3 ms·

Sure, I won't over-read into it, I'll just actually read it. For example, I won't make the mistake you made, of claiming that voting is only for the military.

Sure, I won't over-read into it, I'll just actually read it. For example, I won't make the mistake you made, of claiming that voting is only for the military. It might be one of your favourite works ever, but you might not have read it very carefully. Exactly zero members of the military get to vote. The franchise is granted to citizens who have finished a term of service, whether in the military or in another branch of public service. But even the militarism and war-making is absolutely about "service to the collective". It goes on and on about that. And on top of that, the context of this comment thread is the politics of science fiction. In that context, it's the powered armour and the bugs that are the "convincing fluff in an already interesting" speculative portrait of an alternative to universal-franchise democracy.

King-Aaron 9y ago
Remind me to never watch movies with you guys.
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
>> Exactly zero members of the military get to vote. Fine, fine, bad turn of phrase- it's like you say, the vote is for the citizens who've finished their service (which is voluntary... except you don't get to vote without it, I think). Really, I don't see why you need to doubt that Starship Troopers is one of my favourite Sci-Fi works ever or that I read it "carefully". I haven't read it in ten years, at least. Does that sound so uncommon to you? I also haven't read Consider Phlebas in at least that long, so I hardly remember the finer details of it (I seem to remember Horza was hit by a train he derailed...?) and it sure blurs in my mind with other Iain M. Banks stuff- but I do remember very well the effect those books had on me when I read them. And there's few works I remember enjoying that much. Sheesh. Happy now? What happened to "Assume good faith"? Or not insinuating people haven't read the (article)? >> In that context, it's the powered armour and the bugs that are the "convincing fluff in an already interesting" speculative portrait of an alternative to universal-franchise democracy. OK no. Because the book goes all the way off-world, where the war with the bugs takes place and gets down to detailed descriptions of fighting. If the war was not the focus and its purpose was just to create an ambience, it would only be alluded to, never directly described- it would be a McGuffin, a ploy to allow Heinlein to talk about his future society. Instead, the descriptions of the fighting, and the ships and the power(ed) armour and the bugs are detailed and engrossing -and have influenced much SciFi imagery after them because of that (like, hey, Warhammer40K space marines in power armour). If the war with the bugs was only alluded to, or otherwise did not take center stage, then yeah, I'd agree it was fluff, used to paint a portrait of a (grim) dark future etc. But when it's the main content of most of the book, no. I don't see it your way. No objection of course to the fact that Heinlein would never just write a pure action romp, without any attempt at painting a fuller picture of the future.

King-Aaron 9y ago

Remind me to never watch movies with you guys.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

>> Exactly zero members of the military get to vote. Fine, fine, bad turn of phrase- it's like you say, the vote is for the citizens who've finished their service (which is voluntary... except you don't get to vote without it, I think). Really, I don't see why you need to doubt that Starship Troopers is one of my favourite Sci-Fi works ever or that I read it "carefully". I haven't read it in ten years, at least. Does that sound so uncommon to you? I also haven't read Consider Phlebas in at least that long, so I hardly remember the finer details of it (I seem to remember Horza was hit by a train he derailed...?) and it sure blurs in my mind with other Iain M. Banks stuff- but I do remember very well the effect those books had on me when I read them. And there's few works I remember enjoying that much. Sheesh. Happy now? What happened to "Assume good faith"? Or not insinuating people haven't read the (article)? >> In that context, it's the powered armour and the bugs that are the "convincing fluff in an already interesting" speculative portrait of an alternative to universal-franchise democracy. OK no. Because the book goes all the way off-world, where the war with the bugs takes place and gets down to detailed descriptions of fighting. If the war was not the focus and its purpose was just to create an ambience, it would only be alluded to, never directly described- it would be a McGuffin, a ploy to allow Heinlein to talk about his future society. Instead, the descriptions of the fighting, and the ships and the power(ed) armour and the bugs are detailed and engrossing -and have influenced much SciFi imagery after them because of that (like, hey, Warhammer40K space marines in power armour). If the war with the bugs was only alluded to, or otherwise did not take center stage, then yeah, I'd agree it was fluff, used to paint a portrait of a (grim) dark future etc. But when it's the main content of most of the book, no. I don't see it your way. No objection of course to the fact that Heinlein would never just write a pure action romp, without any attempt at painting a fuller picture of the future.