Re-reading Starship Troopers
November 2nd, 2007 by HenAs one of my favourite blogs was recently talking about wanting to sign up for the battle against the Bugs, I decided that it was time to re-read Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. Especially after a friend had asked if I had “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” and in shock I realized I didn’t (it’s my dad’s copy that I’ve been reading each time I go back to my parent’s).
It’s been a very happy read - the concept of a powered suit is still very cool, the relationship between the various people is nicely done compared to many of Heinlein’s early books and I really like the way in which the story is really a loosely attached series of chapters in the main character’s life. The general post-history is still apt - a slow and gradual breakdown of democracy because people believe they have the right to a vote and no responsibility for said votes actions (amongst other complaints) that result in increased crime and a third world war between US/EU/Russia and China. Eventually war veterans restart things (after a collapse of the nations) with a limited democracy in which the vote is only eligible to those who have served in the military. The point being that only those who are prepared to go through a grueling few years for the good of the many have shown any aptitude to be making decisions for the many (though not necessarily that they will all make good decisions).
Anyway - it was enjoyable and barely shows its age (48 years), and I’m reminded of just how bad that movie was.
November 4th, 2007 at 4:34 am
Ah, Heinlein. Maybe the most enjoyable of the “great three”, because he tried to write more than technical sci-fi. Even if he got weird in his last few novels (Still shuddering about “The cat that walks through walls”.
Starship Troopers is an interesting book, not so much because of the military story, but because of its political suggestions. In present day democracy, you inherit the right to vote. In Heinlein’s society, you have to earn it. Which splits the people between “those who are allowed to vote” and the others. He uses the military as the separator between those who are worthy and those who are not. Considering the fact that the book was written in 195, it was written to the backdrop of the Korea war and the starting anti-war movement (…they protest and want to be heard but they never served…), it is clear that this is harsh criticism of the “back seat drivers” who nag all the time and never do anything themselves.
Personally, I always liked the dog-analogy. “You don’t tolerate your dog crapping on your floor and suddenly shoot it after the tenth time. You teach it right at the first time not to do it”. Apply this idea to the “broken window” syndrome and graffiti back in the fifties and the unwillingness of present day law enforcement to actually punish juvenile criminals.
Though I can understand, why some people considered the book fascist after reading just a few selected excerpts.
About the movie: It was a nice gore sci-fi flick that had absolutely nothing to do with the actual book (except the name and the backdrop). Still, it had Denise Richards in it, which alone made it worth watching.