# Starship Troopers, by Robert A Heinlein – book and film



## Anthony G Williams (Jun 20, 2009)

I read a lot of Heinlein in the 1960s, when I absorbed all of the SFF I could get my hands on, but was never a great fan and didn't read any of his books more than once. I remember enjoying *Starship Troopers*, though, so looked forward to a re-read with the Classic Science Fiction discussion group. Coincidentally, the film of the book was on the TV just before I read it, so I recorded it to watch immediately after the read.

I remembered nothing about the plot except for what is obviously implied by the title, and those cool combat suits; part exoskeleton, part armour, part space-suit, part weapon carrier (probably what appealed to my teenage self!). I was at first impressed by the way in which the blunt, matter-of-fact style is well-suited to the subject of a personal memoir by a no-nonsense soldier, and followed his account of life on a future Earth and training in the "boot camp" with interest. I was not immediately put off by the right-wing moralising, since that seemed to go with the territory, but about half-way through this becomes the dominant theme. 

An entire chapter is spent recalling a school lesson in which he learned the importance of corporal and capital punishment, and how stupid societies had been to abandon them in the late 20th century. Reading now from an adult perspective, I'd certainly agree that too many children are brought up badly today and lack a structured disciplinary environment, but the notion that if we always hit them immediately they did anything wrong they would grow up to be model citizens is simplistic, to put it mildly. So is Heinlein's notion that children are not born with any moral sense, it has to be beaten into them. Plenty of studies have shown how people, like other social animals, are hard-wired to have an understanding of working cooperatively with others and adhering to the behavioural codes which make that possible – the basis of morality. 

Elsewhere in the book is another polemic about the evils of universal franchise, and why governments should be controlled only by those who have volunteered for military service and passed the rigorous training designed to weed out those without the "right stuff". In fact, the entire book is a paean to the virtues of the military life, the harsher the better, and also to unthinking obedience untroubled by any concerns about right or wrong – that's the responsibility of those who give the orders. And this so soon after Nuremburg?

The last part of the book returns to action rather than polemic and is all the better for it. The book is not without its merits, mainly the laconic and gritty account of future combat which presumably influenced Haldeman's vastly superior *The Forever War*. However, the plot gets swamped by the repellent philosophy. This is best regarded as a curiosity, mainly of value in providing an insight into the mind of right-wing America in the mid-20th century.
------------------------------
Watching the film, made in 1997 some 38 years after the book was first published, is a rather strange experience. It's as if the characters and plot elements of the book have been chopped up and rearranged, with some additions and subtractions, and the attributes of one character sometimes assigned to another. The script stays broadly true to the spirit of the book, with Heinlein's jingoism parodied in a series of simplistic, gung-ho news broadcasts. There are some major differences, however. One is (almost inevitably) a much stronger romance element, achieved partly by making the Mobile Infantry mixed rather than male-only. The other (sadly) is the absence of those impressive combat suits and the tactics associated with them. Apart from the grenade-sized tactical nukes, the infantry fight with equipment and tactics not dissimilar to those of World War 2, which makes the military aspect of the film rather a sad joke. And as usual, the director is keen to maximise the use of the CGI "Bugs" with lots of associated nastiness and slaughter. He also doesn't remotely care about basic credibility; the Bug homeworld is shown as being on the other side of the galaxy (at least 50,000 light years away) but their favourite mode of attack is to launch asteroids from the belt around their planet to score direct hits on specific Earth cities, despite the lack of evidence for any technology. Given that a human spaceship was able to take action to avoid a collision with an incoming asteroid, they clearly travel at a small fraction of lightspeed, so would be likely to take at least a million years to make the journey. No wonder today's youngsters are so ignorant of science.
------------------------------
A brief heads-up for those who followed my series of posts on *Global Warming and SF*. I have combined and updated them and put the result on my website as a handy reference (to be amended in the light of any further developments) here: Global Warming and SF

(An extract from my SFF blog)


----------



## The Ace (Jun 20, 2009)

The only thing the book and film have in common is the title.  The film was cr*p.


----------



## Vargev (Jun 20, 2009)

I quite liked the first film, the other straight to dvd ones were an utter snoozefest.


----------



## Rodders (Jun 20, 2009)

Yes i have to agree. OK, the film was not in the same league as the book, but there were some good aspects about it. It was a good romp.


----------



## Moggle (Jun 20, 2009)

Denise Richards was so hot back then.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jun 20, 2009)

*Re: Starship Troopers, by Robert A Heinlein – book and film*

Well I've not read the book yet and keep getting put off by everyone's negative reviews of it. I loved the film myself but ignored the fact that it Based on a novel by Heinlein. I always know they're gonna be worlds apart no matter what book it is. If you compare the two you're always in for disappointment. When it  comes to movies one should be prepared to just switch off the brain and enjoy the fun.


----------



## Rodders (Jun 20, 2009)

I think that i just bears a passing resemblance to Heinlein's Starship Troopers in the same way as Total Recall bears a passing resemblance to We can remember it for you wholesale. 

I'd read it though AE.


----------



## Pyan (Jun 20, 2009)

*Re: Starship Troopers, by Robert A Heinlein – book and film*



AE35Unit said:


> Well I've not read the book yet and keep getting put off by everyone's negative reviews of it.



Don't be put off, Larry - read it and make your own mind up. 

Personally, I'd rate it in my top three RAH books*, and my copy has been re-read so often that the spine is totally unreadable with all the cracks in it.




* Top three, in no order:


_Starship Troopers_
_The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_
_Time Enough for Love_


----------



## AE35Unit (Jun 21, 2009)

*Re: Starship Troopers, by Robert A Heinlein – book and film*



pyan said:


> Don't be put off, Larry - read it and make your own mind up.
> 
> Personally, I'd rate it in my top three RAH books*,
> 
> ...



Your second recommendation is the one i'm interested in! Must find a copy of Moon...


----------



## Moggle (Jun 23, 2009)

AE35Unit said:


> Well I've not read the book yet and keep getting put off by everyone's negative reviews of it. I loved the film myself but ignored the fact that it Based on a novel by Heinlein. I always know they're gonna be worlds apart no matter what book it is. If you compare the two you're always in for disappointment. When it  comes to movies one should be prepared to just switch off the brain and enjoy the fun.



I don't know what you're talking about.  A great number of ppl love this book no matter how insanely boring it is.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jun 23, 2009)

*Re: Starship Troopers, by Robert A Heinlein – book and film*

Moggle,yet another negative and seemingly derogatory(and pointless) post by you!


----------



## iansales (Jun 23, 2009)

The book is rubbish, the film is excellent. Verhoeven did the only thing possible with the book: he made it a satire.


----------



## Connavar (Jun 23, 2009)

AE35Unit said:


> Well I've not read the book yet and keep getting put off by everyone's negative reviews of it. I loved the film myself but ignored the fact that it Based on a novel by Heinlein. I always know they're gonna be worlds apart no matter what book it is. If you compare the two you're always in for disappointment. When it  comes to movies one should be prepared to just switch off the brain and enjoy the fun.



Whose bad reviews ?   Its an award winning classic piece of sf.  Not the best thing Heinlein has done but for a juvie of his its a great book.

Iansales is prolly the only one in these forums that dont see any merit in it.

You can love the movie and still enjoy the book.   Its like I am Legend book,film  I,Robot film,book nothing in common but the title really.


----------



## iansales (Jun 23, 2009)

Conn, I don't think I'm the only one. In fact, in the UK it's generally considered inferior to the film.


----------



## Connavar (Jun 23, 2009)

iansales said:


> Conn, I don't think I'm the only one. In fact, in the UK it's generally considered inferior to the film.



I was thinking about the number of us fans here in the chrons contra the ones that dislike it .

Sure some in these forums might not like it but not many have called it rubbish like you did.   I know your taste in sf, i have read your blogs.  I understand,respect other people opinions one of my favorite writers.  

I just said to AE35unit that there is many people who like the book too


----------



## Pyan (Jun 23, 2009)

iansales said:


> Conn, I don't think I'm the only one. In fact, in the UK it's generally considered inferior to the film.


 
Hmm...is that just your opinion, Ian, or can you back it up in any way?


----------



## Fried Egg (Jun 23, 2009)

I'm quite keen to read this...I'm hoping I really like it so I can tell *Iansales* how wrong he is!


----------



## iansales (Jun 23, 2009)

Pyan, that's a general impression I've gained over many years attending UK sf conventions. I certainly know plenty of people who would agree with me. I also think Heinlein is held in higher regard in the US than he is in the UK - only a handful of his books are still in print here, for example.


----------



## blacknorth (Jun 23, 2009)

I would agree with Iansales on this one. Heinlein doesn't seem to have the reputation in the UK that he does in the US. 

I have most of his novels but only made it through four or five before deciding enough was enough. Stranger In A Strange Land almost killed my interest in SF full stop, and Farnham's Freehold was the novel that certainly killed my interest in Heinlein.

A few years ago I was in an Oxfam bookshop and picked a Heinlein book from the shelf - an American tourist who happened to be in remarked 'Got a Heinlein, did you?' - I quickly returned the book to the shelf and left.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jun 23, 2009)

*Re: Starship Troopers, by Robert A Heinlein – book and film*

Wow thats weird blacknorth,cos I found Stranger in a Strange Land to be hugely entertaining-its what woke me up to Heinlein in fact!


----------



## blacknorth (Jun 23, 2009)

I suppose it's each to their own really. But, to go back to _Starship Troopers_, I think it's a very entertaining read.


----------



## Toby Frost (Jun 24, 2009)

Well, I'm from the UK, but although I've no idea what the general view in Britain is, I agree with Iansales' point that the film is more successful as a film than the book is as a book. Leaving aside the politics of the book, I think it is not very well structured and doesn't make its case very well. I can think of people I disagree with who are very persusasive writers, and sadly Heinlein isn't one of them - at least in this book.


----------



## Connavar (Jun 24, 2009)

Tobytwo said:


> Well, I'm from the UK, but although I've no idea what the general view in Britain is, I agree with Iansales' point that the film is more successful as a film than the book is as a book. Leaving aside the politics of the book, I think it is not very well structured and doesn't make its case very well. I can think of people I disagree with who are very persusasive writers, and sadly Heinlein isn't one of them - at least in this book.



Have you read another book of his ?

There are some books of quality writers that i cant enjoy at all.  No one writes good books every time.

I can say that he let the politics,ideas overrule the other elements in ST.  That hasnt happened in the other books of his i have read.  Even if it was a straight action,adventure military SF i thought Starship Troopers was quality.  The military action was done very well the few scenes there were.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: Starship Troopers, by Robert A Heinlein – book and film*

I read somewhere that this book alienated a lot of his fans when it was first published.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 25, 2009)

AE35Unit said:


> I read somewhere that this book alienated a lot of his fans when it was first published.


 
I have trouble accepting that claim (not yours, but the source where you ran across it) as much of what is in there isn't greatly (if at all) different from things in his earlier books. I can believe that those who encountered him first through *Stranger in a Strange Land*, and took that to be "typical" Heinlein, would be alienated by *Starship Troopers*... though, to be honest, a closer examination of the two will reveal more similarities in philosophy than otherwise. I've encountered my share of hippies, ex-flower-children, and the like, who absolutely _loved_ *Stranger*, and reacted like scalded cats (sorry, Nesa!) to *ST*... but Heinlein hadn't changed; it was simply a different approach and a different type of book, that's all.

My suggestion: forget all the hype, good and bad, and read the darned thing. It's not exactly a very long book, so it won't involve a huge investment in time; and it's had enough printings to make it fairly easy to come across used. Read it, and make up your own mind; don't be scared off because of the controversy.

Myself... I quite like the book (though I certainly didn't when I first read it -- too many differences from my own approach), and I periodically go back for a reread to this day. My own take on it is that, as a didactic novel (the genre to which it belongs, really), it is actually rather well done; certainly, it beats many another such that I've read, whatever their other virtues, when it comes to tying the didacticism to some form of dramatic action or character development; and I enjoy the way this is something of the capstone to various themes developed in his juveniles (which are nearly all well worth reading... even *Rocket Ship Galileo*, despite being clunky here and there, has things to recommend it, IMO).

As for the film... while I can appreciate what he was doing, I'm afraid I feel it was far too heavy handed in general, where the irony simply became like a bludgeon where subtlety would have served much better to satirize what he was aiming at, and it also was far too farcical... and I've never been a fan of farce. Some nice things there, but I've never been able to actually like the film enough to sit through the entire thing (though I have seen it all in bits and pieces here and there)....


----------



## Connavar (Jun 26, 2009)

Thats why im so glad Starship Troopers was my first RAH book.   I picked it up from the library and read it without knowing anything about except being a juvie and Heinlein was some important SF author heh.

Everything in the book was fresh to me.   If i would read it now knowing the so called controversy it wouldnt be the same.


----------



## Toby Frost (Jun 26, 2009)

I've read two other Heinleins: Star Beast, which was entertaining enough when I was young, and The Puppet Masters, which I remember as being very good. I should point out that both of these worked perfectly well as books: my argument (here) is that Starship Troopers doesn't work very well as a novel, no matter its politics.

Though I agree that different facets of an author can appear in different books. It is a rare novel that shows the whole of its author, and probably not a good one.


----------



## iansales (Jun 26, 2009)

Other novels by Heinlein I've read - or at least I remember having read: *Space Cadet*, *The Day After Tomorrow*, *The Puppet Masters*, *Starman Jones*, *Citizen of the Galaxy*, *Have Space Suit—Will Travel*, *Stranger in a Strange Land*, *Glory Road*, *Farnham's Freehold*, *I Will Fear No Evil*, *The Number of the Beast*, *Friday*, *Job: A Comedy of Justice*, *The Cat Who Walks Through Walls*, *To Sail Beyond the Sunset* and three or four collections.

And of those, I'd say the juveniles were easily the best. But later this year I plan to reread *Stranger in a Strange Land*, so perhaps we'll see what I make of that...


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 26, 2009)

iansales said:


> And of those, I'd say the juveniles were easily the best...


 
Jack Williamson was of the same opinion, as I recall. He did an essay on Heinlein's juveniles which is worth looking up sometime....


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 11, 2022)

I like the book but am not a fan of the film

I do like the tv series series *Roughnecks The Starship Trooper Chronicles *


----------



## Straitlace (Feb 11, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> I like the book but am not a fan of the film
> 
> I do like the tv series series *Roughnecks The Starship Trooper Chronicles *


Thanks. I'll check it out!


----------



## KGeo777 (Feb 18, 2022)

I didn't care for the film when I first saw it but after a few years it had more relevance and I could understand it better. The satire extends to the romance and that throws you off a lot because it's not relatable.
I.e. the fact that Rico ignores Dizzy (which is really hard to believe if it was real life-he was pretty stupid) and is only interested in Carmen, who is only interested in her career. At the end Rico finds his place by realizing he needs to serve the state and that brings fulfillment.
Verhoeven mentioned that he wanted to make the society functional---it has no crime,  education standards are very good, women have important roles in the society.
It's not a fascist society--someone pointed that out. You can leave military service any time you want to.
The ending with the Brain Bug and them cheering to find out it is afraid.
This is a case where you are meant to sympathize with the Other despite no humanizing element to it. There's something off-putting to the film.

 I agree it is heavy-handed--because the characters are not relatable--there's something artificial to it. But it is smarter than it first appears.

*Jean Rasczak:* This year in history, we talked about the failure of democracy, how the social scientists of the 21st Century brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since. We talked about the rights and privileges between those who served in the armed forces and those who haven’t, therefore called citizens and civilians. _[to  student]_ You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?

*Student:* It’s a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.

*Jean Rasczak:* No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.


----------



## Toby Frost (Feb 18, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> *Jean Rasczak:* No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.



Except that Rasczak could give voting any name he wanted, but it has to involve violence because that's how his brain works. He might as well say that if I buy a can of coke, I'm using violence, because removing the can from the shop will "force" the shop to stock more cans. But I think Verhoeven knows that, and is mocking the way that his version of the Federation is so militarised that it has to describe everything in these fake tough-guy terms.

It is definitely a much cleverer film than it first seems. Some of the satire is pretty blatant (Doogie Howser dressed as a Nazi!) but other bits are quite subtle.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 18, 2022)

Nevermind


----------



## KGeo777 (Feb 18, 2022)

Toby Frost said:


> It is definitely a much cleverer film than it first seems. Some of the satire is pretty blatant (Doogie Howser dressed as a Nazi!) but other bits are quite subtle.


The co-ed naked scene in the shower (which Verhoeven filmed with himself being nude). The idea is that there's such controlled sexuality in that society, and you need a permit to have a child.

And Rico only notices Dizzy when Rasczak tells him to notice her.

But other things--like it was said to be a satire on America and the right wing--but if that is true, why is the head of the military a black woman? That's not following the 1990s trends on right wing attitudes.

And also the reporter who says a "live and let live" philosophy may be best--he gets ripped into pieces.


----------



## Toby Frost (Feb 18, 2022)

I always got the feeling that in the film (but not the book) mankind had unified, but considered itself a master race compared to aliens, as opposed to bits of mankind considering themselves superior to other bits. Which is sort of a warped version of the struggle over resources that the book talks about, maybe.

I think one of the strengths of the satire in the film is that while I know what Verhoeven's view of it all is, he doesn't hammer it home too obviously, and so the reporter gets killed. Besides, by then I guess the time for talking was over...


----------



## KGeo777 (Feb 19, 2022)

Toby Frost said:


> I think one of the strengths of the satire in the film is that while I know what Verhoeven's view of it all is, he doesn't hammer it home too obviously, and so the reporter gets killed. Besides, by then I guess the time for talking was over...


I get the impression he doesn't have a sincere political axe to grind--he knows what he has to say to appease the funding body in interviews, but it's really an opportunity to  express his wild sensibilities, especially with sex and violence. He seems to want to push the boundaries with that more than anything else.


----------



## KGeo777 (Feb 19, 2022)

Verhoeven's main thematic interest seems to be individuality--Robocop, Total Recall, and Starship Troopers have that idea.
Is Rico an individual? He joined the military because his teacher and Carmen joined, while Dizzy seemed to join mainly to find Rico. She's the only one who is motivated by love.

Also Rico's parents are rather anonymous. You don't relate to them either--despite the father criticizing Rasczak.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Feb 20, 2022)

For me , Starship Troopers the movie is about a ,militaristic regime that has united Earth but made it aggressively militaristically territorial and expansionist.* '... to ensure that human civilisation - not insect - dominates this galaxy'* , which kind of suggests that the human race has conquered and subjugated other terrestrials.

It's almost as if the old Roman Empire survived, thrived and ultimately dominated the globe. Then went on to dominate space.

I know many don't, but I really like this film, partly because it's a great sci-fi action movie, partly because the there's something niggling at the back of your brain making you wonder if 'we' are the bad guys and it's the bugs we should be rooting for.

Anyway, I've just bought the bought , so it will be interesting to see how it compares.


----------



## KGeo777 (Feb 20, 2022)

paranoid marvin said:


> I know many don't, but I really like this film, partly because it's a great sci-fi action movie, partly because the there's something niggling at the back of your brain making you wonder if 'we' are the bad guys and it's the bugs we should be rooting for.


You are right--the terrestrial conquest idea--they have the cow, and the ferret, influenced by mind control.

It's impressive that that feeling is created because the bugs are so alien in appearance and no personality either.


----------



## pogopossum (Feb 20, 2022)

Read all Heinlein, starting 60 years ago with his juveniles. Got Starship as a present from my brother when it came out.
Most of the criticism of the book is that it is a coming of age adventure that disguises a militaristic neo-facist philosophy.
The assumption is that Heinlein due to his military career was a militaristic idealouge, a supposition not generally supported by his other books or his participation and leadership in the Upton Sinclair End Poverty in California movement.
When someone said something like, "Just because it was used in a book, don't assume that the author believes it."  Virginia Heinlein responded"You got that right." Fred Pohl, a friend and correspondent, said that "Robert - - -may have been embodied as a conventional hard-right conservative but whose writing was — — that of a free-thinking iconoclast"
.Personally I think that Starship glorifies military & militarism. Other RAH glorifies free love, sleazy politics, anti-racism and attacks cops as petty sadists. Take your pick.


----------



## Toby Frost (Feb 21, 2022)

My main criticism of the book is that it's a load of tiresome authorial lectures in place of the action story that was promised. The fact that it tells some people what they want to hear (and tells others very much what they don't want to hear) doesn't make it a good book.

That said, I do find it hard to believe that someone would bother to write a 200-page set of lectures advocating something with which he disagreed.


----------



## .matthew. (Feb 22, 2022)

@pogopossum It's important to remember that Heinlein's politics changed a lot over his lifetime, with issues such as nuclear testing and the Cold War moving him away from the Democrat who Asimov described as a 'flaming liberal' pre WW2, to declaring himself to no longer be a Democrat in the post-war years. After Hiroshima he started to believe that the only way to achieve world peace and survival of the human race was for a single world government to be formed, which in itself isn't fascism any more than any other size of government is - fascism being how you rule, not how many.

He also preached openly against communism and in favour of individual freedoms which is distinctly against the fascist ideology.

In Starship Troopers, the book goes out of its way to not ascribe any sort of racial or gender-based discrimination, it makes clear that all people regardless of anything - including disabilities - have the option to serve, and that the government will find roles for anyone. This makes earning their franchise a possibility for all, with no artificial barriers put in place - except I think no women in the Mobile Infantry, although they made up most of the Navy pilots. I recall this being to the point where they were just inventing jobs for people because of how many recruits they had. It didn't even require a specific political alignment to serve, merely that they be willing to gamble their lives for society. 

We don't see that much of his idealised society that was formed through this, but the main character's parents are rich civilians who mock the citizens for not being able to succeed on their own. Even in the movie - which was a deliberate satire of the book - they were able to offer to send Rico to Harvard despite them not being citizens and his poor grades. This shows a certain level of parity in which the citizens don't appear to get major advantages in society, save for the right to vote or stand as politicians. I don't see this as a realistic interpretation of what would happen though.

Now, it's been a while so I can't recall if the book shows any specific fascism in the way the state is run, so I may be wrong about this, but it seems that his concept for the world was one where people were free to make their own choices but would have to live with the consequences of them. A world that taught that personal responsibility was the thing that made a person an adult. There was also something about how citizens weren't inherently any better than civilians but on average they were more willing to sacrifice for society than others, making them more capable of making decisions for the human race as a whole.

@Toby Frost The book was originally written as a two-part serial thing he knocked out in a couple of weeks in direct response to the anti-nuclear testing movement. It kinda seems like it was never intended to be an action-packed romp.


----------



## Toby Frost (Feb 22, 2022)

.matthew. said:


> The book was originally written as a two-part serial thing he knocked out in a couple of weeks



That would make sense. I do wonder why it's become such a big thing. I suspect it may mean something to US readers that it doesn't to Europeans, and I think there was some issue about it being marketed for children when it first came out. 

For what it's worth, I don't think it's "fascist", which is almost impossible to define anyhow. Its setting is full of fake tough guys, and would be a breeding ground for thugs and bullies but as far as I can tell, the Federation isn't technically fascist.


----------



## KGeo777 (Feb 22, 2022)

Fascism in practic once you cut through the hysterics  seems to be  where the government makes decisions which it thinks is beneficial for the survival of majority homogeneous population. Communism is where the government makes decisions it thinks is in the best interests of the minority population-the majority does not matter or inevitably the majority is seen as the enemy. An unworkable situation.
Centralized world government means a loss of cultural independence and heritage expression and that's why it just doesn't work.
I don't think fascism with a capital F works either-hwat exampels are there of it in the 20th century-Franco I guess is the only example of a government that endured. One thing I heard about it is that he banned bullfighting and animal torture sports (throwing goats off rooftops). Without Mussolini there may not have been career for Fellini. Mussolini prevented Hollywood from dominating Italian cinema.

Peter Ustinov said:
_World government is not only possible, it is inevitable; and when it comes, it will appeal to patriotism in its truest, in its only sense, the patriotism of men who love their national heritages so deeply that they wish to preserve them in safety for the common good._


----------



## pogopossum (Feb 22, 2022)

I quoted Virginia Heinlein above to make the point that sometimes ideas presented in a story are part of the story, not necessarily what the author believes. In *The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress *and in many books going back to his juveniles he presents big government as organized injustice against creative free thinking persons. He also has democracy as the expression of the will of the people - not necessarily benificent, but often positive. See: _*Double Star *_& *Stranger. *His rationale for veterans running things in *Starship *is that "It works."
I do see his idealized military as a story idea that in some ways reflected his conservatism, but I would point out that earlier stories written a lot closer to his own military service do not extoll the military. The only military one that I can remember is _*Misfit*_, which introduces Andy Libby and presents a pretty bland working outfit.
Being anti-Communist is obviously not the same thing as being anti-democratic. It's been 30 years since I looked at *Grumbles From The Grave, *but I do remember his extreme anti-Communism, expressed with reactions to specifics of government lies he experienced in a tour of the USSR.
I'll stand with my quote from Fred Pohl that RAH was a "Free thinking iconoclast".
And I would also say that in all of his books, he was the greatest exponent of John Cambell's "Capable Man' (and in a few caes woman) not a fascist ideal when it (they) often oppose government by their very (in his books) existence.


----------



## .matthew. (Feb 22, 2022)

I've always seen fascism as an overbearing hand, the centralisation of power within a state with a goal of efficiency, whatever the detrimental effects on individual members of the nation.

There can be any number of other ideologies at play within a fascist state, but if the end goal is the complete authority to facilitate their master plan then it's probably fascism.

In that way, the Terran Whatever in Starship Troopers exists in that wheelhouse, but since they do seem to care about what happens to everyone, not merely the citizens, all the while giving anyone the opportunity to become a citizen regardless of personal factors, it would imply a softer fascism with a focus on duty only when it is chosen by the individual.

So they do have that complete authority, but don't appear to wield it like a hammer. The book mentions that people do complain about it, but really, people will complain about anything, and going over to the movie which again was a satire of fascism, it didn't even seem that bad there. They had TV interviews with people arguing their points, the news media was allowed on the front lines and weren't censored, even being allowed to question the administration on grounds of 'live and let live.' Both in the book and the film made by a man who detested fascism because of his life experiences, people weren't conscripted to fight and society as a whole seemed to be dismissive of citizens rather than afraid of them, that doesn't sound like proper fascism at all.

While the open propaganda segments in the film were made to look pretty bad, in times of war governments have to do that, I doubt there's been a war in history where propaganda wasn't used, regardless of the system of government. Also, has anyone noticed that they were basically predicting YouTube a decade before it existed?


----------



## KGeo777 (Feb 22, 2022)

The term fascism like racism has no meaning anymore.
The Dalai Lama was labeled a fascist because he said refugees should return home to rebuild their homelands.
It's a madhouse in terms of irrational moral statements these days.
Antifa has been called fascist--how stupid can it get when the term antifa means "anti-fascist?"


----------



## .matthew. (Feb 22, 2022)

There's a thing known as aggressive mimicry in the animal kingdom... it relates.


----------



## Toby Frost (Feb 23, 2022)

The Federation aren't fascists - they're just jerks.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 25, 2022)

Toby Frost said:


> The Federation aren't fascists - they're just jerks.



That works


----------



## Swank (Feb 26, 2022)

Toby Frost said:


> I suspect it may mean something to US readers that it doesn't to Europeans, and I think there was some issue about it being marketed for children when it first came out.


Because he invented powered armor and described its use in combat? 

I think the political aspects of the book aren't nearly as impactful as some would like to believe. To most readers it is the charming window dressing to a tale of novel combat.


----------



## JimC (Aug 20, 2022)

"When someone said something like, "Just because it was used in a book, don't assume that the author believes it." Virginia Heinlein responded"You got that right." "

That was me, and it was one of Ginny's pet peeves.  It disturbed her that some people believed that the books accurately described her's and Robert's beliefs.  Her "You got that right" was in response to my comment, "Haven't they ever heard of peddlin' books".  From memory, we were standing in her dining room looking at her Mars globe at the time - but it has been years ago, so don't hold me to that.


----------



## RicheyShrimptom (Oct 10, 2022)

I saw the film of this way before I even knew it was a book. The book and its tone was a bit of a surprise to me. I quite enjoyed it. I got the feeling it was a book making some big political points that were very relevent at the time but most likely had their meanings diluted as the years have gone by.

Still worth a read though.


----------

