Talk:Starship Troopers
Here we go... :-)
One novel which the article does not mention; but which follows directly in ST's footsteps is John Steakly's "Armor" -- this is an excellent novel which deals much more with the hardware and tactics of future combat. While its tone is much more action related (with virtually no political subtext) it combines action with a strong anti-war theme. Instead of taking the theme of war and the military from the view of its effects on society as a whole, the novel has a much more individual perspective. Much like WWI's "All Quiet on the Western Front", the novel features the grunt soldier as hero and, rather than the enemy being the insect-like "Ants" (the direct decendent of the "Bugs" in ST), the real enemy is an unfeeling, uncaring general staff.
Should something be said about the tone of the movie? I thought it was largely a spoof of the topics from the book. It definately didn't take the same attitude... --BlckKnght
I think the current entry explains it well enough (basically a satire), but perhaps it could be expanded a little. The preciding paragraph on the book could be made a little more neutral, IMHO. Some mention of Haldeman's The Forever War should be made, since it was an earlier "reply" to Heinlein's book. - DrBob
Having read the book a half dozen times in the last 20 years, I have to say it doesn't seem fascistic to me at all. The goverment Johnny Rico serves could be described as a meritocracy: anyone can participate in the government who proved, by "difficult and dangerous service" that they put the welfare of the whole ahead of their own -- or were at least willing to fake it for a term of 2 or more years.
Some reviewers (possibly not having actually read the book all the way through) seem to think that only military veterans get to vote, but the book takes pains to point out the various other forms of federal service possible, noting that not everyone qualifies for the military. If you flunk basic training, that doesn't make you a non-citizen: you can volunteer for something else.
Heinlein has taken a Christian principle and applied it to politics: "the leader among you should be the servant of all" -- or as Rev. Moon put it, the leader should be the one who works hardest.
The book wasn't pro-Fascist in any sense of the word. But the movie was. Verhoeven should be shot for what he did to this marvellous story, but that's a topic for another day... --LDC
Can we be consistent with the date for the film? At the top, we have 1997; lower down, 1995 (twice). I'm sure it wasn't released in 1995; 1997 sounds right --AdamW
According to the IMDB, it's 1997.
On the other hand, Joe Haldeman's The Forever War is an antiwar statement sometimes thought to be a direct reply to Troopers. is the kind of sentence I do not think belongs in an encyclopedia. "Thought" by whom? Unless the article makes this clear the passive voice and the qualifier "sometimes" (when? today? Last week?) merely serves to veil the author's point of view. NPOV should be about reporting on common (whether dominant or not) points of view, not just the author's. If someone can specify who makes this claim, the article would be informative; if not, the sentence should be cut.
Apropos, I thought Card's Ender's Game and the volumes that follow were an explicit reply to Starship Troopers. This is just my own opinion, so I wil not add it to the text. But perhaps Card himself or some critic has made this point publicly? If so, could someone introduce it to the text? 132.235.232.88
- Based on a Google search, I think this new text is both accurate and NPOV.: "On the other hand, Joe Haldeman's antiwar novel The Forever War is popularly thought to be a direct reply to Troopers, though Haldeman has stated that it is rather a result of his personal experiences in VietNam. (1998 SciFi.com interview at http://www.scifi.com/transcripts/1998/JoeHaldeman.html)"
I have never understood the term anti-war. Activists who sought a Communist victory in the Vietnam War generally claimed to be "anti-war" but I never regarded them as pacifists: they just wanted their side to WIN the war. Perhaps "against the war" was short for "against the US military campaign in the war".
What aspect of ST was Joe Haldeman's FW against? The idea that we should defend ourselves from foreign invasion? The practice of sparing enemy civilians and then becoming their allies against a common enemy? --Ed Poor
- Jesus Christ, Ed, some large percentage of people who say they're "anti-war" use the term to mean "anti-war". They don't like wars. They don't think wars are a good thing. They wish existing wars would stop. They wish countries would try very hard not to begin new wars. Many VietNam War protesters didn't care who won. (Think about this: In the real world, North VietNam won. The USA lost. Was the USA conquered by North VietNam? No, the loss had effectively no impact on US society. Therefore, was this war really necessary to defend the USA?)
- IMHO, Forever War was an attempt at NPOV. ST had presented arguments for the Just War and means to prosecute it. Haldeman replied: "Ok, but many wars are not Just Wars, and in fact almost every historical war has very serious elements of injustice, against not only "the enemy" but neutrals and even the combatant's own citizens and/or warfighters. Let's think about this as well."
Characters in the book also advocate the use of corporal punishment, in military discipline, civilian criminal matters and raising children.
It isn't just characters, the whole society of the book uses corporal punishment. The only character who questions this is a girl who gets talked down to in the "History and Moral Philosophy" class, and she comes around.
Do we say, "characters advocate CP" or do we say "the society of the book takes CP as justified"?
- Take a look at current version. How's this?