June Book of the Month: Starship Troopers

Good. Now people can realize how awesome this book is and what a diseased donkey cock the film is.

This book is fast, fun and discussion-worthy. Can't wait to open it again.

 

How dare you support it. Aaron Spelling leftovers mouthing laughable dialogue against a backdrop of nothing. The world's most violent children's film. A $100 million cold fart. Verhoeven is quoted as saying he thought the book was awful after the first few pages and decided to film it the way HE thought it should be.

He was wrong. He took the power armour away, all the hung-ho political thought provocation and the only good thing we're left with was Clancy Brown and Muchael Ironside. There is better film collected against old window panes. I hate that movie more than very few other films. Only Armageddon and a handful of others eclipse it.

 

Varsity Blues is better. Seriously.

 

I read this book five years ago and this was my original review.

Spoiler: review

Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein. It was a relatively short, easy read. On the whole I thought it was decent, but not anything close to what it was hyped up to be. For starters, there really isn't much of a story there. It mostly appeared to be a vehicle for Heinlein to spout his political ideas. While much of it was interesting, I kind of wanted to see more action and get a better grasp on what was happening in the war. Also, the character development was virtually non-existent. There's really only one character, the protagonist Johnny, that we even have a chance to know. Still, even he seemed relatively shallow, he mostly just explains what's going on and lays out the philosophy. Don't get me wrong, I still liked the book, but the story should come first, political theories should be second. Oh, and I know the movie was nothing like the book and hopelessly retarded, but I still enjoyed it. Marines fighting giant insects is awesome.

Lack of story and character development aside, I found several aspects of the political theory in the book troubling. I'm a huge proponent of civillian control over the military, and the system in the book effectively makes people second class (non)citizens unless they serve. The moral philosophy class, or whatever they called it seemed more like intrdoctrination than expanding youths' minds. The teacher outlined why the system in place was superior to other forms of governship, knocking down challenges from the students that are of course conveniently set up by Heinlein just to be knocked down. The war is there because soldiers fulfilling their duty is more compelling than a burdensome expense that leads to exorbitatant taxes and/or swelling debt.

I don't mean to say that the federation was some nazi/commy amalgam, but it is a very questionable approach in how to appropriate the military and determine basic rights. Is fervent support for the regime and glorification of soldiers the answer to society's problems? History tells us no, and legally stratifying the population only exacerbates the problems that come with it.

 

"Social responsibility means individual sacrifice" is the central theme of the book. Heinlein took his personal beliefs and fashioned them into a hung-ho sci-fi war epic. I don't think it asks "what if" as much as it simply paints this alternate reality as the form of society that works (at the time).

Heinlein's favourite character, the history/philosophy teacher is basically Heinlein writing himself into the story. Of course this book is also what, 55 years old? It comes from an era where allied nations were still generally fired up and hung-ho because many of THEIR working-class Joes have killed people. An era where the world was your garbage pail and it was socially encouraged to smoke cigarettes by doctors ("Make sure your T-Zone gets that smooth flavour!") and beat the shit out of your kids.

What do you think in the book about the right to suffrage via two years service? I always thought it would be a good idea that you had to pass a basic IQ test before you had the right to vote.