted for?
That's tyranny.
Oh, Verhoeven "got it" just fine; he simply has had a very different experience of warfare than Heinlein ever did, growing up in the midst and aftermath of a war-devastated Europe. He attempted to read "Starship Troopers" and found it depressing, which speaks well for his taste.
The book is unequivocal and heavy-handed propaganda, and Verhoeven's movie gives it better than it deserves.
Fun movie, BTW. Haven't seen the direct-to-DVD sequels and don't plan to.
Why NOT?
Even the movie said this: "Something given has no value." Why should you be given the right to vote if you didn't earn it? Voting has consequences that affect the entire nation. It's not something to be taken lightly. How have you demonstrated that you know what you're voting for?
Last edited:
R
Rocketman
Guest
Indeed. Witness the complete absence of military influence in politics in Weimar Germany.
Oh, wait.
Similar threads
