I read *most* of this book. I'd say I had a good 5th of it left to read...
And I stopped.
I couldn't stand it. It was one of the most boring books I have ever read. I mean, no offense to anyone who loved this book, and this man's work (I haven't read anything else by Heinlein), but holy crap this guy goes off on tangents that are completely irrelevant!
For example, there's a chapter where he's going to meet his father, and from what I remember (its been a good 3 months since I stopped reading) Heinlein went into this story about how his father decided to join the army instead of saying a simple "he reconsidered and then joined later on". Then he goes into a flashback where a college/academy Professor is talking math with him. Just.. talking math. It has nothing to do with the story.. they are just talking MATH.
Anyway, I found the book so extremely boring that I had to stop.. Does this make me a bad person?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Not all books are for all people.
I won't think you're a bad person for not liking a book I loved if you don't think I'm a boad person for loving it.
Deal?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yes.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Yes.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Yes.
But then, I can never get through Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions for the same reason - does that make ME a bad person?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Yes.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I guess I am outvoted, and you really are a horrible person.
Please allow me shun you.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
"But then, I can never get through Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions for the same reason - does that make ME a bad person?"
NO! I salute you.
And yes, you are a bad person for not liking Starship Troopers, Pun.
Seriously though, try Stranger in a Strange Land.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
El Desayuno de Campeones fue uno de mis libros favoritos.
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
I could see how you wouldn't like it. I just picked it up about 3-4 weeks ago - because of some thread on Hatrack - and didn't like it at first. However, once I got used to the style, I couldn't stop reading it and ended up loving it.
I'm reading Stranger in a Strange Land now and I've enjoyed it so far.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
Never read Starship Troopers myself, but if you want to read some good Heinlein you can't go wrong with The Door Into Summer or The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I always liked The Door into Summer. Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
I thought The Martian Chronicles was a little boring when I read it 2 and a half years ago for school. Does that mean I'm not really a SF lover?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Nah. It [i]is[.i] as little boring.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
If you read Starship Troopers not so much as a story but as an explanation of Heinlein's view of the appropriate government set-up, then the tangents might make some sense.
You might try his Citizen of the Galaxy, which is the first book of his I read.
Though I firmly believe that, like Tolkein, if he were writing now he would not be published. And if Jean M. Auel were just trying to write her first book now, they would assign her a slash and burn editor and her books would be less boring.
I mean how many times does she have to explain the same medicinal uses of the same plants over and over and over? Or explaining the whole everyone-was-totally-awed-that-Ayla-had-discovered-the-domestication-of-animales bit like ten times in two chapters.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I enjpoyed []u Citizen of the Galaxcy[/i], in contexct, having already enoes many Heinlein books,
I would not tecomment it to a new Heinlein reader, though,.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Starship Troopers is not a book about story. If you are looking for that, you'll be disappointed. If you want Heinlein that's pure story, but no theory or commentary, read something like Methuseleh's Children or somesuch.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I wouldn't say that it;s weak on story, though.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
No, just that that is *not* the book's focus. It's there, and it's a decent story, but if that's the one thing you find important, it's going to feel like you're wading through a lot to get there.
It's like watching Waking Life for plot. Sure, there is one, but that's not the primary focus of the movie.
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
This is actually kind of odd, I was planning on starting to read Heinlein sometime next week. Never read him before. There are 4 books of his that I want to read: 1) Citizen of the Galaxy 2) Tunnel in the Sky 3) The Moon is a Harsh Mistress 4) The Door into Summer
Is there any specific order in which I should read those 4? I was planning on reading them in the order listed, but Icarus's post made me reconsider. Help? (Sorry for temporarily borrowing your thread, Pun)
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I liked Stranger in a Strange Land until the middle. When he had that whole awakening experience thing and afterwards I didn't like it so much.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I liked Strangr, but ifd thge whole free love thingt turns you odff you might want co pick a different book to staret with.
Door into Summer is a nice read, I think, though less ambitious thjan his other works.
[/i]Starchip Troopers[/i] is also good, IMO, but if you are turn4ed of fby t the polityics/philospphy in it, you won';t enjoy it so much.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Icarus maybe you should go to sleep
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
Wow Icky, are you ok? Or is your keyboard malfunctioning?
--ApostleRadio
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Wow. Starship Troopers has been in my top 5 for years and years. I don't remember much of the philosophy in it, but I love the soldier story and the way Heinlein handled the structure of the book.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
u,m, yeah. Bad keyboard. Bad.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I've never been terribly thrilled by Heinlein.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I love some Heinlein, and hate some of him.
I love: Have Spacesuit, Will Travel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress Double Star
I love and hate: Puppet Masters Friday
I hate: Stranger in a Strange Land
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
It's been years since I read Stranger, but I loved it at the time. I'll have to try it again sometime and see how it holds up from an older POV. I loved Door Into Summer. I remember liking Puppet Masters okay but thinking it nothing special.
I'll even admit to liking such horribly un-PC books as Sixth Column and Farnham's Freehold. I just figured he was a product of his time and experiences, and ignored the stuff that was distasteful, and enjoyed the story underneath. Ditto for his weird sex elements. None of that bothers me as long as there is still a story going on under all of that.
Which brings me to his two worst books, IMO: The Number of the Beast and Time Enough for Love. Both thin excuses for him to fantasize at length. And Time Enough for Love is so freaking long! Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
I can definitely understand loving and hating Friday. On the one hand, the whole super-strong courier running around killing people and delivering things was cool. On the other hand, what is the point of all her sexploits?
Posted by Small Green Martian (Member # 8597) on :
This is a mildly inflammatory first post, but I've been around hatrack for years now, variously, so I'm sure it won't get too bad a reception. And it needs to be said.
Stranger is a terrible book. Terrible. It's often touted as his best, but far from that, it is very nearly his worst. It's the excess of a writer with too much prestige, and not enough editing, a wallowing lump of a book that doesn't deserve reading.
Don't get me wrong, The Number of the Beast and Glory Road are far worse. But in comparison to his earlier, 'juvenile' novels, it's just unreadable. And no it's not the free love that gets me, I'm down with the free love. It's just a rubbish story, with rubbish characters, and screw grokking, it's a stupid concept.
Good Heinlein includes : Citizen of the Galaxy, Between Planets, Red Planet, Space Cadet and if you're someone who can forgive people for the time in which they write their books, The Day After Tomorrow ('The Sixth Column')
I've been interupted writing this, but will come back and validate my opinions with reasons, later.
AW
Posted by MoralDK (Member # 8395) on :
quote:Originally posted by dean: If you read Starship Troopers not so much as a story but as an explanation of Heinlein's view of the appropriate government set-up, then the tangents might make some sense.
You might try his Citizen of the Galaxy, which is the first book of his I read.
Though I firmly believe that, like Tolkein, if he were writing now he would not be published. And if Jean M. Auel were just trying to write her first book now, they would assign her a slash and burn editor and her books would be less boring.
I mean how many times does she have to explain the same medicinal uses of the same plants over and over and over? Or explaining the whole everyone-was-totally-awed-that-Ayla-had-discovered-the-domestication-of-animales bit like ten times in two chapters.
I found Heinleins government setup facinating in this book. The movie was extra cheesy but I liked it.
And did Auel ever 'finish' the cave bear series?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I think Auel has one more forthcoming.
As for Stranger, it was the fourth Heinlein book I read, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. Of course, I read the abridged version, so maybe that made some difference with regard to the editing comment.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Friday had so much potential, but never went anywhere. It was ultimately a disappointment.
I liked Glory Road just fine, as I recall.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Nobody has mentioned Podkayne of Mars. I always liked it for some reason. His adult books have all blurred together in my head so much I can't keep them straight anymore and I don't feel the slightest urge to read them again.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I liked that one too, except, am I misremembering, or doesn't she give some boy fellatio? (Not that I'm criticizing fellatio per se, but its inclusion in an apparently juvenile novel.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I read the "full" version of Stranger. I think I probably would have prefered the edited version.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
I, too, found the full version of Stranger rather bloated -- unfortunately, I didn't like it enough to want to give the edited version a try. Product of his time or no, the way he writes female characters leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
Posted by Randy (Member # 8181) on :
Hated Starship Troopers. Hated every Heinlein book that was written after Starship Troopers. Loved every Heinlein book that was written before Starship Troopers. So, PUNJABEE, I would say no, you're not a bad person, you just exhibit good taste.
-Randy
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yeah, Theaca, Podkayne of Mars is one of my two favorite Heinleins. The Heinlein juveniles version: they've released the "uncensored version" of many of Heinlein's books.
Frankly, Heinlein needed "censoring" by a good editor, which he had for his "juveniles". Not for blue writing -- sex doesn't bother me either way -- but for rambling all over the place, past the point of the story being being buried in verbiage. Admittedly some of the meandering is "sexual". But I hadda put quotation marks around sexual cuz Heinlein's take really is juvenile, reads like the fantasies of an adolescent who's still wondering if he'll ever lose his virginity.*
And the lack of a good editor is why most of Heinlein's writing after Stranger in a Strange Land are so errrm... whatever the proper descriptives, they aren't synonymous with 'good'.
However, good or bad or indifferent, Stranger in a Strange Land is to the commercialization of the scifi novel what Lord of the Rings is to the commercialization of the fantasy novel, for much the same reasons.
Which is a good point at which to end this posting and begin another.
* As irritating as reading an author (eg AynRand, JeanM.Auel, etc) who keeps pointing out that his/her protagonist/s is/are genius/es when it is obvious from the storyline that the author ain't bright enough to understand the concept of genius. And all too often, apparently believes so much in his/her own "genius" that s/he expects the reader to be unable to follow the "complex" storyline, and so repeats&explains the plot points over and over, and over, and over...
[ September 12, 2005, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Not liking the book "Stormship Troopers" does not make you a bad person.
Liking the movie "Stormship Troopers" does!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I've found form the movie that the government was tyranical, brutal, totalistarian and downright facsist. It again and again ignored or tainted the very concepts that makes democracy great and replaces it with a vile militeristic regime. The result is a government that constantly uses propaganda as a tool to reinforce "military values" as a means of insuring its power base among the military by oppressing the basic individual rights of all human beings. And as George Orwell had brilliantly examined and as the Bush administration is currently doing, Heinlin's government if the movie is any indicator uses the war against the buggers as a means to keep the proleteriate distracted from current issues and allows the "government" to pass what are quite possibly outragous laws that limit the basic freedoms of the individual.
That is my 2 Rubles.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nope, the movie pretty much missed everything Heinlein except the title, the bugs, and the flogging. All that other stuff is the director, and even the flogging is Nazi-fetish rather than Heinlein.
[ September 12, 2005, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Robert Anison Heinlein...one of my favorite writers, has written some of my least favorite books.
RAH's views on sex became more and more perverted as he got older. The pinnacle of his "dirty old man-hood" has to be To Sail Beyond the Sunset. A book so rife with detailed incest (and little more) that after struggling through it, I stopped reading entirely for nine months.
In Friday **SPIOLERIFIC** the heroine ends up with an agent of the other side who rapes her towards the beginning of the book.
Try as I might I have never been able to finish The Number of the Beast. The constant bickering and jostling of four people for command of a craft designed to fit two made me never want to be in a small craft with a military personnel just in case. *shudder*
Stranger in a Strange Land is really three books, one I love, one I tolerated, and one I hated. *shrug*
Glory Road is one of my all time favorites. It's a romp of an adventure, it might not be great literature, but it's hugely enjoyable.
Anyone interested in my opinion on Starship Troopers should click here...
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Bump. Sort of. I happen to be a fan of Heinlein although I've only read a handful of his books.
I've been recommending Starship Troopers and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress to people for a few years now, with reserved comments on Stranger in a Strange Land. I was just reading the dust cover of another of his books which stated that Heinlein had won the Hugo (I think) four times, for the three books mentioned above and for Double Star (which my library doesn't have ). I seem to have started with his most accredited.
Moon hasn't been given enough credit on this thread IMHO. I loved the story and I was drawn in by the characters, but what captivated me the most (much as with Starship Troopers ) was Heinlein's own commentary on politics and government. I love that he writes social commentary into his Sci Fi -- I think that's one of the reasons I keep coming back to the whole genre, and generally one of the things that endears me to an author.
And Pun, I have to say I thought the math was cool.
I just finished The Cat Who Walks Through Walls] and I'm having some serious reactions to it . . . but I think I'm going to give that topic it's own thread.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Oooh, try The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for sure. It's short and there's this description of an organization that has eerie parallels to current terrorist cells. Also Have Space Suit, Will Travel. Love it love it. And then read Three Men in a Boat, To Say Nothing of the Dog by Jerome K. Jerome and THEN read Connie Willis' To Say Nothing of the Dog and your life will be complete and wonderful.
Jaime - Bradbury wrote Martian Chronicles, not Heinlein. Bradbury is a beautiful writer. Chronicles is one of his more fragmented works; Try Dandelion Wine or Something Wicked This Way Comes.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is Heinlein's finest work, and one of my favorite novels of any type.
I disagree that Heinlein got more perverted as he got older. He was like that pretty much from the beginning, but due to limitations for juvenile works and censorship issues through the 40's, 50's, and 60's, he toned himself down. His very first comppleted, previously unpublished novel from the 30's was published last year and it's rife with sex and political opinion.
I don't have a problem with the way he writes women, largely because I've read a great deal of sf and other fiction written by his contemporaries. Heinlein was years ahead of his time. His women were consistently intelligent, highly skilled, and generally deadly. They read as unrealistic now, but that's because social awareness of women's equality finally caught up and passed him.
I love Stranger for all its faults, although I prefer the shorter version. I like Time Enough For Love as an epic story over hundreds of generations, even if it's about the same guy. The peek into frontier life and turn of the century America is wonderful.
Every few years I go on a Heinlein jag and read everything he wrote, in order. It keeps me off the streets.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Thanks to Icarus, I just realized I've had Wing Comander and Starship Troopers mixed up for years.
I thought Freddie Prinze Junior was in Starship Troopers. Not Wing Commander. My brain is weird.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
(I'm also really really drunk)
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Alright, do people just like stealing Heinlein's titles for movies that are completely unrelated? I mean Starship Troopers? The Day After Tomorrow? Are those movies at all related to the books of the same name?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hey, leave poor Heinlein alone. It's not his fault he had no competition. Except Asimov, I guess, whose books actually stand up a lot better to the test of time. Asimov could probably still get published; Turtledove does, after all, and his dialogue is even worse, and he can't plot, either. Heinlein, eh, maybe if you edited him with a chainsaw. I like the juveniles, though.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Starship Troopers, the movie, was a very deliberate satire - and in that regard, brilliant.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Its really about time isn't it? I mean ST takes me two hours to read, I can afford to spend a minute and a half on an interesting digression, but if you need a month to get through the book, the day spent mouthing all those words you do not need for the story probably gets tedious.
The movie was in no way related to the book and while interesting in effects was a mistake and crime to the spirit of Robert H. The book was about the fighting spirit of soldiers and how that is the spirit that will take us out into the galaxy to face whatever we might find. All the rest was window dressing, in a sense what you see as digressions are the whole point of the book.
BC
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BannaOJ, I think you'd have to be quite drunk or else tricked to see the Wing Commander movie. *shudder*
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
I just bought another copy, not having recieved the loaner back.
I agree BC, Starship Troopers to me is about the forging of an ideal officer, one who is concientious and effective at his duty. It is about the conections in life that make us what we are, and ultimately define why we will fight.
I would dearly like to see a well made Starship Troopers made; one where they were faithful to the book. Not only to the technologies described within, but also to the culture he depicts within the military life.
Edited for a fat finger fix
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think a well-made, true to the spirit of the book movie Starship Troopers would be about as out of place in time as Patton. It would also probably have to be about as exceptional a film to succeed, I think.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Not only is ST a bad adaptation, it's an all-around bad movie.
--j_k
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
The movie Day After Tomorrow bears no relationship to the Heinlein novel (which is better known as Sixth Column).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Starship Troopers, the movie, was a very deliberate satire - and in that regard, brilliant.
If it was a deliberate satire, it mostly failed, because most people can't tell what it was satirizing.
I personally think that they threw in those propaganda clips so that people would go "Oh, I guess it's a satire, and doesn't really suck like it seems." It's not a real satire, it just pretends to be one.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Alright, do people just like stealing Heinlein's titles for movies that are completely unrelated? I mean Starship Troopers? The Day After Tomorrow? Are those movies at all related to the books of the same name?
His Girl Friday? Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Not only is ST a bad adaptation, it's an all-around bad movie.
quote:I personally think that they threw in those propaganda clips so that people would go "Oh, I guess it's a satire, and doesn't really suck like it seems." It's not a real satire, it just pretends to be one.
Part of the satire is how bad the movie is. The people who wrote the screenplay obviously wholeheartedly disagree with Heinlein's utopian ideals (and come on, there are a LOT of people who disagree fervently with the attitudes portrayed in ST the book). The movie was pretty obviously geared at pissing off each and every person who agreed with the book. The fact that it made so much money (and spawned a sequel!) is like extra salt in the wound.
[Edit] I mean, come on, they cast Doogie Howser and gave him psychic powers. "...It's afraid!" <marines cheering>
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Part of the satire is how bad the movie is.
Uh huh. They meant to have the movie suck? In that case, it was brilliant. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
It sure was. It got you riled up, didn't it?
Every time I see people whine about how bad and untrue to the novel the movie was, I just laugh and laugh and buy another copy of the DVD.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
BC and Calaban, I disagree with both of you about the true meaning behind Starship Troopers. though I can't correct you at the present time because I only read it once, about 6 of 7 years ago. So I don't trust myself to represent the book acurately right now.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Every time I see people whine about how bad and untrue to the novel the movie was, I just laugh and laugh and buy another copy of the DVD.
The movie was horrible.
The movie stank.
The movie was *whine*.
How long do I have to keep this up until you are bankrupt?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Given that the DVDs are about $7.99 new and half that used...I'm going to guess it'll take you a long, long time.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
you know what's funny also. i had never read the book before the movie came out. Didn't know it was a book. and refused to see the movie because I thought it was an Ender's Game ripoff.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I can write a script to do it as much as I need...
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I bought Starship Troopers on dvd. It amuses me. Greatly.
And I paid way more than $7.99 because I got the "SUPER SPECIAL CRAZY DIRECTORS CUT EXTRAS AND RANDOM POINTLESS CRAP" edition.
Even though I really don't care about any of the extra stuff they threw on there. It was kind of an impulse purchase.
-pH
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
Strider, I'm intersted to know what your feelings on the message of the book were.
When I read it I dont try to infer anything into what he's written so I take it at face value.
I see Rico and his life as a soldier. I see his relationships and his path from a boy to a man. I see an author that has written an entire novel from a tough viewpoint.
Perhaps the entire novel is vieled satire. Typically satire is specific to events of the time, and given tha the book was written in the late 50's the only war in that time was Korea. If it was a novel to discredit that action or discourage military service it fails spectacularly.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Perhaps the entire novel is vieled satire. Typically satire is specific to events of the time, and given tha the book was written in the late 50's the only war in that time was Korea. If it was a novel to discredit that action or discourage military service it fails spectacularly.
I don't think Heinlein was being satirical at all.
The filmmakers, on the other hand, most definitely were.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
I agree on both accounts.
However I found the satire in the movie condescending and overpowering at the same time.
I did not like it.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I think the movie was about as condescending as the book was, if in a different way.
I mean, MOST of Heinlein's writing is extremely condescending - he generally writes as though he knows everything and the viewpoints he express should be obvious to everyone.
Which could explain why I love him so, so very much.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
I disagree, I still feel that Hienlien was not pushing an agenda when he wrote the book.
He was creating a universe through which his characters could move. He depicted the aftermath of a world not unlike that depicted in The Postman, where order had been restored after disorder.
In doing so he came up with a plausible working government wherin the protagonist might have a suitable reason for giving up "the easy life" to join the military. The tapestry of events within the book were probably not created for the purpose of inferring this or that or infuriating this group or that. They just were because thats the world Johnny Rico lived in.
I think Friday, Number of the Beast, and, goin out on a limb here, even Stranger, were not written with any agenda other than the exploration and journey of the character.
Edit for flow, and double negative .
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that Hienlien was pushing an agend in almost every book he wrote, including ST.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I disagree, I still feel that Hienlien was not pushing an agenda when he wrote the book.
He was creating a universe through which his characters could move. He depicted the aftermath of a world not unlike that depicted in The Postman, where order had been restored after disorder.
In doing so he came up with a plausible working government wherin the protagonist might have a suitable reason for giving up "the easy life" to join the military. The tapestry of events within the book were probably not created for the purpose of inferring this or that or infuriating this group or that. They just were because thats the world Johnny Rico lived in.
I think Friday, Number of the Beast, and, goin out on a limb here, even Stranger, were not written with any agenda other than the exploration and journey of the character.
That's pretty forgiving of you - especially considering the numerous tangents in ST that I can't interpret as anything BUT agenda pushing. The puppy training story, for instance, and the entire segment on administrative punishment.
And yes, claiming Stranger wasn't pushing agenda is going pretty far out onto a limb - hang on tight, buddy!
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
I can fly so hangin' on a limb doesnt matter that much.
When I read fiction I don't always infer things about the authors viewpoints from the writing. I read it as if I'm there. I don't let the fact that I disagree with the philosophy of the government depicted in ST prevent me from understanding why, within the context of the story, it may have actually existed.
I also don't infer that the author is trying to get me to belive that concept A is better than concept B. I look at it as simply this is what life is for this character. They're his or her dilemmas becasue thier world is different from mine
I think when writing RAH said, What if? and went from there. And yes when he went from there it tended to to have many tangents.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
In that case, it kind of sounds like you're projecting your method of reading onto Hienlien's method of writing.
Posted by SolarStone (Member # 8926) on :
I am about halfway through Starship Troopers and am so far unimpressed...like reading a John Ringo novel or something, anything, by Peter F. Hamilton...bummed and numb.
Oh, sorry, I'm new here. Hi.
Anyway. I got ST b/c John Steakley said it inspired him to write Armor. Armor blows ST away completely in every respect so far. I highly recommend Armor. Also, I am still trying to figure out why ST was a "controversial novel".
As far as pushing an agenda I think Heinlein escapes that by writing the book in 1st Person POV. The intrusive narrative IS the story.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Also, I am still trying to figure out why ST was a "controversial novel".
On its face, it's pro-fascism.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't know if I agree with how you are using the phrase, Tom. I would say it's controversial because it argues against universal suffrage, but I don't know if the style of government it favors can really be called authoritarian--which is something I associate with fascism. (Unless it's authoritarianism by such a large group of people as to make the term meaningless.) The society in ST is still basically democratic.
My biggest issue with it is that Heinlein seems to only recognize the military as a means for showing the capacity to place the good of the many above the good of the individual. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that people join the military for a lot of other reasons, like it's their only job opportunity, I would say that he should have seen other ways of attaining full citizenship, like Peace Corp type service.
[ December 11, 2005, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I don't know if the style of government it favors can really be called authoritarian
I dunno. It's a pretty authoritarian government from the perspective of those not in authority.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Except they have the means of becoming those in authority.
I don't know that the defining feature of authoritarianism is that not everyone gets to vote. I think the means that the state uses to keep control factor into it as well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
IIRC, if you disobeyed the state in Heinlein's novel, all kinds of horrible things happened to you.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Hmm . . . maybe it's been too long since I read it. I don't really recall that, but you could be right.
(Seems like a silly thing for him to have added though, since it doesn't seem integral to his point.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Leaving aside for the moment the fact that people join the military for a lot of other reasons, like it's their only job opportunity, I would say that he should have seen other ways of attaining full citizenship, like Peace Corp type service.
If I'm remembering correctly, that was an option in ST.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I think Auel has one more forthcoming.
As for Stranger, it was the fourth Heinlein book I read, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. Of course, I read the abridged version, so maybe that made some difference with regard to the editing comment.
If anyone ever wanted to know why we need editors, the unabridged versions of Stranger in a Strange Land and Stephen King's The Stand are beautiful examples. Better than both of them, though, is the original ending to Podkayne of Mars. <shudder> Had I read that original ending as a child, I don't think I ever would have read another book by Heinlein.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Icarus,
quote:My biggest issue with it is that Heinlein seems to only recognize the military as a means for showing the capacity to place the good of the many above the good of the individual.
On the contrary, in the book there are other ways. Many-most, in fact-of the people who earned their franchises did not do so by military labor.
----
Tom,
quote:IIRC, if you disobeyed the state in Heinlein's novel, all kinds of horrible things happened to you.
You recall incorrectly. There was mentioned flogging in public for the crime of drunk driving, hanging for murder, and speaking against the government was claimed to be potentially treason by one individual who didn't go further into punishments.
Beyond that all I can think of was that it was supposed to be bad news to attack soldiers.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I stand corrected.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
If you want to read the anti-Starship Troopers, try Joe Haldeman's The Forever War.
[ December 11, 2005, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Heinlein was very good at giving his readers what they wanted.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If you want to read the anti-Starship Troopers, try Joe Haldeman's The Forever War.
I read Forever War first, and liked it, and then read ST because I was told that if I liked FW, I'd probably like ST. I liked ST much more.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I watched the movie, and the only thing that I can think of is, How would Stanley Kubrick have handled making this movie? You drop all of the political commentary, and it's still a great military novel even with what's left.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Not that Kubrick would have dropped the political commentary, but still - Full Metal Jacket + Starship Troopers? Mmmmm...
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I can't see Kubrick having wanted to do ST.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Heinlien was in the real war against fascism, I think that anyone who mistakes the system in Starship Troopers, with the military an entity at the service of the democratic government as fascist is a poopy doo doo head.
(using words they will understand)
BC
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Heinlien was in the real war against fascism, I think that anyone who mistakes the system in Starship Troopers, with the military an entity at the service of the democratic government as fascist is a poopy doo doo head.
Well, again, it depends on one's definition of "fascism." The government described in Heinlein's novel is a totalitarian state controlled by the military and led by individual heroes (both military and business leaders, their "celebrity" justified by their success and service), and has focused its people on defeating external enemies (ideally real, but we can presume that imagined ones would eventually have to be necessary to sustain their sense of purpose).
It actually appears to quite closely resemble an idealized form of fascism.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
quote:Originally posted by SolarStone:
Anyway. I got ST b/c John Steakley said it inspired him to write Armor. Armor blows ST away completely in every respect so far. I highly recommend Armor. Also, I am still trying to figure out why ST was a "controversial novel".
Hooray, someone else who has read Armor. I've been recommending that book here for a couple years and don't think anyone's mentioned reading it yet. Power of suggestion in numbers (hey, it worked for Harry Potter)!
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, actually the government isn't controlled by the military - it's made up of e-military, and if I remember properly, current military wasn't allowed. The government was in place before the bugger war, so it wasn't actually focused on defeating an external enemy until the war started. I'll have to read it again this week to refresh a few things, it's been a few years since I last read it.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
Another fan of "The Door Into Summer." What a nice little read!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The government described in Heinlein's novel is a totalitarian state controlled by the military and led by individual heroes (both military and business leaders, their "celebrity" justified by their success and service), and has focused its people on defeating external enemies (ideally real, but we can presume that imagined ones would eventually have to be necessary to sustain their sense of purpose).
No it isn't. Military service is required for voting, but there is nothing said about it being required for political leadership. Social compliance seems to be generally achieved through social shame, not government force. Before the Bug(ger) War and really before the earth was directly attacked, military service was generally not held in high regard by the segments of the population we see.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Military service is required for voting, but there is nothing said about it being required for political leadership.
Which is yet another reason why Heinlein's full of crap when it comes to social engineering. Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Military service is required for voting, but there is nothing said about it being required for political leadership.
Which is yet another reason why Heinlein's full of crap when it comes to social engineering.
Everyone keeps saying 'military service' but this isn't the case in the book. No-one could be rejected from service, service was a right for everyone. It was a combination of Peace Corps, Military, Social Services, and other functions. I can't imagine the taxes would be all that low; it's actually a kind of quasi-socialist setup, what with the guaranteed employment for whoever asks for it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tom The society is also lacking the dominance/submission hierarchy that is one of the defining characteristics of fascism. Without the idea that "You must submit your will to the dictates of your leaders." it's not fascism.
I get that you don't like the idea of the military (or as Mute correctly points out a corps of service people) getting much stronger control over a political system, but that doesn't make it fascism.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Without the idea that "You must submit your will to the dictates of your leaders." it's not fascism.
See, I think that was VERY present in the book.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have difficulty imagining how a government that permits anyone to join it can be considered totalitarian. If you want the rights and powers "the Man" has in that society, you just gotta sign on the dotted line and work a for a couple years, and you're in.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:It was a combination of Peace Corps, Military, Social Services, and other functions.
I'm not recalling anywhere where they mention social services as qualifying for citizenship.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It was certainly present in the military, Tom, which was what 75% of the book dealt with. This fictional world's military and life in it for a grunt and then an officer.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As I recall, public criticism of the government was considered sedition.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
The military is social service at the beginning of the book. Combat units are all volunteer, and you're MOS is based on aptitude and ability. If that means pulling the daisies out of the yard, that's what your service entails.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Erosomniac, the book mentioned as the path to a franchise and thus political leadership, one only had to fulfill a term of service. That service ranged from Mobile Infantry as they called it to naval cook to test-subject for science experiments to manning research stations on Neptune.
It was never actually said that one could do things like Social Services and Peace Corps work, but I recall somewhere it being mentioned that recruiters were casting about for more and more jobs to give to people who wanted a franchise and were willing to serve, and they had to find those jobs. Even if they weren't military in nature.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There was one doctor who said something like, "If they'd let us scientists and doctors govern, things would be a lot better," but he trailed off and stopped saying he did not wish to be charged with treason. We don't really know if he was saying that what he'd already said was treasonous, or what he might have gone on to say was treasonous.
We also have no idea whether or not those who had their franchise were able to criticize without being treasonous.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: We also have no idea whether or not those who had their franchise were able to criticize without being treasonous.
Would that make a difference in the totalitarian nature of the state? That people with power enjoy advantages of speech?
Posted by Matt Lust (Member # 8929) on :
Drat wireless connections making me think you didn't connect.
Apologies for double post.
Posted by Matt Lust (Member # 8929) on :
erosomniac,
Technically social services could qualify as "federal service" but its almost always assumed that Federal service is military.
To Mr Squicky it was specifcally said that Federal Service was the only way to be a citizen. It was not said that Federal service was the only way to gain a franchise.
Note the differece? See the Ancient Greek similarities?
This could have a story written by Homer or Virgil instead fof RAH.
This idea wasn't pioneered by RAH and is still in use today by Isreal and most European countries.
At the age of 18 in these countries you have to serve some time in the military (some active some merely reserve) like it or not with some expections made for health reasons and what not.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Would that make a difference in the totalitarian nature of the state? That people with power enjoy advantages of speech?
Well yes, obviously. Then it would only be totalitarian to the extent that it did not accord the same rights to non-citizens as it did to citizens. And it's easier in that society than in ours to become a citizen by far.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
What you're saying is true, but they were also very, very picky about how they classified it.
For example, if you signed up for federal service, you were a federal serviceman, whether you were MI or a gardener (the MOS analogy is a good one). As I recall, however, NO ONE that was not a federal serviceman was considered a citizen - see the passage about their trip to Seattle, wherein Johnny makes mention of the fact that the Merchant Marines dislike MI because the marines have tried to get their jobs classified as service since the beginning of time.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
How were they very, very picky, erosmniac? They were picky in that they chose theyr own standards for what qualified as service, and not petitions from lobbyists.
The recruiter said that if you came to the government and said, "I want my franchise, and I'm willing to work for you to get it," they had to give it to you. That they were creating more and more jobs to meet the demand. How is that picky?
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
That's an interesting point... I wonder if the police / fire departments were federal service...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The wonderful thing about S/F is that it gives us the opportunity to explore these kinds of possibilities.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Rakeesh, the pickiness was in the wording. Nowhere in the book is "social service" equated with "federal service."
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
IIRC, if someone was blind and in a wheelchair, but he made it into a recruiter's office, the recruiter HAD to find something for that guy to do. Voting wasn't a right, but serivce to earn the vote was. I think the vote was the only distinguishing factor between citizens and non-citizens.
As for the Doctor's fear about being charged with treason, nowadays there are people who claim that the US is a fascist police state, that they can't openly speak without getting sent to Guantanamo, and other silly things like that. Just because they say those things doesn't make it true. Also, during the Civil War, Lincoln exiles some prominent Copperheads to the Confederacy for sedition. Does that make every administration since a fascist one?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's true, erosmniac. I guess I read into it differently because the words were capitalized. When I see Social Services, I think working for the government in that field. When I see social services, I think maybe it's private or not-for-profit or something.
Posted by Matt Lust (Member # 8929) on :
I think the word you're looking for instead of social services is Civil Service.
Its true that Civil service in America is not Federal Armed Forces Service and I am sure RAH borrowed the MercMarines disdain for MI from his own experience as a Naval officer
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
). I seem to have started with his most accredited.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)