4 ms·

I made another comment saying that it was satire (without the douche-iness), and it got downvoted, too. So its just disagreement. When I initially read the bo

I made another comment saying that it was satire (without the douche-iness), and it got downvoted, too. So its just disagreement. When I initially read the book, I expected it to be pro-war. In fact, I just wanted to read a SF book about aliens and robotic suits. But after I was finished, I was very surprised by it being satire. Sure, if you look at it from a completely superficial perspective, it looks like its espousing the views of a military-oriented society, but if you examine what's being said, it becomes clear that its criticizing it. Let me be clear, though, I don't think Heinlein is criticizing the individual soldier. I think he sympathizes with them the most. But he takes the idea of a military-run central government to an extreme to examine what it would be like. And while reading the novel we get to examine it from the perspective of those most affected by it. And guess what... Everything is miserable. Heinlein celebrates people who would give themselves up to fight for other people, but he shows that war itself is absurd and terrible.

justin66 11y ago
> I made another comment saying that it was satire (without the douche-iness), and it got downvoted, too. So its just disagreement. This is kind of superfluous to the discussion but I'm trying to be constructive here, honest: all three of your comments on this story might lead one to believe that you are an enormous bag of douche. Reexamine your use of terms like "common misconception" and "quite clear" as an exercise. > completely superficial perspective See, you're doing it again with the douchiness. I mean, the story links to an interview with a well-respected science fiction author (who has won so many Hugo and Nebula awards that it's like they are shooting them at him with a t-shirt cannon and who also teaches an SF class at MIT discussing Starship Troopers) and he disagrees with you about the book. Do you think he's just being superficial? I mean I guess it's technically possible that he just hasn't thought about the book as much as you have... Acting as if the people who disagree with you just don't get it is making you look a little silly. That's what the downvotes are about.
- shepardrtc 11y ago
  > completely superficial perspective I was being very literal. And I wasn't referring to the author in particular.
- shepardrtc 11y ago
  Also, let me add that I don't think the author is being superficial. I'm sure he has read it far more times than myself or others. But I don't agree with him. Maybe my strong feeling for what the book is about (or is not about) is affected by me completely ignoring Heinlein himself. I'm not taking into consideration any of his other work or his history. I'm just looking at the book as is.
  - justin66 11y ago
    I think an interpretation of a work completely removed from its historical or literary context is perfectly valid. It's not super surprising that you'd see things differently. I guess there's a lot we could say about all that. I thought the movie version of ST and the book were both very entertaining in their way. (Haldeman's statements about the book as a brilliant didactic novel for teenage boys resonate strongly for me since I did lend the book to a friend who later credited it as an inspiration for his joining the Army...) I thought the movie did a great job of highlighting some of the absurdities of the book and if I had read the book in a certain light I wonder if I might have viewed it similarly.

justin66 11y ago

> I made another comment saying that it was satire (without the douche-iness), and it got downvoted, too. So its just disagreement. This is kind of superfluous to the discussion but I'm trying to be constructive here, honest: all three of your comments on this story might lead one to believe that you are an enormous bag of douche. Reexamine your use of terms like "common misconception" and "quite clear" as an exercise. > completely superficial perspective See, you're doing it again with the douchiness. I mean, the story links to an interview with a well-respected science fiction author (who has won so many Hugo and Nebula awards that it's like they are shooting them at him with a t-shirt cannon and who also teaches an SF class at MIT discussing Starship Troopers) and he disagrees with you about the book. Do you think he's just being superficial? I mean I guess it's technically possible that he just hasn't thought about the book as much as you have... Acting as if the people who disagree with you just don't get it is making you look a little silly. That's what the downvotes are about.

shepardrtc 11y ago
> completely superficial perspective I was being very literal. And I wasn't referring to the author in particular.
shepardrtc 11y ago
Also, let me add that I don't think the author is being superficial. I'm sure he has read it far more times than myself or others. But I don't agree with him. Maybe my strong feeling for what the book is about (or is not about) is affected by me completely ignoring Heinlein himself. I'm not taking into consideration any of his other work or his history. I'm just looking at the book as is.
- justin66 11y ago
  I think an interpretation of a work completely removed from its historical or literary context is perfectly valid. It's not super surprising that you'd see things differently. I guess there's a lot we could say about all that. I thought the movie version of ST and the book were both very entertaining in their way. (Haldeman's statements about the book as a brilliant didactic novel for teenage boys resonate strongly for me since I did lend the book to a friend who later credited it as an inspiration for his joining the Army...) I thought the movie did a great job of highlighting some of the absurdities of the book and if I had read the book in a certain light I wonder if I might have viewed it similarly.