Starship Troopers=Politica l Novel?

[Entice]

I just watched a rather terrible science fiction movie, and then learned that its actually based on a political novel. The humans in the story represent a fascist, militaristic "master race", and the aliens represent a "mindless, soulless, inferior race" according to the wikipedia article. The book got mixed reviews, but it ended up winning the Hugo Award for Best novel in 1960. The main argument against the novel appears to be that it has no plot; that its only purpose was to express the author's political views.

So, has anyone actually read the book, and if so, what did you think of the political ideas behind it? The thing that intrigues me about it is that it is on the reading list of several United States military branches. It must be filled with quite a lot of pro-military material.

[chairmankem]

At 10/2/10 03:21 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Odd, because the movie was quite anti-military, what with it showing soldiers acting like Nazis.

Yeah, that's because Paul Verhoeven isn't Robert Heinlein.

[Ericho]

The movie "Starship Troopers" was based on a book by Robert Heinlien. You do know that the directors of that movie heavily implied that the entire movie was pretty much a parody of the novel? The book version had it so that the human characters were very sympathetic and caring, whereas in the movie, they're all nothing but hypocrites who have no concern for anybody's life. It is hard to even consider it an adaptation.

[Leap]

Yes, I've read the book and I've seen most of the movie (I flcked over because even though I a SF I'm not a fan of bad SF)

The book explores some rather interesting ideas, ideas taken to extremes, but interesting ideas none the less. Some have called the future society fascist, it is to some point but not nearly as bad some people make out.

I also find the idea interesting of only being able to vote if you've proved yourself worthy. If that had been the case we'd probably wouldn't have had to endure Bush for 2 terms.

[adrshepard]

I read it years ago, though I seem to remember it being more about exploring the life of an average soldier than any political point of view. Heinlein himself was sympathetic to anarchism, if his book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is any indication of his political views.

The movie was terrible though.

[SolInvictus]

damn all you Starship Troopers haters.

[ninjasversuspirates]

Almost everything in life is tied to politics in one way or another.

[SolInvictus]

At 10/3/10 02:58 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Stupid movie is stupid.

not sure i would call it stupid considering everyone understood what it was attempting to convey... though just cause people understood doesn't mean its particularly good.

[SEXY-FETUS]

The movie was ok if you enjoy cheesy sci-fi, but it's an absolute abortion if you are a fan of the novel.
All of Heinleins political beliefs are portrayed in a classroom setting. The rest of the story is basically a coming of age story for the main character.
As for no plot I'd disagree. People are more upset that it didn't end with a big smackdown military victory, but one of the major points made in the book was that the war would span several lifetimes. So he focused on one character and gave it a fade to black ending.

[magicsalt]

The movie, somewhat a cheesy, WWII era newsreel parody chicken taco, with a smattering of saucy actresses, battered in sci-fi battle gore, CG hot sauce, and peppered with testosterone and Michael Ironside, all rolled up in a B movie pita, is such a taste away from the mild space epic glaze of beefy mech-suits and watered-down-Pepsi battles, marinated in Heinlien's 1940's social commentary, so comparing the two is akin to saying Taco Bell is REAL Mexican food.

I read the book years ago, after having such a good time with the movie. I mean what's NOT to love about that flik? Anyway, the movie is a fun departure on the more serious nature of the book, which was woven with Heinlien's political, military and moral values. The most interesting thread I took away was: Citizenship attainable only through military service. Only citizens can vote, so if you want that right, you'll risk your life for it.

[TheMason]

At 10/2/10 10:39 PM, Leap wrote: I also find the idea interesting of only being able to vote if you've proved yourself worthy. If that had been the case we'd probably wouldn't have had to endure Bush for 2 terms.

Or Obama...
Or Carter...
Or Nixon...

In the "information" and TV ages I often think voters are becoming less informed than ever before...

[TheMason]

I've read the novel and seen the movie. I actually liked both, although I have to seperate the two from each other in order to enjoy both...

I saw a lot of influence by Plato's The Republic in the book. You must earn citizenship...it is not a birthright. You are ruled by an elite similar to the Philosopher-Kings/Guardians of Plato. Rather than getting educated in government and economics, potential citizens are educated in "morals and history" in order to be wise enough to participate in civic life.

On the other hand the movie used much from WWII Nazi propaganda films and analyzed the argument that Plato's work provided a philosophical basis for 20th Century rulers such as Hitler, Stalin and Khomeini.

[ChaosPetra]

I read the book. It was good. The movie was okay, if I refrain from comparing it to the book.

I dunno if I would call it a political novel as much as a commentary on politics.
Perhaps, if I remember correctly, that the point was so:
A citizen is someone who cares deeply enough, is man enough, and resolute enough, to put their life on the line for their beliefs.

It could just be that the author was blamming on worthless human trash that have sprouted up to prominence since the sixties... ah, lovely communist hugging hippies and lovely bitter conservatives... Two sides of the same corrupted coin...

[chaklong]

At 10/3/10 02:58 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 10/3/10 12:47 PM, SolInvictus wrote: damn all you Starship Troopers haters.

Stupid movie is stupid.

THE MOVIE WAS GREAT YOU STUPID LITTTTTTTLLLLLEEEE
JK

but srsly it was not "stupid", it was good movie.

Except the 2nd and 3rd were abit too corny.

Maybe just the 2nd.

[The-General-Public]

At 10/2/10 10:39 PM, Leap wrote:

I also find the idea interesting of only being able to vote if you've proved yourself worthy. If that had been the case we'd probably wouldn't have had to endure Bush for 2 terms.

Or because the military voted overwhelmingly for Bush, we'dve had him for life

[The-General-Public]

At 10/11/10 08:36 AM, TheMason wrote:

On the other hand the movie used much from WWII Nazi propaganda films and analyzed the argument that Plato's work provided a philosophical basis for 20th Century rulers such as Hitler, Stalin and Khomeini.

Which is why the movie is far more enlightening than the book