Starship Troopers, by Robert A Heinlein – book and film

[pogopossum]

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]

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.]

@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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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.]

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

 

[Toby Frost]

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

 

[BAYLOR]

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

That works

 

[Swank]

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]

"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]

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.

 

[psikeyhackr]

This is hilarious. When I saw Starship Troopers I knew it was not a good portrayal of the book. I was wondering if it was a deliberate satire of the book. I thought about reading the book again butit just was not that important.

This video seems to capture things best of the reviews I have watched.

Part of the problem is that all of military history is humans versus humans. What will humans versus aliens mean when the real possibility of extinction is on the table?