7 ms·

> paen to the military I always thought Starship Troopers was meant to be a satire, not praise for war. Just like Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A. isn't a patr

by sampo 11y ago

> paen to the military I always thought Starship Troopers was meant to be a satire, not praise for war. Just like Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A. isn't a patriotic song.

mikeash 11y ago
Given Heinlein's history and politics, I don't think so. Now the movie, that was definitely meant to be satire. Which is why so many fans of the book hate it.
- phlakaton 11y ago
  I suspect the best way to read any of Heinlein is not to consider whether the story and arguments really represent his views; rather, simply to consider why they should not be yours. Rico is not necessarily a reliable narrator, so even if the book isn't a satire itself, it's fertile ground for one...
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  > Now the movie, that was definitely meant to be satire. Which is why so many fans of the book hate it. Ironically, many people hated the movie because they didn't recognize that it was satirizing the (apparently) pro-military book.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    Some people, such as myself, dislike the movie because it was an almost completely unrelated script that was just reworked to have some of the same superficial elements as the book. It wasn't satirizing anything. It was just capitalizing on name recognition. But if they didn't do that, fewer people would have watched it, and we would not now be discussing movie vs. book, because they would have always been two separate things. They still are, really. When I read the book, I didn't see it as either pro-military or anti-military. It was a fictionalization of actual contemporary military experiences into a future sci-fi setting. The reaction should be in the eye of the beholder. The book may have seemed to glorify the military, because the entire premise of the book was that the military had essentially staged a coup against every human government, this making it the keystone of all human society. The rest is just how Heinlein thought things would work if the military were in charge of everything. Some things would work better; some would be worse.
    - InclinedPlane 11y ago
      If you can say with a straight face that it wasn't satirizing anything then you know nothing of the director's work and didn't pay much attention to the movie.
      - logfromblammo 11y ago
        It wasn't satirizing anything about the book. Militarism and fascism and propaganda and jingoism are all big enough to be satirized without having to pass them through Heinlein's filter first. I must admit that I haven't made much of an attempt to evaluate the movie on its own merits, as it already started off on the wrong footing with me, due to the attempt to trick people into watching it by pretending to be something it was not. It might have been just fine as Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine. But they chose to wallpaper a licensed property over the facade instead. As a film adaptation of a book, it is the least faithful interpretation I have ever seen. It wasn't even sci-fi. It was more like a World War II movie, except I couldn't actually tell if the humans were supposed to be the Axis, or the Allies, or a little of both.
  - lhc- 11y ago
    I'll admit I was guilty of that when I first saw it, as a kid. It took a while before I realized it was actually a critique.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Ironically, many people hated the movie because they didn't recognize that it was satirizing the (apparently) pro-military book. It was actually intended as (per Verhoeven) a satire of right-wing, fascists elements perceived in modern American culture that directly associated them with Nazi propaganda; the movie was largely written independently of the book, with rights to the book secured later after superficial similarity between some elements of the movie and the book were pointed out, at which point names, etc., from the book were added. Verhoeven says he only read two chapters of the book. The film was a satire, but not of the book.
- iamcurious 11y ago
  How so? It is the same guy that wrote "Stranger in a Strange Land" after all.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Starship Troopers, its worth noting, was written in something of a fit of political pique that interrupted the writing of Stranger in a Strange Land.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Now the movie, that was definitely meant to be satire. Which is why so many fans of the book hate it. I don't so much hate the movie because it was satire, I hate it because it was cheap, lazy, unnecessary satire of either a phenomenon to which the book is at best distantly connected or of a very distant reading of the book.
shepardrtc 11y ago
You are correct, it is satirical. But its a common misconception that its some sort of military love-letter. Edit: So I assume that downvotes now are a form of disagreement rather than a measure of contribution to the discussion.
- efuquen 11y ago
  And where exactly are you getting the idea from that it was 'satire'? Everything I've seen Heinlein ever say about the novel straightly points to it not being satire; he was completely serious his thoughts on philosophy, morality, government, society, etc. It may be hard to believe, but I think he meant what he wrote.
  - shepardrtc 11y ago
    How often did Stephen Colbert say his show was satire? He rarely broke character. And I don't recall him ever saying it was satire. But yet it was quite clear that it was. Of course, his method was rather over-the-top. Heinlein's was not. Here's some reading: http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2012/11/the-joke-is-on-us-the-two-careers-of-robert-a-heinlein/ http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2012/11/the-joke-is-on-...
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > You are correct, it is satirical. I don't think that's the case; I think that it isn't simplistically prescriptive the way that shallow readings usually take it, but I don't think its satire either. Its more complicated than that. I think that there are a number of things that come together in ST: (1) Heinlein's concern about what he saw as a then-current political current to dismiss what he saw as clear, current, existential threats. (2) Heinlein's enduring strong opposition to conscription and view that it was equivalent to slavery. (3) Heinlein's general frustration with the bureaucracy and politics of the day and feeling that it was due in large part to the incompetence and lack of civic mindedness of the governing class and, the electorate more generally. ST, though, wasn't utopian -- it wasn't describing the way things should be -- it was an exploration of ideas related to these topics (and, in some ways, a release of Heinlein's frustration around them.) > But its a common misconception that its some sort of military love-letter. There's definitely an element of military love-letter -- particularly, to the individual infantryman -- to it. That's actually one of the few things the common shallow readings get right (Heinlein himself has written as much, subsequently.)

by sampo 11y ago

> paen to the military I always thought Starship Troopers was meant to be a satire, not praise for war. Just like Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A. isn't a patriotic song.

mikeash 11y ago

Given Heinlein's history and politics, I don't think so. Now the movie, that was definitely meant to be satire. Which is why so many fans of the book hate it.

phlakaton 11y ago
I suspect the best way to read any of Heinlein is not to consider whether the story and arguments really represent his views; rather, simply to consider why they should not be yours. Rico is not necessarily a reliable narrator, so even if the book isn't a satire itself, it's fertile ground for one...
Jtsummers 11y ago
> Now the movie, that was definitely meant to be satire. Which is why so many fans of the book hate it. Ironically, many people hated the movie because they didn't recognize that it was satirizing the (apparently) pro-military book.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  Some people, such as myself, dislike the movie because it was an almost completely unrelated script that was just reworked to have some of the same superficial elements as the book. It wasn't satirizing anything. It was just capitalizing on name recognition. But if they didn't do that, fewer people would have watched it, and we would not now be discussing movie vs. book, because they would have always been two separate things. They still are, really. When I read the book, I didn't see it as either pro-military or anti-military. It was a fictionalization of actual contemporary military experiences into a future sci-fi setting. The reaction should be in the eye of the beholder. The book may have seemed to glorify the military, because the entire premise of the book was that the military had essentially staged a coup against every human government, this making it the keystone of all human society. The rest is just how Heinlein thought things would work if the military were in charge of everything. Some things would work better; some would be worse.
  - InclinedPlane 11y ago
    If you can say with a straight face that it wasn't satirizing anything then you know nothing of the director's work and didn't pay much attention to the movie.
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      It wasn't satirizing anything about the book. Militarism and fascism and propaganda and jingoism are all big enough to be satirized without having to pass them through Heinlein's filter first. I must admit that I haven't made much of an attempt to evaluate the movie on its own merits, as it already started off on the wrong footing with me, due to the attempt to trick people into watching it by pretending to be something it was not. It might have been just fine as Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine. But they chose to wallpaper a licensed property over the facade instead. As a film adaptation of a book, it is the least faithful interpretation I have ever seen. It wasn't even sci-fi. It was more like a World War II movie, except I couldn't actually tell if the humans were supposed to be the Axis, or the Allies, or a little of both.
- lhc- 11y ago
  I'll admit I was guilty of that when I first saw it, as a kid. It took a while before I realized it was actually a critique.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Ironically, many people hated the movie because they didn't recognize that it was satirizing the (apparently) pro-military book. It was actually intended as (per Verhoeven) a satire of right-wing, fascists elements perceived in modern American culture that directly associated them with Nazi propaganda; the movie was largely written independently of the book, with rights to the book secured later after superficial similarity between some elements of the movie and the book were pointed out, at which point names, etc., from the book were added. Verhoeven says he only read two chapters of the book. The film was a satire, but not of the book.
iamcurious 11y ago
How so? It is the same guy that wrote "Stranger in a Strange Land" after all.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Starship Troopers, its worth noting, was written in something of a fit of political pique that interrupted the writing of Stranger in a Strange Land.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Now the movie, that was definitely meant to be satire. Which is why so many fans of the book hate it. I don't so much hate the movie because it was satire, I hate it because it was cheap, lazy, unnecessary satire of either a phenomenon to which the book is at best distantly connected or of a very distant reading of the book.

shepardrtc 11y ago

You are correct, it is satirical. But its a common misconception that its some sort of military love-letter. Edit: So I assume that downvotes now are a form of disagreement rather than a measure of contribution to the discussion.

efuquen 11y ago
And where exactly are you getting the idea from that it was 'satire'? Everything I've seen Heinlein ever say about the novel straightly points to it not being satire; he was completely serious his thoughts on philosophy, morality, government, society, etc. It may be hard to believe, but I think he meant what he wrote.
- shepardrtc 11y ago
  How often did Stephen Colbert say his show was satire? He rarely broke character. And I don't recall him ever saying it was satire. But yet it was quite clear that it was. Of course, his method was rather over-the-top. Heinlein's was not. Here's some reading: http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2012/11/the-joke-is-on-us-the-two-careers-of-robert-a-heinlein/ http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2012/11/the-joke-is-on-...
dragonwriter 11y ago
> You are correct, it is satirical. I don't think that's the case; I think that it isn't simplistically prescriptive the way that shallow readings usually take it, but I don't think its satire either. Its more complicated than that. I think that there are a number of things that come together in ST: (1) Heinlein's concern about what he saw as a then-current political current to dismiss what he saw as clear, current, existential threats. (2) Heinlein's enduring strong opposition to conscription and view that it was equivalent to slavery. (3) Heinlein's general frustration with the bureaucracy and politics of the day and feeling that it was due in large part to the incompetence and lack of civic mindedness of the governing class and, the electorate more generally. ST, though, wasn't utopian -- it wasn't describing the way things should be -- it was an exploration of ideas related to these topics (and, in some ways, a release of Heinlein's frustration around them.) > But its a common misconception that its some sort of military love-letter. There's definitely an element of military love-letter -- particularly, to the individual infantryman -- to it. That's actually one of the few things the common shallow readings get right (Heinlein himself has written as much, subsequently.)