View Full Version : Starship Troopers
Kahoolin
10-30-2009, 10:12 PM
I've noticed that the Starship Trooper's film gets a lot of flak on BoLS, and the book seems to be hailed as some kind of literary masterpiece. This baffles me.
So in the spirit of feisty discussion, here's what I think:
The Starship Troopers novel is dated, fascist wish-fulfillment with a one dimensional story line that's sole purpose is for Heinlein to show that the military should be in direct control of the state.
Paul Verhoeven's film took that and turned it into an ironic B-grade satire that pokes fun at militarism and old school "USA is number ONE!" sci-fi. It has more depth than the book, although the camp way Verhoeven presented it makes it seem otherwise. This is all part of the clever way it subverts the novel. Plus the battles are awesome and it has NPH.
Discuss :D
Aldramelech
10-31-2009, 01:39 AM
Paul Verhoeven is a genius! I mean showgirls! Only he could have got that a cinema release. Basic Instinct, an entire film based around the concept of "Did she show her actual minge or not?" The man IS the master of the whole "Its so bad, its great"! Movie genre.
Never read the ST book, not my cup of tea.
Kahoolin
10-31-2009, 03:55 AM
Not only is he the master of "it's so bad it's good", I'd say his sci fi stuff is just plain good. Total Recall, Robocop... Starship Troopers.
I mean all sci fi is a BIT dodgy. But for Hollywood sci fi his stuff is high quality and intelligently done.
Read the book if you want to hear about why capital punishment and floggings make "a healthy society."
Aldramelech
10-31-2009, 04:20 AM
Agreed. I'm not actually a big Sci Fi fan. Cant stand "Blade Runner" never understood what all the fuss was about. Don't mind "Star Wars" but again was never that excited about it. "Star Trek" - Forget it! cant stand it.
But all those Verhoeven films are in my collection and get watched quite regularly.
DarkLink
11-08-2009, 12:08 AM
Whenever I look at a military sci fi book, all I need to know is: did America win? (inside joke)
Seriously, though, I liked the book Starship Troopers a lot. It has a little social commentary and stuff (though I never really got where people get the fascist stuff from, especially after I read Stranger in a Strange Land, also by R.H.), but mostly it is about military theory, technology and life.
I haven't actually seen the movie in a really, really, really, really long time, though, so I don't remember much of it. I do know it was pretty cool as a little kid, though.
Kahoolin
11-08-2009, 11:24 PM
Yeah I suppose "fascist" is a bit strong :) OTOH, Starship Troopers basically portrays a democracy where only the military may vote, which by modern western standards is not a democracy at all - it's a military dictatorship. Heinlein spends quite a bit of the little book explaining why this is a fantastic idea. Stranger in a Strange Land seems hippy, I'll grant you, but I've read quite a few of his books, and they have several identifiable themes:
Soldiers kick ***: Most of his heroes are West Point graduates.
Scientists kick ***: The rest are scientists, or scientists who also went to West Point.
Monogamy sucks: All his heroes either come from societies where monogamy is outdated, or they are so "liberated" they don't bother being monogamous. There's usually some claim that intelligent men shouldn't have to be monogamous.
Starship Troopers is Heinlein in full military fanboy mode, to the extent that he claims that the military should govern civilians. Stranger is just him railing against "society" telling him he can't cheat on his wife.
Lord Azaghul
11-09-2009, 07:41 AM
The book is absolutely amazing. The premise of the book is to discuss the purpose of military force; which the author goes on to say is: "to get the enemy to do what you want". Its pretty straight forwards, but is told very well, and I really think is a must read for all those people who say "well lets just kill them all be done with it" It was one of the best worst of science fiction todate.
However I don't think its even fair to compare the movie to the book - the only things that they have in common are the title, and a character named rico.
The movie was fun for what it was, a sci-fi action/slasher, but there was 0 substance to it.
Stranger in strange land: this book is naive at best, at worst: an outright attempt to pander 'free love' in the twisted form of 'enlightenment', and a consquence free envornment.
Now if you say the movie Dune (either one) was better then the book(s) you've got a serious misunderstanding of great science fiction!:D
Kahoolin
11-09-2009, 06:06 PM
The book is absolutely amazing. The premise of the book is to discuss the purpose of military force; which the author goes on to say is: "to get the enemy to do what you want". Its pretty straight forwards, but is told very well, and I really think is a must read for all those people who say "well lets just kill them all be done with it" It was one of the best worst of science fiction todate.It's well thought out, I'll give you that, but I have to say I don't hold it in as high regard as you do. I actually found it pretty boring, to be honest, but I think that's because I don't like being preached at by authors and it turned me off.
However I don't think its even fair to compare the movie to the book - the only things that they have in common are the title, and a character named rico.
The movie was fun for what it was, a sci-fi action/slasher, but there was 0 substance to it.Fair point. They aren't very similar at all. To me the movie was much more exciting than the book, and I wouldn't say it had no substance - it poked fun at nationalism with all those shots of earth propaganda.
Stranger in strange land: this book is naive at best, at worst: an outright attempt to pander 'free love' in the twisted form of 'enlightenment', and a consquence free envornment.Didn't mind it, but again, I don't like being preached at. Especially when it's just "The Story of Hippie Jesus And Why We Should All Bonk Whoever We Feel Like." If I had to pick, I'd say I preferred Starship Troopers.
Now if you say the movie Dune (either one) was better then the book(s) you've got a serious misunderstanding of great science fiction!:DNope, with you on that one! Though the David Lynch one is cool in a freaky way, with Sting and the terrible voice-overs of the character's thoughts.
BilboBaggins
11-09-2009, 11:19 PM
I thought Starship Troopers was more of a coming of age book, yes the book is better than the film. They could have made it into a decent cable/BBC series (8-12 episodes a season). I like the film but comparing them it like comparing a McDonalds hamburger to Filet Minon, the burger is good but not as satisfying as the filet.
Heinlein had many great books (Time Enough for Love, Stranger in a Strange Land, Cat Who Walks Through Walls, Friday, Etc.) to choose from. Lazarus Long had one of the greatest lines about government (Whenever you are required to carry ID the population is too large and is time to leave the planet.)
Aldramelech
11-10-2009, 01:52 AM
Dune (The one with sting) was without doubt the worst and most pointless movie Ive ever seen.
Lord Azaghul
11-10-2009, 07:29 AM
It's well thought out, I'll give you that, but I have to say I don't hold it in as high regard as you do. I actually found it pretty boring, to be honest, but I think that's because I don't like being preached at by authors and it turned me off.
.
I will however stress one final point: Authors DO have an agenda, and what to convince the reader of Their perspectives before the book is finished!
Its no different that any movie/show you watch
and its especially true of 'news' shows: someone is always trying to convince the reader/viewer of something!
Kahoolin
11-10-2009, 05:27 PM
That's true. I reckon though if you notice their agenda and don't care, then it's well written. If the agenda bothers you then it means they didn't get the balance of entertainment and agenda right, and that's what I call being preached at.
If you don't notice the agenda at all (even, as you say, in a news program) then you've been suckered...
DarkLink
11-13-2009, 02:24 PM
Yeah I suppose "fascist" is a bit strong :) OTOH, Starship Troopers basically portrays a democracy where only the military may vote, which by modern western standards is not a democracy at all - it's a military dictatorship. Heinlein spends quite a bit of the little book explaining why this is a fantastic idea. Stranger in a Strange Land seems hippy, I'll grant you, but I've read quite a few of his books, and they have several identifiable themes:
Soldiers kick ***: Most of his heroes are West Point graduates.
Scientists kick ***: The rest are scientists, or scientists who also went to West Point.
Monogamy sucks: All his heroes either come from societies where monogamy is outdated, or they are so "liberated" they don't bother being monogamous. There's usually some claim that intelligent men shouldn't have to be monogamous.
Starship Troopers is Heinlein in full military fanboy mode, to the extent that he claims that the military should govern civilians. Stranger is just him railing against "society" telling him he can't cheat on his wife.
Well, a military dictatorship is, be definition, rule of a single person, in this case a General or similar. So the society is most defiantly not a military dictatorship. It's actually very similar to Switzerland, iirc, where everyone is required to serve in the military.
I'll also point out that military service is not, in fact, mandatory for voting rights in Starship Troopers. Government service is. You have to work for the government for a few years. Then, you can go on with your life, if you want. If you have no special skills, and are physically capable, that means grunt work. But there are plenty of other ways to earn the right to vote.
Really, it isn't any different from any other democracy, excluding the fact that the government actually requires you to do something to earn the right to vote. In most countries, all you have to do is drive to the voting center to "earn" the right.
But really, I only recall one or two chapters explaining how society got that way, and why Heinlein likes the idea. The majority of the book deals more with military leadership and command than civilian politics.
Sitnam
11-13-2009, 02:41 PM
Really, it isn't any different from any other democracy, excluding the fact that the government actually requires you to do something to earn the right to vote. In most countries, all you have to do is drive to the voting center to "earn" the right. This really isn't too different from the property requirements that the Ancient Greeks had in some of their early forms of democracy.
Honestly, everyone who says that Heinlein supported Fascism clearly does not undertasnad Heinlein or Fascism. As said before, its not military service but public service that earns the right to vote. So even saying that Heinlein supported a military democracy is incorrect. Furthermore, Heinlein disavows the opinion that military men make better public leaders in that same book.
And the movie was horrible and instead of being a faithful representation of Heinleins work, it was instead a spoof of his intellectual property.
Kahoolin
11-15-2009, 06:37 PM
Heh, this is going to be a big one :)
Well, a military dictatorship is, be definition, rule of a single person, in this case a General or similar. So the society is most defiantly not a military dictatorship. It's actually very similar to Switzerland, iirc, where everyone is required to serve in the military.I don't think that's accurate. A single person does not have the power to rule a nation. A military dictatorship is when the military rules, and the head of the military is also the head of state. So you are right, ST is not really a dictatorship as there is no single head of state - it is more like Athenian democracy which as I said is not democracy in our terms at all - perhaps military oligarchy would have been more accurate.
I'll also point out that military service is not, in fact, mandatory for voting rights in Starship Troopers. Government service is. You have to work for the government for a few years. Then, you can go on with your life, if you want. If you have no special skills, and are physically capable, that means grunt work. But there are plenty of other ways to earn the right to vote."Federal Service" in ST is a euphemism for the military. You only get non-combat roles if you are disabled, too valuable to be risked, or because of nepotism. Everyone in "Federal Service" wears a uniform, and only they may vote. Many of them may never fight, but theoretically they are all soldiers. Because the military is the government.
Really, it isn't any different from any other democracy, excluding the fact that the government actually requires you to do something to earn the right to vote.Not "something" - join the military. And that's the whole point about universal suffrage - no-one should have to earn the right to vote. If you have to have a certain job, then everyone in the government is in the same club. All they would have to do is pass a law excluding some group of people for some reason and then freedom and equality are dead. The Federation in ST works on the assumption that soldiers are more trustworthy than everyone else and would protect freedom for everyone else, and that assumption is pretty dubious.
@Sitnam:
This really isn't too different from the property requirements that the Ancient Greeks had in some of their early forms of democracy.That's right, but to call a Greek democracy a democracy by our standard is misleading. They did not have universal suffrage (you had to be a married male over a certain age who was trained as a hoplite to vote). That is not universal participation, it is limited democracy, and by modern standards a limited democracy is no democracy at all - it is an oligarchy.
Honestly, everyone who says that Heinlein supported Fascism clearly does not undertasnad Heinlein or Fascism.I understand Heinlein and Fascism thank you very much :). Heinlein, like most people, had inclinations pulling in different directions. He idolized the military but at the same time was a strong individualist and in some areas even a hippy. I'm sure he was not a fascist or even advocating it, but the Federation in ST could easily become fascist. All it would take is for the government, which is the military, to decide to seize control of industry. No-one could stop them. So the Federation is proto-fascist at least. Heinlein either did not notice that or thought it was OK.
As said before, its not military service but public service that earns the right to vote. So even saying that Heinlein supported a military democracy is incorrect.And as I said above, ST's Federal Service is the military and the government at the same time. Some roles are non-combatant, just like the modern military, but you can't join up and say "I want a non-combat role." You get assigned one only if you have a relevant skill, or come from a powerful family (some things never change!)
Furthermore, Heinlein disavows the opinion that military men make better public leaders in that same book.I thought he was saying it was because they couldn't sugar-coat things enough for the weak stomachs of civilians? To be honest I don't remember that part too well.
And the movie was horrible and instead of being a faithful representation of Heinleins work, it was instead a spoof of his intellectual property.Fair enough. I liked it, it had good action and was fun. I thought the book was a bit boring and seemed like a strange intellectual exercise in making bad ideas seem reasonable.
Sitnam
11-16-2009, 09:39 PM
That's right, but to call a Greek democracy a democracy by our standard is misleading. They did not have universal suffrage (you had to be a married male over a certain age who was trained as a hoplite to vote). That is not universal participation, it is limited democracy, and by modern standards a limited democracy is no democracy at all - it is an oligarchy.
Our own definition of democracy cannot be applied to disavow Greek democracy because it was a different time and place. The fact is, it was one of the first democracy. Yes, by modern standards it would not line up with a democracy. But really, the idea of universal suffrage is relatively new, only a few centuries old. We cannot disavow every other democratic government beforehand simply because they don'/t fit our standards of freedom. We have to look at the standards by their timeline, and the Greeks were indeed the most democratic government of their time.
As a side-note, our democracy might not seem like democracy to the Greeks. They each had a direct vote and say; we can only have that through proxy officials.
I understand Heinlein and Fascism thank you very much . Heinlein, like most people, had inclinations pulling in different directions. He idolized the military but at the same time was a strong individualist and in some areas even a hippy. I'm sure he was not a fascist or even advocating it, but the Federation in ST could easily become fascist. All it would take is for the government, which is the military, to decide to seize control of industry. No-one could stop them. So the Federation is proto-fascist at least. Heinlein either did not notice that or thought it was OK. Your our wrong however to say that the Federal Service is the military, or that the government is essentially the military. The book itself states that members of the Federal Service are not allowed to hold office nor are they allowed to vote. Essentially, the government is civilian run just like our own. The situation you describe is a military coup, which is possible in ANY government. When Rico got his recruitment speech, it was made clear that not all jobs are non-combative in nature. The majority of characters in the book were in combat roles, but that seems to be poor implentation on Heinleins part, as he said that he intended to portray the Federal Service as 95% military. However on one point Major Reid does state that "And you have forgotten that in peacetime most veterans come from non-combatant auxiliary services and have not been subjected to the full rigors of military discipline; they have merely been harried, overworked, and endangered—yet their votes count"
And as I said above, ST's Federal Service is the military and the government at the same time. Some roles are non-combatant, just like the modern military, but you can't join up and say "I want a non-combat role." You get assigned one only if you have a relevant skill, or come from a powerful family (some things never change!)
I never remember any reference to being from a good family giving you a better chance.
I thought he was saying it was because they couldn't sugar-coat things enough for the weak stomachs of civilians? To be honest I don't remember that part too well. On that same page as the earlier quote I gave, Reid explicately state military men are no more self-disciplined or less likely to commit crimes.
Fair enough. I liked it, it had good action and was fun. I thought the book was a bit boring and seemed like a strange intellectual exercise in making bad ideas seem reasonable. I actually watched the movie first, and thought it was quite humuorus and action packed. But it is morally repulsive that the director would are take the intellectual property and creation of Heinlein (or any author) and not only make a unfaithful representation but to spoof it as well.
Kahoolin
11-17-2009, 02:19 AM
Our own definition of democracy cannot be applied to disavow Greek democracy because it was a different time and place. The fact is, it was one of the first democracy. Yes, by modern standards it would not line up with a democracy. But really, the idea of universal suffrage is relatively new, only a few centuries old. We cannot disavow every other democratic government beforehand simply because they don'/t fit our standards of freedom. We have to look at the standards by their timeline, and the Greeks were indeed the most democratic government of their time.So we can either continue to call them both "democracy" and lead people into error, or every time we talk about Greek democracy we point out that it ISN'T democracy by our standards because it doesn't allow freedom to participate for all citizens. That's what I am saying - Of course Athenian government was literally a democracy, that's where our word comes from. But it is a basic error to suggest that what we mean when we talk about Greek democracy and what we mean when we talk about a modern democracy are in any real sense the same thing.
Your our wrong however to say that the Federal Service is the military, or that the government is essentially the military. The book itself states that members of the Federal Service are not allowed to hold office nor are they allowed to vote.Uh? The book states, in fact, that a term of Federal Service results in the duty and obligation to exercise sovereign franchise for the rest of your life. "Franchise" means the right to vote. Earlier Rico's dad says that the only reason people undertake FS is to get a pointless political right that no-one takes seriously anyway. So you are wrong, only the miitary may vote, it's just that the society is so peaceful and advanced on account of being a wolrd military government that everyone else just gets on with their lives and ignores government. It's just Plato's Republic. The government is a group of people who have been deputized by the rest of the population to govern, based on the fact that they have sworn to fight to defend the society. If that's not a description of government by the military I don't know what is. And the objection I have to it is the same objection people have to Plato's Republic - it only works if the people with the weapons are incorruptible, and no-one is incorruptible. Heinlein waffles on in ST about political realism and how pacifism is stupid, I can't believe he is naive enough to think it's a good idea to give political power to the army. Of course, as you say, a coup can take place in any society, but a coup is unjustified, a criminal seizing of power. It's not a coup if the military have the political right to seize power, which they do in ST. It says in their oath they have the right to control other citizens.
I actually watched the movie first, and thought it was quite humuorus and action packed. But it is morally repulsive that the director would are take the intellectual property and creation of Heinlein (or any author) and not only make a unfaithful representation but to spoof it as well.So you are against satire?
Sitnam
11-17-2009, 01:08 PM
So we can either continue to call them both "democracy" and lead people into error, or every time we talk about Greek democracy we point out that it ISN'T democracy by our standards because it doesn't allow freedom to participate for all citizens. That's what I am saying - Of course Athenian government was literally a democracy, that's where our word comes from. But it is a basic error to suggest that what we mean when we talk about Greek democracy and what we mean when we talk about a modern democracy are in any real sense the same thing.
So we cant call it a democracy because it does not fit our standards? Do remember universal suffrage is only a few centuries old, and our form of representational government strays far from a direct democracy.
Uh? The book states, in fact, that a term of Federal Service results in the duty and obligation to exercise sovereign franchise for the rest of your life. "Franchise" means the right to vote. Earlier Rico's dad says that the only reason people undertake FS is to get a pointless political right that no-one takes seriously anyway. So you are wrong, only the miitary may vote, it's just that the society is so peaceful and advanced on account of being a wolrd military government that everyone else just gets on with their lives and ignores government. It's just Plato's Republic. The government is a group of people who have been deputized by the rest of the population to govern, based on the fact that they have sworn to fight to defend the society. If that's not a description of government by the military I don't know what is. And the objection I have to it is the same objection people have to Plato's Republic - it only works if the people with the weapons are incorruptible, and no-one is incorruptible. Heinlein waffles on in ST about political realism and how pacifism is stupid, I can't believe he is naive enough to think it's a good idea to give political power to the army. Of course, as you say, a coup can take place in any society, but a coup is unjustified, a criminal seizing of power. It's not a coup if the military have the political right to seize power, which they do in ST. It says in their oath they have the right to control other citizens.
But political power is nor with the army and the Federal Service, as I covered before, is not the army. It is a volunteer service in which the majority of jobs are dangerous but non-combative. Only veterans, those who have left behind Federal Service rank and prestige, can vote and be elected. That means they are civilians when they vote and hold office, which makes it a civilian government controlling the military and other services in the Federal Service. The Federal Service is NOT a military branch. Heinlein states in the book itself that the majority of jobs are NON-COMBATIVE roles. Dangerous, but not with the trouble of fighting wars. It is not a military democracy, but a service democracy, where one earns the right to vote by public service.
Find me one reference in the book in which a active military or other Federal Service member has the right to vote or hold office. There aren't any. All citizens are those who retired from service.
So you are against satire? When you still the NAME of the work you are satiring, anothers intellectual property, then yes I am.
Furthermore, note this quote: Major Reid was gentle with him. "Sorry. An appealing theory not backed up by facts. You and I are not permitted to vote as long as we remain in the Service, nor is it verifiable that military discipline makes a man self-disciplined once he is out; the crime rate of veterans is much like that of civilians. And you have forgotten that in peacetime most veterans come from non-combatant auxiliary services and have not been subjected to the full rigors of military discipline; they have merely been harried, overworked, and endangered—yet their votes count."
That quote discounts that active Federal Service means you cannot be in office or vote. It also disputes that military men (AND Federal Service men. Note it is a military man speaking, so he would not bring up non-combat roles) are better then civilians once they our out. It also explicitly says that most of Service members are non-combatants who have simply done dangerous jobs. Ofcourse there are men needed to resupply and maintain the fighting men. But those men would also atleast have military discipline if they were servicing the military. But Major Reid stated that most members do not even experience full military discipline. This leads me to believe that those undisciplined men weren't military at all, but simply hazard-pay non-combatants.
Also, Heinlein came out years later and clarified this again.He intended for 95% of the men to be non-combatant, non-military roles. I don't have a source yet, but I can find one.
You cant ignore what the author wrote about his work, or what is in the work itself. I also remember a part were sailors of the merchant marine had petitioned to become part of the Federal Service. The merchant marine is a clearly dangerous civilian job that really has little military ties. Although Heinlein doesn't state why their petitions failed, it stands reason to believe that if they felt their work dangerous enough then there has to be other civilian jobs in the Federal Service as equally dangerous as the merchant marine.
. You only get non-combat roles if you are disabled, too valuable to be risked, or because of nepotism. Everyone in "Federal Service" wears a uniform, and only they may vote. This is just flat-out wrong. The quote I provided disproves all of this. NOONE in Federal Service may vote, and the book stated flat out that FS jobs are non-combatant. It says nothing about being disabled or nepotism.
Kahoolin
11-21-2009, 04:33 AM
Sorry, the forum didn't let me know that you'd replied.
So we cant call it a democracy because it does not fit our standards? Do remember universal suffrage is only a few centuries old, and our form of representational government strays far from a direct democracy.*Sigh* Once again, we CAN call it a democracy, but we cannot call it such in order to suggest it is the same as our democracies, and we must qualify calling it a democracy to avoid inaccuracy. That's all I'm saying. I no longer remember or care why we are circling this point.
But political power is nor with the army and the Federal Service, as I covered before, is not the army. It is a volunteer service in which the majority of jobs are dangerous but non-combative. Only veterans, those who have left behind Federal Service rank and prestige, can vote and be elected. That means they are civilians when they vote and hold office, which makes it a civilian government controlling the military and other services in the Federal Service. The Federal Service is NOT a military branch. Heinlein states in the book itself that the majority of jobs are NON-COMBATIVE roles. Dangerous, but not with the trouble of fighting wars. It is not a military democracy, but a service democracy, where one earns the right to vote by public service.Ah, OK, you've jogged my memory now. You're right they aren't active soldiers, but they are all veterans. So even though my terminology may be off (for which I apologize) my characterization of the government being completely made up of military men is still accurate.
Find me one reference in the book in which a active military or other Federal Service member has the right to vote or hold office. Nah. Can't be bothered. You're probably right anyway, so you win :)
When you still the NAME of the work you are satiring, anothers intellectual property, then yes I am.Fair enough. Although "steal" seems a bit misleading. In order for movies to be made the rights have to be sold fair and square, which passes the right to interpret the IP to the movie creators. There's nothing shady about that.
You cant ignore what the author wrote about his work, or what is in the work itself.Yes I can :D Authors are informed by countless unconscious cultural narratives of which they are not aware. Every work of art is full of stuff the creator either didn't mean to say or which can be freely interpreted at a later date. I've read the book too, in case you don't remember. What I said in this thread is what I remembered, the impression the book made on me. That means it is in the book. While I admit I was being glib in charging RH with consciously writing an irresponsible fascist book, and I'll take that back, I refuse to accept the idea that the meaning of a work of art is composed of nothing but what the author intended. Once something is created, it no longer belongs to the author, and he or she doesn't get to say what it means. People who read it WILL draw whatever conclusions they want. You and the author are free to say they are wrong of course, but it doesn't mean anything.
This is just flat-out wrong. The quote I provided disproves all of this. NOONE in Federal Service may vote, and the book stated flat out that FS jobs are non-combatant. It says nothing about being disabled or nepotism.These must have been inferences I made at a later date based on the tone of the book. I'm not going to look it up and I believe you, for what it's worth.
Nothing you've said changes my original statement that I enjoyed the movie more than the book, and I hope I've gone at least some way to showing that just because someone think the ST movie is better than the book doesn't make them a moron.
Sitnam
11-21-2009, 09:14 AM
*Sigh* Once again, we CAN call it a democracy, but we cannot call it such in order to suggest it is the same as our democracies, and we must qualify calling it a democracy to avoid inaccuracy. That's all I'm saying. I no longer remember or care why we are circling this point.
I think we were ciricling to explain that not all democracies are equal. But I do finally get your point.
Ah, OK, you've jogged my memory now. You're right they aren't active soldiers, but they are all veterans. So even though my terminology may be off (for which I apologize) my characterization of the government being completely made up of military men is still accurate. You are wrong however in saying MILITARY men. As I pointed out, I find evidence both in the book and from the author that it if veterans of public service, not military service.
Yes I can Authors are informed by countless unconscious cultural narratives of which they are not aware. Every work of art is full of stuff the creator either didn't mean to say or which can be freely interpreted at a later date. I've read the book too, in case you don't remember. What I said in this thread is what I remembered, the impression the book made on me. That means it is in the book. While I admit I was being glib in charging RH with consciously writing an irresponsible fascist book, and I'll take that back, I refuse to accept the idea that the meaning of a work of art is composed of nothing but what the author intended. Once something is created, it no longer belongs to the author, and he or she doesn't get to say what it means. People who read it WILL draw whatever conclusions they want. You and the author are free to say they are wrong of course, but it doesn't mean anything.I will respectively disagree with that for two points:
1. Heinlein DID state in the book that the majority of men in FS are non-combatants.Even getting rid of his statement, I found enough evidence to point towards public service democracy, not a military service democracy. You can look through last post for that evidence though, I don't feel like another novel. ;). You may be able to ignore what the author says if their is no evidence in his work to back him up. However, if we are arguing about the book then you cannot argue things written directly in the book. If you discount the actual content, then whats the point in arguing a book? People will make conclusions, yes. I just feel that all conclusions and opinions on the book have to be backed up.
2. I feel much different over an artists/musicians/authors/producers ownership of artistic works. They cant make things up about their works, but I do feel they can clarify their works and its purpose better then any critic. Provided, that is, that they have evidence in the works that corresponds with their statements. And as I have pointed out, there is enough evidence to back him up.
Nothing you've said changes my original statement that I enjoyed the movie more than the book, and I hope I've gone at least some way to showing that just because someone think the ST movie is better than the book doesn't make them a moron. Oh I enjoyed the movie for a cheesy action flick. I actually rank the movie fairly highly in my criteria for a good cheesy action flick. I am simply an avid Heinlein fan however. But I respect your opinions on the movie over the book.
Fair enough. Although "steal" seems a bit misleading. In order for movies to be made the rights have to be sold fair and square, which passes the right to interpret the IP to the movie creators. There's nothing shady about that. Yeah my grammar completely F'ed up there. :D I felt steal may of been too strong a word. I do feel however that the producers were using the name simply because it was a popular book. I feel this way ANYTIME a book is made into an inaccurate movie however.
Seeing as this discussions seems to be winding down, may I ask your opinion on The Moon is a Harash Mistress? A bit of a utopia novel in my opinion, but another I enjoyed.
rustbucket
11-21-2009, 10:19 AM
However I don't think its even fair to compare the movie to the book - the only things that they have in common are the title, and a character named rico.
You should never compare a book to a screen play!! They are always going to differ greatly! The basics of the story itself are intriguing. Society turning from the ideals of democracy in favor of Fascism/Roman logic. Only the strong should govern, only citizens have rights, liscensure for all aspects of life (having children, voting,etc.), eye for an eye mentality, corporal punishment for even the slightest of infractions, swift justice for extraneous crimes such as murder (Chinese legal system comes to mind), blind military leadership resulting in disasterous military blunders (invasion of Klendathu = first two years of WWI military engagements - underestimating enemy: Anzac's at Tripoli), Propaganda for everything - Germany 1923-1944! The list can go on and on... but the way that the movie was done was creative, cinematically well done, good special effects (unfortunately, not really carried on in 2nd or 3rd, sadly), but good character development in the first: love triangles, wanning friendships, betrayal, distrust, broken hearts and poor decisions which make for a better plot. The only thing I thought was truly ironic was that they were called mobile infantry, but they walked everywhere! They couldn't be dropped at the outpost?? Here you go guys, get out and walk 2 clicks! Also, if you are completely aware that they have bugs the size of concrete trucks, why aren't you going to drop in some tanks with your infantry?? And what about a preliminary bombardment??? Goes back to the WWI mentality. Just a side thought...
Kahoolin
11-21-2009, 04:53 PM
You are wrong however in saying MILITARY men. As I pointed out, I find evidence both in the book and from the author that it if veterans of public service, not military service.You know, the first time I read the book years ago I took "veteran" to mean combat veteran, which is probably why I (and so many others over the years) have read ST as being a bit militaristic. I agree you are right and it means FS veteran, but I do think it was not particularly clear, given the tone of the book.
Seeing as this discussions seems to be winding down, may I ask your opinion on The Moon is a Harash Mistress? A bit of a utopia novel in my opinion, but another I enjoyed.That's one I haven't read unfortunately. I have read ST, Stranger in a Strange Land, The Man Who Sold the Moon, The Puppet Masters (heh, the original body snatchers), The Cat Who Walks Through Walls and The Number of the Beast. The last two are part of his cycle about parallel universes and the war that rages across space and time. Of all of these I thought Starship Troopers was the worst.
My overall feelings about Heinlein are ambivalent. I am always intensely annoyed by his protagonists, and the whole time I'm reading it I'm thinking "why am I reading this, Heinlein always annoys me." But by the end I realize I grudgingly respect the characters, even though they are elitist sexist jerks, which to my mind means Heinlein was a good writer. I just think he allowed his own voice and opinions to overtly invade his work too much for my taste. I suppose that goes with my general feeling that a work's creator should be seen and not heard.
My favourite 20th century sci fi author is hands down Phillip K Dick.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.