Starship Stormpoopers

[Tales from Tanelorn]

I have been reading the debate over Heinlein's Starship Troopers book.
I have not read the book and only half watched the movie.
I didnt even give it a second thought until Mike mentioned Heinlien's book encouraged Xenophobia.

When I half saw the movie I assumed that it was some kind of parody
of the way that the politics of war and military often seem to work
and therefore I thought it was if anything harmless or even illustrative
of repulsive war propaganda, warning of xenophobia etc.

So I dug a bit deeper and saw a large amounts of critiscm on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers
Yet the guy even won a hugo for the work!

So my question is this, how can we know when we are or are not being
duped and the writer is or is not using some kind of device to demonstrate
when something is immoral/racist/sexist/antisemtic/xenophobic and when instead they are promoting these views.
There must be signs, but I think I miss them, perhaps I assume too easily that people have the best of intentions
and similar views to myself.

[Morgan Kane]

A little more complex .......

In short, Heinlein is not racist..... He wrote a book " double star " against racism ............

He is a libertarian .

But Heinlein is nationalist, militarist and elitist. He was pro vietnam war Ad Starship troopers is a book of propaganda for militarism ........

Starship troopers is well written ........

If you want to comparate, read the forever war by Haldeman who is a book denouncing war militarism and imperialism.

[Marca]

Here's a whole page about Starship Troopers:

http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm

[AriochRIP]

I never read the book, but I happen to like the movie very much, primarily because I think the original poster hit it on the head - it may not be a "parody" but it certainly puts those militaristic, xenophobic views in a ridiculous light (where they belong). I love the tone with which Verhoeven presented the story, and I have a feeling it's virtually the opposite of Heinlein's. I thought the movie turned a lot of things on their heads - the people you're "supposed" to root for are clearly fascists (I love the whole exchange about how only soldiers can be considered citizens), and it seems pretty clear that Earth started the war with the "bug planet," so the bugs were somewhat justified in their response... anyone who watches the movie and is still rooting for the earth people at the end has missed a few things, I think. Kinda like people who are still voting republican these days have missed a few things, I think...

[Mespheber]

I only saw Verhoeven's movie. I didn't find any racist clue, on the contrary.

[David Mosley]

Originally Posted by Mespheber

I only saw Verhoeven's movie. I didn't find any racist clue, on the contrary.

"Xenophobic" then, perhaps?

[Mespheber]

Yep, but using "aliens" appears to me as a good way to criticize racism. Also, did you notice that there are white people everywhere in the movie, even in Buenos Aires?

But most of all, there is Denise Richards.

[Doc]

Hmm... The image of Denise Richards is dstracting me as I write this...

I think the film didn't take itself seriously, as Heinlein surely did. His romanticized notion of a militarized society may not accurately capture any of his own political stances, but it certainly puts that idea out there.

If I can compare it to Behold, The Man:

Mike's tone in BTM captures Karl's uncertainty, misery, and self-discovery. Neither Mike nor Karl belittle Christanity's foundations, and neither of them revel in its fictional explosion of that foundation. It would be easy to dismiss BTM as stridently anti-Christian, but that would overlook the admiration for Christian ideals that Karl's death reveals. Mike lets readers in on the layers he is uncovering.

Heinlein celebrated and glorified the violence of a militaristic society. He was over-the-top, but his tone is quite serious, a sharp contrast to the film's campiness. I think Heinlein is a skilled enough writer to let us in on the joke if he is attempting satire. The movie certainly created it, perhaps poking fun at Heinlein's earnestness.

In short, tone matters. Writers (or filmmakers, for that matter) let us know when they are making statements. Are some of these buried or shaded? Certainly. However, the messages in something like Stormship Troopers are not subtle.

[johneffay]

Originally Posted by Doc

His romanticized notion of a militarized society may not accurately capture any of his own political stances,

It captures several of his political stances quite well; notably his belief that citizenship should not be a right, but have to be earned.

That said, it should be remembered that he did aim the book at 14 year olds which is probably why it is so heavy handed. I have very little respect for Heinlein (I hate Stranger in a Strange Land), but even I would not blame him for the actual tone of that book.

I love the film. It is clearly satirical and very funny. The first time I saw it, I laughed out loud quite a lot. As an aside, I once saw it with a couple of friends who are ex-paratroopers: They also laughed out loud quite a lot. However, they were mostly laughing at the tactics employed by the MI which they loudly criticized ("Why are they moving in a blob!" "What does he think that hand signal means!"). I am not sure that the rest of the audience found it as entertaining as I did.

Anybody remember the Starship Troopers wargame with all the little cardboard counters? I thought it was great, but could never get anybody to play with me

[Doc]

Originally Posted by johneffay

It captures several of his political stances quite well; notably his belief that citizenship should not be a right, but have to be earned.

I should clarify and say I certainly agree with you. I was trying my best to seem a bit measured in my response. I'm not always successful

Originally Posted by johneffay

That said, it should be remembered that he did aim the book at 14 year olds which is probably why it is so heavy handed. I have very little respect for Heinlein (I hate Stranger in a Strange Land), but even I would not blame him for the actual tone of that book.

The obvious aspect that I didn't consider. I was allowing for the possiblilty of subtext to a book written with almost nothing under its surface. I think I can agree with this.

Originally Posted by johneffay

Anybody remember the Starship Troopers wargame with all the little cardboard counters? I thought it was great, but could never get anybody to play with me

The next time I'm in town..

[lemec]

Originally Posted by johneffay

Anybody remember the Starship Troopers wargame with all the little cardboard counters? I thought it was great, but could never get anybody to play with me

johneffay,

I remember that game, but I never bought it. I used to see it all the time in a local game store.

It looked like it might have been fun, it was right next to Starfleet Battles.

[Miqque]

I don't see xenophobia as much as a sincere hatred of bugs- particularly the bugs that bombed Buenos Aires. And he, like many, simply wanted people who paid attention and took citizenship seriously enough to put their actual butts on the line for the right to vote. Sure, he took it over the top. You do that in fiction, sometimes.

As for the Veerhoven film, barely tolerable, fair F/X. I much preferred the CGI-animated Starship Troopers: The Roughneck Chronicles (available on DVD). Neither one really got Heinlein's ferocity. RAH used small nukes freely, and not one person could be considered very "nice".

A better comparison than Forever War might be Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. Both have wars against bugs (or "buggers"), to quite different result.

Heinlein had every intent to be a career Naval officer, then got booted due to poor health. Taken with this particular grain of salt, his stories and ideas are more palatable. After all, Tom Clancy is not in the military, but writes about it very well. (Just read The Cardinal of the Kremlin, one I'd previously missed, and found it the perfect follow-up to The Hunt for Red October, just before the flights of fancy to some CIA guy becoming President. As if THAT could ever happen!)

[Mespheber]

In fact, whan I first saw the movie, I wasn't sure the meteor was sent by bugs and i really wondered if it wasn't just an excuse to exterminate this species to conquer their worlds. Weird, it rings some kind of bell in our recent history...

[Kinetic]

I'm going to have to make a somewhat embarrassing admission.

Up until recently, I was a huge Heinlein fanboy. Only when I started getting into deeper, more independent reading into philosophy and ethics, did I start questioning the assumptions I had made.

I started reading Heinlein at about fourteen, and it was Starship Troopers. Now, at the time I was quite militaristic, having been in the Royal Canadian Air Cadets. I loved it. I was a Heinlein fan from then on.

But I have realized that Heinlein's writings are completely ridiculous. The fact that many of the most ridiculous of his writings are juvenile novels leads me to wonder if he sought to indoctrinate testosterone-drunk young boys into his right wing bourgeois ubermensch ideology. It's an incredibly easy thing to convince an immature male to adopt. It's hard to deny that what drove Heinlein to write was a desire to "save the world", as evidenced by "For Us, The Living". It's just that after that initial failure, he figured out how to slip his metanarratives in without anyone knowing.

As I got older, I started to wonder why Heinlein was espousing such crap. I rationalized it by telling myself that he just wrote a story from a certain point of view with a certain voice, and that didn't reflect what he truly thought.

But I highly doubt that now. It was done without any irony whatsoever, and he says the same things in many of his other books. The worst part about it is that he tries to convince you that he's anti-authoritarian while he spews his Ayndroid filth. At first glance, Heinlein appears to play with many different, opposing ideas but in the end, it looks like the same garbage all the same.

[Morgan Kane]

More complex ..... Heinlein is a libertarian before the word be created .......

He is a logical libertarian, for instance, for naturism and sexual liberation.

His best book from this point of view is the moon is a harsh mistress

But he has the contradictions of such an ideology.

He is against racism ( double star ) and against church governement or ideological domination ( revolt in 2100 stranger in a strange land )

[Miqque]

I'm still a fan of Heinlein. Appreciate Kinetic's comments. I started reading The Rolling Stones (okay, so I thought it was about a band) when I was 10. At 14, during a very low period and one of my frst existential crises, he expanded my awareness with Stranger in a Strange land and Glory Road. He came up with many good stories in the 1940's and 1950's. Still a good read, although I find much more humor in his stereotypic males and adolescent-fantasy sexuality.

Some factors stand out. Militarism, germinal libertarianism, his seething Oedipal complex, love of mathematics (one really good thing), strong early Bible Belt upbringing (of which he seems to apologize frequently), love of cats, annoyance at his health problems (but his protagonists often have a handicap, which is positive for many readers with disabilities), a true terror of a negative outcome to the Cold War, and at least some ability to laugh at himself (Number of the Beast).

Technically, he's a workmanlike writer, and not an artist of the word (as Mike is). He freely admits he mostly wrote for money, which I guess is okay since he was concerned enough to write as well as he could. One does not have to be a good writer to be a popular writer; and one reason he is a Grand Master is that he helped elevate the field away from BEMs and space opera.

What's odd is that he loved photography, and was apparently pretty good at it, but we rarely see any of his photographs.

All in all, not too bad for a Missouri boy.

[fireclown]

First you must consider Heinlein's background......US Naval Academy; exceedingly forward thinker who was well educated; couple this with the timeframe in which 'Starship Troopers' was written... again the timeframe is important as the political views of the 1950's into the early 1960's seem quite elitist and racist on ALL levels as compared to today. Perhaps the Buggers were a metaphor for Communism? Some even accused Robert of exhibiting Fascist ideals in the book; then, two years later 'Stranger In A Strange Land' is published...so much for the Fascism! Maybe he actually helped spark the sexual/counterculture revolution of the 1960's?! Food for thought. Who knows.

Well; my Network beckons..I'm on the bounce back to work.

[Tales from Tanelorn]

Appreciate the thoughtful replies.

I wonder if it is possible to go as far as to say that a work which has a hidden agenda could actually ultimately be beneficial if it serves as a warning or illustration of what is wrong, so long as one is aware of such. I guess many may not be aware though and that is where the problem lies. In Physics one of the first things we are taught is that all measurement data is good data not just the data that you are expecting to find...

I recall reading the entire Lensmen series when I was about 15 (before reading my all time favourite Corum series!). I barely remember them, but I wondered if there was any similar controversy about those books? Do they have any similar dark agenda/message?

I also read Hubbard's Battlefield Earth book before learning of his other sinister creation. Do you think that I will be ok or could I have already been touched by Scientology without even knowing it!

[tinnekke]

I am a fan of RAH myself, and have been for years. His best book, IMHO, is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It's a very libertarian novel with a plot that moves along quickly and has alot to say.

If you want to know more about RAH the man, instead of conjecturing his feelings and movties from one piece of juvenile fiction (which was anti-communist and not racist as you seem to think), read books like the above mentionsed one, or Grumbles from the Grave and Tramp Royale. Also Requiem, which is a book written by others about him.

[Michael Moorcock]

l have to say I found Heinlein largely unreadable and apparently naive. His authoritarian attitudes, disguised by apparent libertarianism, was exemplified in movies by people like John Ford, especially when John Wayne was the figure of virtue. I love John Ford for his lyricism and sense of story, in spite of his politics. I just couldn't ignore Heinlein's politics. For me they display a weakness in American popular idealogy which has not done a lot to help the country reach any kind of political maturity. That said, in the end it's not the politics (or pseudo-politics) which stop me reading him but the frequently leaden prose. Clearly many people like him in spite of all this and I would never argue against those who feel that way. I have plenty of writers I enjoy who werent the greatest prose stylists in the world. However, of those sf 'golden age' writers about the only one who is in my view outstanding and has a real sense of individual liberty is Fritz Leiber. I think, incidentally, that we're not really talking about 'hidden' agendas. I don't think my agenda is any more hidden than Heinlein's. I, too, celebrate individualism and liberty but I honestly don't believe I am attracted to authoritarianism. To my mind one only has to look at most of Heinlein's women to understand where he's coming from.