bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (05/09/85)
Expires: Quoted from <168@hyper.UUCP> ["Re: NofTheBeast - True STINKER"], by brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust)... +--------------- | > reader. I have read just about everything he has written. Some of | > his books have offended me (Starship Troopers, Farnham's Freehold) | > | > Bill Baker | | Yes. To paraphrase one notable SF writer (Pamela Dean), "Starship | Troopers is infuriating and you can't stay away from it." This | | -- SKZB What is it everyone sees wrong with STARSHIP TROOPERS? --bsa -- Brandon Allbery, Unix Consultant -- 6504 Chestnut Road, Independence, OH 44131 decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!bsa; ncoast!bsa@case.csnet; +1 216 524 1416; 74106,1032
dwight@timeinc.UUCP (Dwight Ernest) (05/11/85)
In article <701@ncoast.UUCP> bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: > >Quoted from <168@hyper.UUCP> ["Re: NofTheBeast - True STINKER"], by brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust)... >+--------------- >| > reader. I have read just about everything he has written. Some of >| > his books have offended me (Starship Troopers, Farnham's Freehold) >| > Bill Baker >| Yes. To paraphrase one notable SF writer (Pamela Dean), "Starship >| Troopers is infuriating and you can't stay away from it." This >| -- SKZB >What is it everyone sees wrong with STARSHIP TROOPERS? >--bsa Well, how about fascism as glorified politics? How about blind military allegiance? How about violence==glory? Fortunately, it's difficult not to have a great deal of sympathy and identity with the bad "guys" in RAH's STARSHIP TROOPERS. Kind of like the way most Americans and British and Russians feel about what their country did in WW II. But even WW II had its many agonizing moments of vast grey areas (take just one example--Allied ignorance of the 300+ Nazi death camps). In RAH's world, there seem to be no grey areas, so we like the book (I really did enjoy it). But in real life there's grey everywhere. And that's why blind allegiance, unquestioning military service, and the equating of violence with glory are SO DAMNABLY DANGEROUS. One would hope Homo Sapiens will soon outgrow this kind of behavior--and literature--which leads down the path to the kind of dangerous "true belief" that Eric Hoffer warned us against. And which Hitler made such successful use of. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- --Dwight Ernest KA2CNN \ Usenet:...vax135!timeinc!dwight Time Inc. Edit./Prod. Tech. Grp., New York City Voice: (212) 554-5061 \ Compuserve: 70210,523 Telemail: DERNEST/TIMECOMDIV/TIMEINC \ MCI: DERNEST "The opinions expressed above are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Time Incorporated." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
@RUTGERS.ARPA:boyajian%akov68.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (05/11/85)
From: boyajian%akov68.DEC@decwrl.ARPA > From: ncoast!bsa (Brandon Allbery) > Quoted from <168@hyper.UUCP> by brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust)... >> Yes. To paraphrase one notable SF writer (Pamela Dean), "Starship >> Troopers is infuriating and you can't stay away from it." This > > > What is it everyone sees wrong with STARSHIP TROOPERS? Well, I can't speak for Pamela Dean (she speaks well enough for herself, thank you), but I can tell you what *I* saw wrong with STARSHIP TROOPERS. It was dull, dull, dull! You can say whatever you feel like in defense of it, but I tried *three* times to read it, and never got through more than about a third of it. --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Maynard, MA) UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian ARPA: boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
wab@reed.UUCP (William Baker) (05/12/85)
> Expires: > > Quoted from <168@hyper.UUCP> ["Re: NofTheBeast - True STINKER"], by brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust)... > +--------------- > | > reader. I have read just about everything he has written. Some of > | > his books have offended me (Starship Troopers, Farnham's Freehold) > | > > | > Bill Baker > | > | Yes. To paraphrase one notable SF writer (Pamela Dean), "Starship > | Troopers is infuriating and you can't stay away from it." This > | > | -- SKZB > > What is it everyone sees wrong with STARSHIP TROOPERS? > > --bsa > -- The main problem with Starship Troopers is that it glorifies war. John Rico, the main character, spends most of the book watching his buddies get blown away, all the while moralizing to himself on the necessity of war. In the future of Starship Troopers, the planetary government consists exclusively of veterans and only veterans can vote. The overall theme is that people who do not wish to serve in the military are social parasites. Heinlein reasons his arguments well, though. The government of veterans does not survive because it is morally superior to other forms; it continues to govern because it works. Also, it is made perfectly clear that the Bugs are determined to exterminate humans. There is no possibility for a negotiated peace, so the moral argument is not applicable. However, even this premise can be turned on its head. The most obvious example of this is Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War". Haldeman takes Heinlein's premise and some of his plot and turns the values around. It is exactly what one would expect from someone who read Heinlein avidly but also served in Vietnam (Haldeman). Great stuff. Dean's comment is apt. I have read my copy of Starhip troopers so many times that the pages are falling out. On the whole, it is not nearly as biased and jingoistic as Farnham's Freehold. In that novel he starts out with a nuclear war in which the main character, a thin, balding contractor/engineer (sound like someone familiar?), is determined to survive the war by hiding in his bomb shelter so that he can go out and "kill those pigs who killed my country!...I may die, but I'll have eight russian sideboys to carry my coffin!" or something like that. He and his gang are blown into the future where Negros are the dominant race and whites are slaves, making the point, in Heinlein's mind, that if there were more blacks than whites in modern times then they would enslave the whites, etc. I'm not accusing Heinlein of racism. If it is there, it is latent. Really, though, he has written some things that are shameful. Sometimes I wish he would listen to himself as much as others listen to him. He contradicts himself a great deal. On the other hand, the discussions recently that have denigrated his last few books and suggested that he is past his prime are off the mark. Heinlein is self-indulgent, hackneyed, and opinionated, but he is still writing with the insight and sensitivity has made him one of the three great s.f. writers. Hopefully, he will do as he has always done: Tell everyone to go to hell and write what he wants to write. Bill Baker tektronix!reed!wab
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (05/15/85)
>> What is it everyone sees wrong with STARSHIP TROOPERS? > > The main problem with Starship Troopers is that it >glorifies war. John Rico, the main character, spends most of the >book watching his buddies get blown away, all the while moralizing >to himself on the necessity of war. It may seem a technical point, but I think ST more glorifies warriors, than war. I would agree that it argues for the necessity of war, but I came away with the impression that it was the military virtues (duty, honor, country) that were supposed to be glorious, not the making of war. >In the future of Starship >Troopers, the planetary government consists exclusively of veterans >and only veterans can vote. The overall theme is that people who >do not wish to serve in the military are social parasites. But didn't Heinlein make it clear that service encompassed many kinds of public service, not just those we usually think of as military? > Heinlein reasons his arguments well, though. The >government of veterans does not survive because it is morally >superior to other forms; it continues to govern because it works. I thought this was a weak point in the argument presented. Heinlein, as the Omnipotent Author, portrayed a sytem as working, and then argued for it on the basis that "it works". I'll grant that this is a legitimate argument for a character in the book to make, but it's meaningless outside the context of the novel. The system worked because Heinlein wrote it that way. >On the >whole, it is not nearly as biased and jingoistic as Farnham's >Freehold. In that novel he starts out with a nuclear war in which >the main character, a thin, balding contractor/engineer (sound like >someone familiar?), is determined to survive the war by hiding in >his bomb shelter so that he can go out and "kill those pigs who >killed my country!...I may die, but I'll have eight russian >sideboys to carry my coffin!" or something like that. Alexei Panshin (in HEINLEIN IN DIMENSION, the best study of Heinlein's writings in print) makes the interesting point that Hugh Farnham is almost a parody of the standard Heinlein Competent Man. He has the brains and the skills, but nothing he does in the book works out. He is in effect an anti-hero, a pawn of his environment, not a successful mover and shaker. I wonder along with Panshin if this was Heinlein's intent, or if it just came out that way. >He and his >gang are blown into the future where Negros are the dominant race >and whites are slaves, making the point, in Heinlein's mind, that >if there were more blacks than whites in modern times then they >would enslave the whites, etc. > I'm not accusing Heinlein of racism. If it is there, it is >latent. Surely there are no grounds for a suspicion of even latent racism in this plot? Heinlein's point seems clear enough to me: that racism is not a trait of whites in particular, or blacks in particular, but a general human failing. >Really, though, he has written some things that are shameful. If you only mean badly-written, I'd agree, but if you mean the ideas are shameful, I'd be curious which ideas you have in mind. >Sometimes I wish he would listen to himself as much as >others listen to him. He contradicts himself a great deal. Indeed he does, but I wouldn't want to assume he is unaware of this, or that it's unintentional. Heinlein likes to play with ideas. I am often amazed how many people assume that every idea which Heinlein presents in a favorable light must be a dearly-held opinion of the author. Surely the many contradictions suggest otherwise? It's always seemed to me that Heinlein's chief purpose is to stimulate the reader's rational faculties by presenting unconventional or unfashionable ideas positively. It's probable that the ideas represent his own beliefs to some extent, but I'm never really sure. I've always felt that the main purpose of his polemics was to invite the readers to exercise their minds by disputing with him mentally while reading, and not necessarily to insist that we accept the notions. >Heinlein is self-indulgent, hackneyed, and opinionated, but he is >still writing with the insight and sensitivity has made him one of >the three great s.f. writers. Hopefully, he will do as he has >always done: Tell everyone to go to hell and write what he wants >to write. Hear, hear! - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
Phyllis.Lewis@CMU-SEI.ARPA (05/16/85)
From: Phyllis.Lewis@CMU-SEI
>What is it that everyone sees wrong with STARSHIP TROOPERS?
Well... To those of you who don't like Heinlein's government, the way
I read the story, I saw this form of "fascism" as just a possibility --
mere speculation as to what could happen. After all, isn't that what
separates _Science Fiction_ from "mainstream" literature?
In fact, by way of an aside, Algis Budrys, in the latest _Fantasy
& Science Fiction_, which of course is 400km from my keyboard, quotes a
founding father of the genre as preferring the title "speculative fiction."
So if we don't propose these alternatives, what do we have? Nothing more
than mainstream literature with glittering bells and whistles...
...k
P.S. No, I'm pretty sure it (Kevin Lewis,
wasn't Campbell... borrowing an
account...)friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/17/85)
In article <1520@reed.UUCP> wab@reed.UUCP (William Baker) writes: > >> What is it everyone sees wrong with STARSHIP TROOPERS? >> > > The main problem with Starship Troopers is that it >glorifies war. John Rico, the main character, spends most of the >book watching his buddies get blown away, all the while moralizing >to himself on the necessity of war. In the future of Starship >Troopers, the planetary government consists exclusively of veterans >and only veterans can vote. The overall theme is that people who >do not wish to serve in the military are social parasites. .... > However, even this premise can be turned on its head. The >most obvious example of this is Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War". >Haldeman takes Heinlein's premise and some of his plot and turns >the values around. It is exactly what one would expect from >someone who read Heinlein avidly but also served in Vietnam >(Haldeman). Great stuff. Another book which turns the idea on its head, and which is even closer to Starship Troopers in plot structure &c is "Naked to the Stars" by (I think) Phillip K Dick. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
DP0N@CMU-CS-A.ARPA (05/22/85)
From: Don.Provan@CMU-CS-A Gee, I had a completely different view of Starship Troopers. Admittedly, I was young at the time, and I've never heard what Heilein thought of it, but I thought it was almost anti-military. The first attack scene comes to mind where the entire idea was to terrorize a relatively peaceful people. I can't remember if they were actually helping the bugs or were just aligned with them or just sympathetic with them, but the idea of sending down an overwhelmingly superior force to kill, destroy, and frighten indiscriminately seems like a typically military reaction and not a very pleasant nor effective one. I also saw the "bugs" as just your typical enemy. Did the government just work the soldiers (and the civilians, too, of course) into the typical military frenzy, like the view of Germans as baby eaters? Were they really bugs, or just humanoids with some buglike features? Were they really all that aggressive? What I'm saying was that they were painted so ugly by the protagonist's views that you had to say "this *must* be an exageration." Maybe it was just because this was when I thought Heinlein was a god, before I read so many old-man-getting-lots-of-sex-teaches-youngster-how- to-view-life stories. provan@lll-mfe.arpa
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (06/03/85)
> > Well, how about fascism as glorified politics? Look, most of these objections have been answered at some length, by Heinlein and others (see, for example *Expanded Universe*.) So I am going to ignore them. However: (from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. C. Merriam Co, 1977) fascism: 1: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and race above the individual and that stands for a certralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible supression of opposition ... ST has a government in which -- there is no conscription there is no obvious suppression of individual opinion (recall that the public was loudly arguing for the Gvt to call back the forces to defend Earth after Buenos Aires was destroyed) there is never once a mention of the President or whatever, or in fact of any political figure higher than (I think) a mayor. Doesn't even control its servicemen to the extent that they cannot resign at will (much freer than today -- try giving your top sergeant two-weeks notice) Whatever ST was, it was *not* "fascist." Except to the extent that "fascist" is now mapped to "anything that I think is Not A Good Thing." Let's be a little careful out there... -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)