8 ms·

Stranger in a Strange Land was always one of my favorite pieces of science fiction, but I never knew he was the author of Starship Troopers (1959) until a few w

Stranger in a Strange Land was always one of my favorite pieces of science fiction, but I never knew he was the author of Starship Troopers (1959) until a few weeks ago. Of course, I knew Starship Troopers (1997) as a goofy action flick when I was a teenager, but I just finished reading the novel this past weekend. The two works share little in common besides setting. The novel is as relevant to geopolitics today as it must have been in 1959. It poses challenging questions about whom within a society deserves authority over others.

WorldMaker 8y ago
Something I've grown to appreciate about the film is that poses similar challenging questions in its own way. In hindsight, the film is much more in conversation with the book than it seems at surface level (more than just setting), because the film is dripping with satire and asks dark questions about fascist authoritarianism. I feel like a key to the film is that it is the best, most direct sequel to Robocop, which is also dripping with satire and dark questions of authoritarianism that are often overlooked in pop culture (Robocop's other sequels for instance misplace/misunderstand the satire pretty quickly).
- joshklein 8y ago
  I agree the movie is more interesting than my above comment implies, for the reason you highlight. That said, I dont believe the novel is about authoritarianism; it critiques universal suffrage, suggesting that only members of an in-group who have demonstrated sacrifice of the individual for the collective can be trusted to make decisions for the collective.
  - WorldMaker 8y ago
    Which arguably has been the state of history for longer than universal suffrage has existed. Disenfranchisement, and finding excuses for disenfranchisement, is easy. It's key to how authoritarians take power. Universal suffrage is hard, and under the tenets of democracy a necessary check on democracy. In critiquing universal suffrage, it critiques democracy's core tenets, and in doing that it asks you to think like an authoritarian. The film supposes that there is no question that propaganda and jack boots are the next steps after that. Also, I believe Heinlein was a provocateur bar none and he may have intended those follow up questions in subtext in the book as well. The book goes way out of its way in trying to determine if the war being fought is a Just War, for example, and one reading of it is that there is no such thing as a Just War, the need to keep repeating that discussion a proof that propaganda may be an issue in that setting, and that absolutely the reader should be questioning every facet of the criticism being offered about universal suffrage as well. I'd like to think that the film making that its text is possibly something that would have thrilled/amused Heinlein.
    - pdonis 8y ago
      > In critiquing universal suffrage, it critiques democracy's core tenets Why does universal suffrage have to be a "core tenet" of democracy? The United States started out with limited suffrage, even over and above the limitation to white males (the exact qualifications depended on the state but in general you had to own some amount of land). Did that make it not qualify for the "core tenets" of a democracy? Basically Heinlein is saying that suffrage should be earned, by something more than just being at or above a certain age. How is that opposed to the "core tenets" of democracy?
      - WorldMaker 8y ago
        Democracy the denotative Ideal: rule by the people. In capital-I Ideal form that implies all of the people, otherwise you have some form or another of an oligarchy or theocracy or plutocracy. The US has always been a compromise between the Ideal and what was seen as practical, codenamed "Representative Democracy" or "Democratic Republic", so it is intentionally never been a strong example of the core tenets of (the ideal form of) democracy, and wasn't originally built to be. It can be said that progressivism in the US has had it a long term goal to make the US more of an ideal democracy, including the ever-widening push towards universal suffrage. That struggle continues and the debate goes on, just as Heinlein's book here is a part of that debate and whether or not the US actually wants an ideal democracy / universal suffrage. But yes, earned suffrage systems do not make for an ideal democracy, and do seem to be in history slippery slopes towards oligarchy and plutarchy, if not outright fascism and dictatorship. "Merit-based" suffrage systems have been used by dictators to seize power. It's surprisingly easy to do when you control the tests of who can vote that only the people that want to vote for you can vote at all.
        pdonis 8y ago
        > Democracy the denotative Ideal: rule by the people. I thought we were talking about the core tenets of democracy, not some "denotative Ideal". The core tenet of democracy, it seems to me, is that the people have the ultimate say: they must consent to the government they live under. That does not mean the only government they could or should consent to is one with universal suffrage.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    Or alternatively, it suggests only people who have unquestioningly done the state's bidding should have the right to have their say in how the state is run...
- stormbrew 8y ago
  The film is a straight up criticism of the book's pro-fascist (or at least pro-militaristic authoritarianism) undertones, honestly.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - curtis 8y ago
    The film is a straight up criticism of fascism and authoritarianism, but it's not a criticism of the book because Verhoeven only ever read one or two chapters of the book.
    - amysox 8y ago
      Bear in mind that the project wasn't originally connected with Heinlein at all, but was originally titled Bug Hunt. Only later did Verhoeven and company come across Starship Troopers, realize that they could actually get the film rights, and rework their existing script to (kind of) match the novel.
      - baldfat 8y ago
        Oh now that makes sense. I left the movie theater HATING that movie so much. I believe I said out loud, "Did they even read the book or just the first chapter!" My friends reply for everyone to hear, "NERD HATE."
        ghaff 8y ago
        Films are not books. Some very good films (such as Dr. Strangelove) may be inspired by a book or riff off it but end up in a very different place with a very different tone. It's not a filmmaker's job to do a faithful adaptation--although those can work too.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > The film is a straight up criticism of fascism and authoritarianism Well, dull, shallow, heavy-handed mockery more than criticism, but sure. > but it's not a criticism of the book It is in exactly the sense that it is of fascism and authoritarianism. > because Verhoeven only ever read one or two chapters of the book. ...because by that point he was convinced of it's fascism and militarism, and felt he didn't need to read more. See, e.g., his response to a planned reboot that would hew closer to the novel: https://www.indiewire.com/2016/11/paul-verhoeven-slams-starship-troopers-remake-fascist-update-perfect-trump-presidency-1201747155/ https://www.indiewire.com/2016/11/paul-verhoeven-slams-stars...
amysox 8y ago
Here's kind of the definitive analysis of Starship Troopers the book, how well it works, Starship Troopers the movie, and where the movie didn't work in the same way the book did: http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm
Fjolsvith 8y ago
You should check out the CGI TV series. It was very good, IMHO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roughnecks:_Starship_Troopers_Chronicles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roughnecks:_Starship_Troopers_...

WorldMaker 8y ago

Something I've grown to appreciate about the film is that poses similar challenging questions in its own way. In hindsight, the film is much more in conversation with the book than it seems at surface level (more than just setting), because the film is dripping with satire and asks dark questions about fascist authoritarianism. I feel like a key to the film is that it is the best, most direct sequel to Robocop, which is also dripping with satire and dark questions of authoritarianism that are often overlooked in pop culture (Robocop's other sequels for instance misplace/misunderstand the satire pretty quickly).

joshklein 8y ago
I agree the movie is more interesting than my above comment implies, for the reason you highlight. That said, I dont believe the novel is about authoritarianism; it critiques universal suffrage, suggesting that only members of an in-group who have demonstrated sacrifice of the individual for the collective can be trusted to make decisions for the collective.
- WorldMaker 8y ago
  Which arguably has been the state of history for longer than universal suffrage has existed. Disenfranchisement, and finding excuses for disenfranchisement, is easy. It's key to how authoritarians take power. Universal suffrage is hard, and under the tenets of democracy a necessary check on democracy. In critiquing universal suffrage, it critiques democracy's core tenets, and in doing that it asks you to think like an authoritarian. The film supposes that there is no question that propaganda and jack boots are the next steps after that. Also, I believe Heinlein was a provocateur bar none and he may have intended those follow up questions in subtext in the book as well. The book goes way out of its way in trying to determine if the war being fought is a Just War, for example, and one reading of it is that there is no such thing as a Just War, the need to keep repeating that discussion a proof that propaganda may be an issue in that setting, and that absolutely the reader should be questioning every facet of the criticism being offered about universal suffrage as well. I'd like to think that the film making that its text is possibly something that would have thrilled/amused Heinlein.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > In critiquing universal suffrage, it critiques democracy's core tenets Why does universal suffrage have to be a "core tenet" of democracy? The United States started out with limited suffrage, even over and above the limitation to white males (the exact qualifications depended on the state but in general you had to own some amount of land). Did that make it not qualify for the "core tenets" of a democracy? Basically Heinlein is saying that suffrage should be earned, by something more than just being at or above a certain age. How is that opposed to the "core tenets" of democracy?
    - WorldMaker 8y ago
      Democracy the denotative Ideal: rule by the people. In capital-I Ideal form that implies all of the people, otherwise you have some form or another of an oligarchy or theocracy or plutocracy. The US has always been a compromise between the Ideal and what was seen as practical, codenamed "Representative Democracy" or "Democratic Republic", so it is intentionally never been a strong example of the core tenets of (the ideal form of) democracy, and wasn't originally built to be. It can be said that progressivism in the US has had it a long term goal to make the US more of an ideal democracy, including the ever-widening push towards universal suffrage. That struggle continues and the debate goes on, just as Heinlein's book here is a part of that debate and whether or not the US actually wants an ideal democracy / universal suffrage. But yes, earned suffrage systems do not make for an ideal democracy, and do seem to be in history slippery slopes towards oligarchy and plutarchy, if not outright fascism and dictatorship. "Merit-based" suffrage systems have been used by dictators to seize power. It's surprisingly easy to do when you control the tests of who can vote that only the people that want to vote for you can vote at all.
      - pdonis 8y ago
        > Democracy the denotative Ideal: rule by the people. I thought we were talking about the core tenets of democracy, not some "denotative Ideal". The core tenet of democracy, it seems to me, is that the people have the ultimate say: they must consent to the government they live under. That does not mean the only government they could or should consent to is one with universal suffrage.
- notahacker 8y ago
  Or alternatively, it suggests only people who have unquestioningly done the state's bidding should have the right to have their say in how the state is run...
stormbrew 8y ago
The film is a straight up criticism of the book's pro-fascist (or at least pro-militaristic authoritarianism) undertones, honestly.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- curtis 8y ago
  The film is a straight up criticism of fascism and authoritarianism, but it's not a criticism of the book because Verhoeven only ever read one or two chapters of the book.
  - amysox 8y ago
    Bear in mind that the project wasn't originally connected with Heinlein at all, but was originally titled Bug Hunt. Only later did Verhoeven and company come across Starship Troopers, realize that they could actually get the film rights, and rework their existing script to (kind of) match the novel.
    - baldfat 8y ago
      Oh now that makes sense. I left the movie theater HATING that movie so much. I believe I said out loud, "Did they even read the book or just the first chapter!" My friends reply for everyone to hear, "NERD HATE."
      - ghaff 8y ago
        Films are not books. Some very good films (such as Dr. Strangelove) may be inspired by a book or riff off it but end up in a very different place with a very different tone. It's not a filmmaker's job to do a faithful adaptation--although those can work too.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > The film is a straight up criticism of fascism and authoritarianism Well, dull, shallow, heavy-handed mockery more than criticism, but sure. > but it's not a criticism of the book It is in exactly the sense that it is of fascism and authoritarianism. > because Verhoeven only ever read one or two chapters of the book. ...because by that point he was convinced of it's fascism and militarism, and felt he didn't need to read more. See, e.g., his response to a planned reboot that would hew closer to the novel: https://www.indiewire.com/2016/11/paul-verhoeven-slams-starship-troopers-remake-fascist-update-perfect-trump-presidency-1201747155/ https://www.indiewire.com/2016/11/paul-verhoeven-slams-stars...

amysox 8y ago

Here's kind of the definitive analysis of Starship Troopers the book, how well it works, Starship Troopers the movie, and where the movie didn't work in the same way the book did: http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm

Fjolsvith 8y ago

You should check out the CGI TV series. It was very good, IMHO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roughnecks:_Starship_Troopers_Chronicles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roughnecks:_Starship_Troopers_...