[removed]
Comments
CaryThezero t1_itnajic wrote
You realize the movie was satire of conservativism, right? And it's damned incredible.
Any earnest reading of the politics of Starship Troopers is...definitely problematic.
penubly t1_itnb0tj wrote
It was never portrayed that way in the build up to the movie release. Clancy Brown famously said "Heinlein would love the movie!" No way he'd love a satirical portrayal of this story.
Problematic can mean anything - be specific.
PuckSR t1_itnbtgu wrote
He was repeatedly quoted as saying that he wasn't advocating for the ideas presented in his books, so I dont know if he would have cared.
Blametheorangejuice t1_itnc1tg wrote
> Clancy Brown famously said "Heinlein would love the movie!"
Actor promotes movie, news at 11.
Lae_Zel t1_itnaz7m wrote
> Most people who I've dealt with haven't really read the novel. They come in with a preconceived notion, usually associated with that horrible movie
The movie is fantastic
Fafnir26 OP t1_itnalff wrote
I´ve seen excerpts. And the movie is fucking brilliant LOL
I am still thinking about reading it, if only to please its fanatical fanbase and being able to discuss it better, just to be clear.
penubly t1_itnbjp2 wrote
Fanatical? I think it's people who've actually read the novel pointing out that there are a lot of misconceptions, many of them from individuals, such as yourself, who are speaking without knowing anything about the source material.
TimDawgz t1_itnczmv wrote
You do realize that he wrote both Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land? They are totally opposite, politically.
Before you try to demonize Heinlien because you think he's a conservative, read both books and see what you think.
Hellblazer1138 t1_itnarn7 wrote
Thank you!
This book gets so much shit from people who've never read the whole thing or just interpreted it as the author advocating fascism, which is hilarious once you read his next book Stranger in a Strange Land and then Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
BooksAreLuv t1_itncfv9 wrote
The movie was pretty solid when you take it as the satire it was intended to be.
_FoodCriticism t1_itnamxh wrote
Do you think you're supposed to agree with the author/narrator here, or are they trying to make the reader question something instead?
Fafnir26 OP t1_itnau8e wrote
I don´t think so.
​
Also please stop downvoting this people, why the hell would you do that?? Can´t stomach that someone doesn´t instantly like it?
Hellblazer1138 t1_itnbd73 wrote
I haven't downvoted anything here myself but I think it's because you're admittingly coming at it with an opinion fully formed without taking the time to read the book to the end.
Fafnir26 OP t1_itnbz4x wrote
So what? Should I assume a child beater has some ingenious way of justifying his ideology just because his fans like him?? AGAIN, I´ve read some of the most relevant passages.
Hellblazer1138 t1_itnd1r1 wrote
So, you've read some sentences in the book and think you know everything about it? You've got to teach me that trick.
You know the main goal of science fiction is to ask questions and draw ideas out to their extremes? That is what Heinlein is doing in the book. He isn't saying that the government in the book is how things should be but how they could turn out. I'd say you should just read the book for yourself but I'm sure at this point you'll only see what you want to see no matter what is there.
Fafnir26 OP t1_itne4nf wrote
Believe me, I am trying to keep an open mind, but some people make it rather difficult.
​
And the thread is closed. Too negative. So how am I going to have an honest discussion about this???
Hellblazer1138 t1_itnf702 wrote
That annoyed me too.
But seriously, you can't read most sci-fi as and avocation of the ideas in the stories. Authors like Heinlein, Asimov and Philip K. Dick loved taking ideas and extrapolation what the future would be like if certain things persisted.
Fafnir26 OP t1_itnfuej wrote
Ok, thats seems like a good tip. Maybe that´ll help me keep an open mind. So is the book a fun read or just aggravating if you are a leftist?
Hellblazer1138 t1_itnhphi wrote
I didn't find it aggravating. I didn't love the main character but I didn't hate him. He's a naïve kid at the start and you're along for his growth. It's sort of geared towards young adults/teens since he was coming off from writing mostly juveniles which are more like Boy Scouts in space.
Some of those juveniles are excellent, like Citizen of the Galaxy & Tunnel in the Sky.
Fafnir26 OP t1_itniior wrote
Okay, I think you convinced me. Might just give it a shot when I can´t stop thinking about it, have such strong feelings about it and the writing is good.
turdfergusonn1 t1_itn9q57 wrote
Something that makes you think from a different point of view of yours I thought would be a good thing? Too many people dismiss povs that are not theirs. Sometimes never understanding an underlying issue they can't see.
Fafnir26 OP t1_itna3jq wrote
Right, thats why I am thinking about reading it...even though I am already depressed.
PuckSR t1_itnbgcm wrote
It is important to remember that Heinlein believed in being a provocateur with his fiction. He repeatedly said that he wasn't advocating for the ideas in his books.
Example: In many of his books, he describes polygamy, polyamory, underage sexual partners, incest, homosexual relationships, and cannibalism(to leave off what happens in Starship Troopers). He may have liked some of these ideas and disliked others? But it is almost certain that he put some of these ideas just to get a reaction and to make people question cultural norms. He liked doing that.
Starship Troopers is mostly told via the perspective of a young man who joins the military somewhat randomly. A lot of his statements could be taken as the brash certainty of a young person wholly confident in their beliefs. For example, at one point there is a rapist who is just summarily executed. The protagonist basically says: "well, we all know there is nothing you can do to fix someone who is a rapist, so we should just kill them with minimal trial and get it over with".
However, the overall story is mostly about how these young people are used as cannon fodder and their lives are basically worthless to the military. In many ways it is a very heavy-handed takedown of the military-industrial complex.
It should be noted that "civil service" isn't just military. In fact, they make it very clear that he could have achieved his service requirement via numerous other less dangerous means.
Bomberman3301 t1_itndhdb wrote
This is even more self evident with Starship Troopers where fascism is given light and the characters discuss the ideals of their ideology and what motivates them; all of which is coming from a libertarian.
Fafnir26 OP t1_itnccng wrote
"In fact, they make it very clear that he could have achieved his service requirement via numerous other less dangerous means."
​
I know, thats why I wonder if I should read it. I could see maaaybe this being a positive thing, but if it really was just military service...
PuckSR t1_itnd0in wrote
As I told someone else, the service requirement is the only thing that he might be advocating for, but it is more of a two-tiered citizenship thing. If you don't serve(provide some service to your country), you get all protections you just dont get to vote. If you do serve, you get to vote.
It isn't exactly a novel idea.
But the gung-ho military stuff? He is definitely writing a lot of that in a way that the reader winds up questioning the positive attributes of 'nationalism' near the end. This is also one of his first books after writing a lot for magazines like Boys' Life, so it is very basic. He gets into a lot more stuff in his later books.
Fafnir26 OP t1_itndl05 wrote
Voting is very important to me, though. What would I get from civil service that makes me a better voter? Either its tyranny or its not worth the hassle in my book. Sorry.
PuckSR t1_itnf7ak wrote
Good for you? But universal suffrage isnt practiced hardly anywhere.
There is a reason you don't have an enumerated right to vote in the USA
Fafnir26 OP t1_itng5ul wrote
But as a citizen of my state I should have the right to vote if I come of age. Maybe even earlier.
PuckSR t1_itngb86 wrote
But from a govt design perspective, why is that good?
Fafnir26 OP t1_itngkm4 wrote
Well the first thing that comes to mind is that it is the most honest representation of the will of the people. Thats what democracy is about, right?
PuckSR t1_itnh0jp wrote
So, do you think foreigners who are living here should get to vote too?
As they are subject to the laws too?
Fafnir26 OP t1_itnhds1 wrote
Well foreigners who live here aren´t foreigners.
PuckSR t1_itni231 wrote
I mean, they literally are?
So under your idea, a country could just send over enough people to swing the vote and then steal that territory from you?
This is the Texas problem
Fafnir26 OP t1_itnixcm wrote
In my understanding most foreigners have to undergo some sort of test to become a citizen and it would take a lot to organize such a "migrant army" before someone stepped in.
PuckSR t1_itnk172 wrote
No, you just said that foreigners who live here aren't foreigners. Apparently they get citizen status as soon as they came here?
So which is it? Can a foreigner be living in the USA?
Fafnir26 OP t1_itnku9v wrote
No, they don´t get citizen status immediately obviously. But if they are permenent residents I wouldn´t consider them foreigners, even if they might not be citizens yet legally.
PuckSR t1_itnm3fc wrote
So they get to vote?
Fafnir26 OP t1_itnmm5t wrote
No, only as citizens. I think that is not controversial, right?
PuckSR t1_itnopph wrote
You just said that everyone subject to the laws of govt should get to vote on that govt.
I'm trying to point out why alternative views should at least be entertained as something beyond "fascism"
Fafnir26 OP t1_ito5ocz wrote
I am not saying that. I want that people with a permanent residence who have taken basics tests for their citizenship should be allowed to vote.
Sure there are opinions other than facism. But what are you trying to prove here?
PuckSR t1_itofug5 wrote
I apologize, I think this is coming off too hostile. My original point was simply that universal suffrage isnt some objectively good thing. You are absolutely free to believe whatever you want, but given the vast number of societies that have implemented non-universal suffrage(and not simply for discriminatory reasons), there must be some good arguments to be made.
My point was that you would probably like Heinlein despite the story saying that suffrage was based on civil service, but maybe you won't? Regardless, it isn't an idea that can be dismissed as political idealogue or conservative
Fafnir26 OP t1_itpj28j wrote
No worries, I´ve heard a lot worse. Though I am not sure what exactly is the problem with universal suffrage. Which people exactly would you exclude from having political power? You´d think a goverment that represents all people living in a state is the most fair.
PuckSR t1_itpuc84 wrote
First of all, I never said I had a problem with universal suffrage.
That being said, there are numerous reasons you might not want to allow every person in your country the right to vote.
- If you allow foreigners to vote, they might move in and vote to capitulate to their home country. Even Athens banned foreigners from voting for this specific reason.
- If you allow children to vote, they might vote poorly
- If you allow criminals to vote, they might vote to end the enforcement of crime
- If you allow the poor to vote, they might vote for something like communism
- If you allow slaves to vote, they might vote to end slavery(ignoring the morality of slavery)
Clearly, I dont support all of those reasons. Slavery should never be allowed in the first place. But, if you live in a society that has legal slavery, that is a very valid reason for not allowing universal suffrage. It is an interesting discussion to have regarding the meta-game of election politics.
I, for one, am a little troubled by the fact that the majority of people who vote in elections can't actually tell you the name of the candidates they are voting for in any office beneath POTUS. They just look for a D or R next to the name. I'd definitely be open to changes in the election system so that people were required to actually know something.
Fafnir26 OP t1_itpzfe5 wrote
Okay, thats good. But you still want to debate about it, so you should name problems if there are any, because I don´t see a lot if any.
I think the way universal suffrage is understood it still excludes children (I´d say give people the vote at 16 at the youngest) and "foreigners". Foreigners is not really precise term, though as you can change your nationality. Also, Athens excluded a whole lot of people if we are talking about ancient Athens.
​
As for criminals, I think they should have at least some say how they are treated, espacially if they suffered from mental ilness, drug addiction, prejudice or poverty. And lets not forget people still sometimes go to prison unjustly. Honestly I am more afraid of people treating criminals cruely than of criminals being able to create some sort of situation were they are coddled by the system.
​
Well, I am not sure if communism works economically but I don´t think they should be totally excluded from politics. We have a far left party here in Germany that has some communists I think. I don´t think its fair to put them on the same level as Nazis, Soviets or even facists (and a facist politician even won an election very recently in Italy).
​
Yeah, that is a problem, but I think the solution is better education and news reporting, not exclusion.
PuckSR t1_itqby4w wrote
>Yeah, that is a problem, but I think the solution is better education and news reporting, not exclusion.
I am just saying it is a discussion worth having. Maybe your solution is better, maybe mine is better. But someone saying that voting rights shouldnt be automatic isn't necessarily evil or malicious. Once again, that is somewhat the point of Heinlein's writing style; perhaps you have never considered an alternative system.
Fafnir26 OP t1_itrackl wrote
Well, I have thought a lot about it and I don´t like it. Maybe my views will change after I read the book? From what I´ve seen the author is not so much persuading the reader as he is preaching, though. But I will check out Starship Troopers now. Probably after I finished Salambo. And then maybe reward myself with A Knight in Anarchy. I am more of a history and fantasy guy to Sci Fi. I prefer swords over guns personally. Honestly, they seem like the more honorable weapon.
PuckSR t1_itraoax wrote
No, and that was my original point.
The entire story is told from the perspective of a cock-sure young man who is slowly learning about the realities of the world. You can't interpret any of the narrator's promotion of the govt agenda as true advocacy.
It would be like watching JoJo Rabbit and thinking that the director was pro-Nazi because the protagonist is pro-Nazi
Fafnir26 OP t1_itrixqq wrote
Oooookay, then tell me this, why are so many people defending this books ideas?? Whats the point? LOL
PuckSR t1_itroivv wrote
Some people are Nazis and think the Nazis are right. When they watch JoJo Rabbit, they see their beliefs reflected in this part of the movie.
That doesn't mean that the intent of the director/author has anything to do with how people interpret their book.
Fafnir26 OP t1_itrpy13 wrote
Fair enough, so you are really saying Heinlein wrote this book just to basicly say every view expressed in it was bullshit?
PuckSR t1_itrrjlf wrote
Nope. Heinlein wrote this book as a commentary on nationalism. But, he used elements of this fictional universe to juxtapose them with existing systems to make the reader consider if one was better or worse.
This is a standard practice in fiction when the alternative universe is not dystopian or utopian.
Fafnir26 OP t1_itrvek6 wrote
Uh huh. Problem is I already have an opinion on nationalism. I think its counterproductive, espacially in our time with global problems like climate change and the migration crisis.
PuckSR t1_itrz1ay wrote
Then you'd probably like the book?
Fafnir26 OP t1_its09sf wrote
I guess? If it does allow for a critical view of its politics. I´ll have to make sure. Watching JoJo Rabbit now, though and its definately more satirical than the book. Kinda fun though even if its just Nazis being awful and funny so far, nothing deeper.
StalkerBro95 t1_itn9zaj wrote
The point of the book is to be a criticism of facism viewed through that eyepiece. It's not supposed to be enticing or anything.
It's over the top, in your face about it as a cautionary tale. It's almost satirical in writing. Anyone who defends what's in the book, completely missed the point of the book. It's an incredible book when you understand what's actually written.
Frankennietzsche t1_itnanxz wrote
This also can be said about the movie.
penubly t1_itnc5j2 wrote
I submit that you missed the entire point of the novel.
It's a defense of those who serve, an essay on what is the nature of service and responsibility, and a proposal of a system that attempts to reward service rather than granting franchise to anyone.
Fafnir26 OP t1_itnacth wrote
I think you are wrong. The movie was satirical. The book is not a criticism of the system described or its fans.
StalkerBro95 t1_itnap64 wrote
Heinlein was a libertarian and an absolute critic of government involvement on personal freedoms. It was a critique.
Fafnir26 OP t1_itnb323 wrote
Prove it. And if it was a critique there sure are a lot of people that like these encroachments of goverment.
StalkerBro95 t1_itnbbxr wrote
I'm not the author I can't get exactly what his views were definitely when writing the book but if you read any of his other work, especially The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, you'll see that he's much more antigov/anticontrok than anything.
People who use this book to twist it is as support of fascism are prob fascist themselves. Doesn't make them right. I would absolutely advise you not to converse with anyone like that.
PuckSR t1_itnceed wrote
His other book basically advocates for a post-scarcity communist Utopia where space-Jesus comes down and dies for our sins so that we can all live in what is essentially equivalent to a hippy commune.
The entire book (Starship Troopers) is presented from the perspective of an 18yo who joined the military for glory.
Now, as for the civil service thing? He basically copied the dual-level citizenship of countries like Rome, where there was a difference between having voting rights and being protected. Heck, even some stock shares operate on a similar principle.
I don't think you could view that election system as fascist and that is just about the only thing in the book that isn't presented as a mistake.
ActonofMAM t1_itncqh5 wrote
Definitely read it. It's quite readable. And yes, the movie is definitely twisted into "look at these evil Nazi people" when in fact the author (Annapolis grad, medical discharge with tuberculosis) spent World War II trying to pull every string to get back in uniform and on active duty.
The two points I consider most important at the moment:
-- having gotten past the travesty of the script adaptation, the movie viewer in me now rolls eyes the most at the "FTL probes fired by bug farts" and the appalling lack of powered armor. I don't think Heinlein invented it -- Doc Smith certainly had some in the Lensmen books -- but he perfected it. A "Starship Troopers" movie without powered armor is almost equivalent to a "Run Silent, Run Deep" remake without submarines. Heck, those guys didn't even have sleeves on their uniforms to protect their arms from light scratches.
Heinlein famously said that readers who wanted to understand his thinking should read "Starship Troopers," "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," and "Stranger in a Strange Land" side by side. Also, to think of all three books as posing philosophical questions rather than imposing answers.
Fafnir26 OP t1_itnd3wl wrote
Uh huh. I still feel uncomfortable by how popular the ideas expressed in the book are...
Also, I actually like that there was no power armor in the movie. Kinda shows that this is a totalitarian nightmare not a "libertarian" fantasy here.
Ok_Aioli1990 t1_itnhlak wrote
He wrote the book as a homage to the common infantryman. It's in his dedication. It's also I think him asking questions. Asking the reader to think about what the price of survival is. At what point do you lose your humanity? How do keep it and survive as a species? When you ask your youngest to fight for you and become maimed in body and soul, do they not deserve that "privilege"? He also advocated in the book that the officers fought with their men and never left them behind. Heinlein had many questions and thoughts in all of his books and left the thinking to you.
TimDawgz t1_itnblej wrote
What I took away from Starship Troopers was an argument for an informed electorate over a completely free election.
I don't agree with taking away anyone's right to vote, but that does lead us to our current situation where wingnuts and celebrities get elected because they attract attention instead of substantive governance.
Fafnir26 OP t1_itnckj2 wrote
Our problem is the capitalists, not the "wingnuts". Defund the police, if not misreprensented, is radical, but good. Certainly better than reform the police or "law and order".
PotterAndPitties t1_itn9kg2 wrote
Having never read it, is the author truly using it to do this or as a cautionary tale?
Fafnir26 OP t1_itn9yv6 wrote
Its definately NOT a cautionary tale despite how horrible it sounds.
tangential_quip t1_itndcrm wrote
Just because an author writes about a facist society it doesn't mean he is advocating for that ideology, even if it isn't clearly satirical or critical. You can't make that assumption. Nor is that assumption consistent with Heinlein's other works.
old_sgt_h t1_itnctsa wrote
The book is very different than the movie. The filmmakers said they only used a few basic ideas from the book for the movie.
I always enjoy the movie for it's satire. It was very well done as a "spoof" of the system it portrays.
The book is slower-paced and while it appears to promote the system it describes I'm not sure it does a great job. The ideas are presented well but to me it comes off sluggish and too wordy. The action of the movie has a lot more life to it than the book.
But, if you're just reading "for interest" then go for it. Just don't expect to make a direct comparison between the two.
books-ModTeam t1_itndl9i wrote
Per rule 3.14 No DAE, TIL, or Unpopular Opinion type threads. The answer to any question beginning with the words 'does anybody else...' is literally always yes, and the answer to any question beginning with 'am I the only one...' is literally always no. You are far from the only reader to have come up with this idea/habit/thought and we are not here to provide you with praise or validation. These threads should be rephrased to provide significant content for discussion and less clickbait titles, or posted in their respective dedicated subreddits. You may also find what you are looking for in our FAQ.
Mycakeissomoist t1_itnb486 wrote
My limited understanding was that the movie was made intentionally bad to underscore that it was to be taken as satyr, mocking the military complex and extreme violence/views. Having never read the book I would have assumed that it was also written to be satyr. As with all artforms, it's open to interpretation. So, at the very least, it could be read as such. It sounds like you're interested in reading it, so do, but don't take it literally.
Edit: satire* too many fantasies
Fafnir26 OP t1_itnbph8 wrote
Dude, the author stood behind some of the stuff you see in the film. The author made it intentionally horrible to satirize the book he hated and aparently barely read.
Ok_Aioli1990 t1_itndefn wrote
I believe you mean the director as Heinlein was deceased when this movie was made
Fafnir26 OP t1_itndoxb wrote
Yeah, sorry.
Mycakeissomoist t1_itnfolh wrote
My point still stands. It's an artform, interpret it how you want. An artist creates in hopes of eliciting a thought/feeling/reaction. They are not in control of what you think/feel/do.
Fafnir26 OP t1_itnfzji wrote
Good point.
Hellblazer1138 t1_itnbugp wrote
It's not exactly satire but it's not an avocation of the form the government takes in the book. Heinlein is taking the idea and running with it.
penubly t1_itna09x wrote
Most people who I've dealt with haven't really read the novel. They come in with a preconceived notion, usually associated with that horrible movie, and usually don't have anything from the novel to back up their point.
It's definitely more conservative in tone than more recent novels, but it's not as extreme as often portrayed in this sub. My question - if you've never read the novel then how the hell do you have an opinion based on knowledge of the novel?