Starship Troopers

by Robert A. Heinlein

The historians can’t seem to settle whether to call this one "The Third Space War" (or the fourth), or whether "The First Interstellar War" fits it better. We just call it “The Bug War." Everything up to then and still later were "incidents," "patrols," or "police actions." However, you are just as dead if you buy the farm in an "incident" as you are if you buy it in a declared war...

In one of Robert A. Heinlein’s most controversial bestsellers, a recruit of the future goes through the toughest boot camp in the Universe—and into battle with the Terran Mobile Infantry against mankind’s most alarming enemy.

Genres: Science Fiction, Fiction, Classics, Military Fiction, War, Science Fiction Fantasy, Audiobook

309 pages, Hardcover

First published December 1, 1959

About the author

Robert Anson Heinlein was an American science fiction author, aeronautical engineer, and naval officer. Sometimes called the "dean of science fiction writers", he was among the first to emphasize scientific accuracy in his fiction, and was thus a pioneer of the subgenre of hard science fiction. His published works, both fiction and non-fiction, express admiration for competence and emphasize the value of critical thinking. His plots often posed provocative situations which challenged conventional social mores. His work continues to have an influence on the science-fiction genre, and on modern culture more generally.
Heinlein became one of the first American science-fiction writers to break into mainstream magazines such as The Saturday Evening Post in the late 1940s. He was one of the best-selling science-fiction novelists for many decades, and he, Isaac Asimov, and Arthur C. Clarke are often considered the "Big Three" of English-language science fiction authors. Notable Heinlein works include Stranger in a Strange Land, Starship Troopers (which helped mold the space marine and mecha archetypes) and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. His work sometimes had controversial aspects, such as plural marriage in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, militarism in Starship Troopers and technologically competent women characters who were formidable, yet often stereotypically feminine—such as Friday.
Heinlein used his science fiction as a way to explore provocative social and political ideas and to speculate how progress in science and engineering might shape the future of politics, race, religion, and sex. Within the framework of his science-fiction stories, Heinlein repeatedly addressed certain social themes: the importance of individual liberty and self-reliance, the nature of sexual relationships, the obligation individuals owe to their societies, the influence of organized religion on culture and government, and the tendency of society to repress nonconformist thought. He also speculated on the influence of space travel on human cultural practices.
Heinlein was named the first Science Fiction Writers Grand Master in 1974. Four of his novels won Hugo Awards. In addition, fifty years after publication, seven of his works were awarded "Retro Hugos"—awards given retrospectively for works that were published before the Hugo Awards came into existence. In his fiction, Heinlein coined terms that have become part of the English language, including grok, waldo and speculative fiction, as well as popularizing existing terms like "TANSTAAFL", "pay it forward", and "space marine". He also anticipated mechanical computer-aided design with "Drafting Dan" and described a modern version of a waterbed in his novel Beyond This Horizon.
Also wrote under Pen names: Anson McDonald, Lyle Monroe, Caleb Saunders, John Riverside and Simon York.

Reviews

[Lyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great work of science fiction.

This is not at all about action, and fighting bugs, it is a study of a man’s compulsion to fight and or serve his country, and a discussion about our society’s, and any society’s responsibility to its citizens and what is best for society. Like many Heinlein novels, it works well on many levels, the surface science fiction, and then the deeper, more complicated voice of the storyteller, speaking from his own experience.

This is a controversial book. Criticized for espousing a militaristic, maybe fascist ideal, Heinlein was also criticized from the other side for his own lack of combat experience. This book inspires strong emotions.

At the end of the day, it was a fine book, another excellent, genre transcending work from Heinlein.

*** 2020 reread - Starship Troopers came out in 1959, a departure from his juveniles published by Scribners’. This is more mature and his ideological and social commentary is more advanced.

A modern reader will find some somewhat dated action sequences as our heroes fight first alien “skinnies” and then the main antagonist bugs. The most important thing going on between the covers, though, is Heinlein’s description of a society that rose from the ashes of the “noble experiment” of democracy.

In Heinlein’s world building, western civilization had collapsed sometime in the late twentieth century after a fight between the Soviet state, the United States and China. What survived was a culture raised up by the veterans of those wars and built on the foundations of military thought and organization. Only a veteran can be a full citizen who can vote and have other rights. There appears to be limits on free speech and due process, and a relaxation of the eighth amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Residents are not required to serve, and in ironic twists are even discouraged from enlisting, but they can never be a true citizen of the state without veteran status.

Marvel introduced Iron Man in the 1963 edition of Tales of Suspense. The armored suits the mobile infantry wear to battle may have been an inspiration for Stan Lee and associates when they envisioned the Iron Man suit.

Good fun and also thought provoking.

*** 2025 reread -

I read this with my book club and its ability to inspire discussion is every bit as vital as it was more than 60 years ago.

A casual reader, maybe even one not acquainted with Bob's work, may only see the surface story and think this is a SF military book that aggrandizes fascism and is a proponent of militarism.

If you've read much of his writing, you'll be able to read between the lines and see RAH having some fun with his readers while also expounding on many of his libertarian ideals. And don't get me wrong, many of Heinlein's rants are fun as hell and add spice and depth to his narrative.

Like Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, this is a book that invites broad interpretation and perhaps even misinterpretation. While Papa demonstrated his phenomenal ability with the unreliable narrator, Heinlein sets up a scenario where veteran centered civil responsibility has become the successor to democratic principles and he runs with it.

On a short list of great science fiction books that SF fans should read.

[Mario the lone bookwolf · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kinda philosophizing the heck out of militarism.

The only one knowing how much of the author is in this work is Heinlein himself, because it would be tricky to write a military sci-fi novel without glorification of war and a military dictatorship to give the whole thing that certain something. Was his writing too realistic or did he really believe in it, nobody can say for sure. Did he even satirize militarism in a way that was too subtly hidden behind the obvious happenings?

Both military science fiction and war novels have been strongly influenced by the impact of this world, one of the first detailed descriptions of exporting war to outer worlds and what human society might be best suitable for endless intergalactic war. It opened the world for all kinds of alien psychologies, ideologies, intelligence, cultures, histories,.. and the variety of reasons for war against humanity or an alien race that could be generated out of the smallest difference. As so often, the first in the field has many advantages and Heinlein used it to write some of the conventions of these genres.

But he didn´t forget his recognition signal, his trademark of provoking by giving his protagonists opinions that are far beyond acceptable, even for the 20th century. Again, nobody can be sure if the was trying to proselytize for his current ideology or if he had a razor-sharp way of holding a mirror in humankinds´ ugly face. I read some of his novels and Starship Troopers is at least something of a conversation between different ideologies between the protagonist and other characters and not just a kind of endless talking.

I liked the idea that military education goes beyond tactics and psychological warfare and includes philosophy, ethics, and some kind of crude war morality. It seems improbable that any, especially quite kind of extremist, military regime might motivate their soldiers to have deep, theoretical thoughts about right and wrong, because that would include a higher danger of self-made troublemakers and progressives, but it gives the work a special touch. It takes it away from the primarily basic training, kill, and career mode and raises it to a second, parallel, higher level.

The difference between the movie adaption and the novel couldn't be more extreme. In the book, we are living in a quite a kind of liberal, tolerant, benevolent dictatorship that offers humans the option to be part of the war machine if they want some voting rights, but it´s never Orwellian. The movie is nice, not much of the original content is left and the story loses close to any dept and subtility, typical blockbustering down to be convenient for the broader audience.

It´s one of the most philosophical and controversial of his works because it isn´t as objective as it seems to be and is subconsciously dripping political ideas in the readers' minds. But such great introspections and insights are totally worth the danger of getting a bit indoctrinated and hey, the others around here are adults and not easy to influence, immature brats like me.

Because there will always be controversy around Heinleins´ work and changing world views, I want to add some personal opinion at the end of each review of one of his works.

It seems a bit as if Heinlein had been a lifelong searcher for the right ideology, as he switched from one extreme to the other, leaving marks of it throughout all of his works. This is the biggest contrast to others, who kept their work clean from bias and agenda and it certainly built both his legend, fanbase, and critics by provoking and polarizing. Of course, it´s the freedom of art to integrate serious elements, as long as they are not dangerous, but the thin red line tends to be pretty blurry and while some see him as a visionary for alternative society models the others describe him as a conservative, hate-filled, insecure man.

I don´t really care what his motives might have been, his work is something special and different, it´s just a prime example of why professional artists should keep their work clean from personal agendas, because that just, justifiably, feeds the trolls and ruins ones´ reputation as for example seen with the great three titans of sci-fi. Asimov: robots, psychohistory, foundation. Clarke: epic, subtle, philosophical, each time reading finding new depths, extremely complex. Heinlein: Meh, his writing was average, but did you know what kind of mindset he had regarding... See? While people will endlessly debate about the ingenuity of and inspiration from Asimovs´and Clarkes´work, they will remember Heinlein as the kind of strange uncle with borderline attitudes.

Tropes show how literature is conceptualized and created and which mixture of elements makes works and genres unique:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...

[Paul Dura · Rating 4 out of 5]

Starship Troopers is listed amongst the recommended books by the United States Air Force for a reason. For those who plan on pursuing a military career, this book exhibits the very ideals upon which our current military standards are based. Camaraderie, Sacrifice, and Responsibility are more than mere words to the protagonist. The distinction between a fighting man and a soldier is made. The distinction between a superior rank and a true officer is made. Johnny Rico is a soldier in more than merely name, and the reader discovers this through this narrative.

For those of you who have seen the film incarnation of this story, simply forget it. It won't aid you in understanding or predicting the outcome of this book. The tempo, messages, and level of seriousness are completely different. Most of you know the pitfalls of watching the movie first, so I implore you to read this book before seeing the movie. If you have already seen the movie, as I stated before, forget it.

There is one thing I would mention that is perhaps the fault of this book. Heinlein shapes a militaristic, possibly even oppressive society, out of the remaining nations on earth. He touts the virtues of citizenry only being earned through dedicated service. At the same time, he manages to skirt by some of the more practical and realistic attitudes of people. The society could very well work if it was implemented exactly in the fashion it is described in his novel, but the transition from our current societal structure to this system of government is EXTREMELY unlikely. It takes the edge off of the bold concepts, making this book only a 4 star.

To end on a positive note I'll say this. When I finally finished this novel I had a brief spark inside of me. For once in my entire career, I felt a sense of pride in being a soldier. No military training, no officer, and certainly no civilian has ever made me feel as proud of my profession as that novel has.

[Mike (the Paladin) · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book greatly. While I certainly can't be said to agree with Heinlein on every aspect of life, politics, or theology...I do appreciate where he's coming from in this book. (Remember it's a 1959 book, before the idiotic handling of Vietnam became apparent). There are thought provoking ideas in this book even if it is considered a YA book. Agree or disagree, it's a good read.

By the way, I must say this. It's often (actually more often than not) true that a movie doesn't live up to the book. In this case that would be like saying the Atlantic Ocean isn't exactly like Death Valley. If your only experience with Starship Troopers is the movie of that name, then you don't know anything about this book excepting the names of a few characters. The characters in the movie don't resemble the characters in the book. The universe and governmental structure in the movie doesn't resemble that of the book. The main science fiction "hook" of the book isn't even present in the movie.

When you saw the movie some of you may have noticed a flaw in the soundtrack, a "whirring noise". That was Robert A. Heinlein spinning in his grave at high speed. The movie by the same name as this book is so spectacularly bad (compared to the book) I sometimes wonder if wasn't an intentional "hit piece". So...see the movie if you will, but PLEASE, don't confuse it with or miss the book. The book is more or less a YA book(then called a "teen book"), an easy and quick read...and FAR FAR superior to the travesty of movie by the same name.

By the way, my late wife summed up a lot about the movie when she observed it should have been called,"Bug Blasters".

********************* Update ******************

They have been playing this thing (the movie by the same name as this book)on several TV channels lately AD NAUSEAM...it seems to be on almost every time I check the listings on the idiot box. So since there seems to be a new push to legitimize this grotesque cinematographic attempt at "science fiction" I'm forced to revisit my review here. Yes this is a YA or as it was called at the time a "teen" book...but it's a good one. Let me emphasize again, the movie doesn't even resemble the book except in that the "enemy" vaguely resembles the one in the book (the movie uses 6 legged "insect" type life forms the book refers to them as "arachnids" giant spider life forms) and they use some of the same character names. But the world the novel takes place in, the actual characters, the nature of the government, the way the military works...it's all different, they even get the heart of the actual story wrong. For that matter the relatively minor "romance" angle is (as portrayed in the movie)silly and will mislead. The story in the book is more peripheral and is more to give insight into the world/cosmos than to be a love story. This movie is terrible, please don't confuse it with the book. This is one of those movies that "ticks me off" in that I liked the book and this thing takes the book's title and gives us a perversion of that story.

************

!2/9 /2018
Okay time for another update.

This has come up in the discussion of the book on/in the Action Adventure Aficionados group and now in a comment here. I'm aware but didn't mention it in the review above.

The movie was actually an intentional hit piece by the movie maker. He gave the book a Nazi look through his interpretation in the movie.

The government pictured by Heinlein in the book is Libertarian. Everyone is free to live, do business etc. as they choose. The right to vote and send the military out however only rests in the hands of those who have themselves served in that kind of service (thus the reasoning in the book that a panicked civilian can't order disastrous military action). You may agree, you may disagree but it's not a government anything like the one in the ridiculous movie.

[Peter Topside · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of my guilty pleasures is comparing books to their movie adaptations. I picked up Starship Troopers, never realizing that it was originally a book, wanting to do the same. Aside from some very basic concepts and character names, the book is a completely different animal. There are a handful of action scenes, but the book is focused on Johnnie Rico, from his point of view. He begins as a privileged, upper class academic, but chooses to go on a different path by joining up in the armed services. You watch him evolve into a great soldier, as he is taught, trained and inspired by his instructors and superior officers, both in the classroom and in the field of battle. I also very much appreciated the dynamic between Johnnie and his father throughout. This book is fun, original and a solid read.

[Manny · Rating 4 out of 5]

My first impulse is to dismiss it as an appalling piece of militaristic propaganda, whose one saving grace is that it's at least much better than the movie. But that wouldn't be doing the book justice. With all its faults, I simply loved it as a 14 year old, and I'm in no way alone there. Why is it so fascinating?

Let me start by dismissing a couple of possible theories. One reviewer wonders if it's deadpan satire. I suppose, when you see some of Heinlein's later books (Stranger in a Strange Land, 1961; I Will Fear No Evil, 1970), you may get the idea that he's some kind of hippy New Age prophet, and that Starship Troopers is poking fun at the militaristic right. I don't think that idea stands up to serious examination. Many of Heinlein's early books extol militaristic right-wing/libertarian virtues; Sixth Column (1949) is a particularly flagrant example. From what I've heard, the "satire" theory is in fact the reverse of the truth. Stranger in a Strange Land was originally conceived as a satire; Heinlein was surprised to see that people liked it and read it straight, and, more flexible than he's often made out, he rewrote it that way and followed it up with a couple of similar books.

Many more people are taking Starship Troopers at face value, and appreciate how it presents the military in a positive light. Well, there's clearly something to that. But why does this book, as opposed to many others, do such a fantastic job of selling this particular point of view? If you're a soldier yourself, I can see that Heinlein, also a soldier, can make you proud of what you're doing. But my parents were strict believers in non-violence, and I've never had any contact with that world at all. I still thought it was great.

So, on mature consideration, here's another theory, which I claim relates better to Heinlein's oeuvre as a whole. (By the way, I'm only saying "oeuvre" because I know it would annoy him). One theme that he keeps returning to over and over again, in different forms, is the relationship between the self and the rest of the universe. Heinlein's metaphysics were distinctly odd: he wasn't sure that he liked the rest of the universe much, or even if it existed in the first place. You can occasionally see this idea presented in a straightforward way. In his short story They (1941), it turns out that the paranoid main character is completely right about what's going on. He's the most important person in the world; everyone else, for reasons never revealed, is involved in a gigantic conspiracy against him, whose main purpose is to prevent him from discovering who he really is. In The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag (1942), we find, again, that things truly aren't as they seem, and that all existence is illusory. The world, we learn at the end, is a work of art, and can be changed at any moment. Hoag is in fact an art critic, sent to judge us on aesthetic grounds. And in the classic time-travel story All You Zombies (1959), the hero discovers that he's his own father and mother. As he says, he knows where he came from; but where did all you zombies come from? The final paragraph gives us to understand that other people may not exist at all.

As we see, Heinlein rather likes solipsism, which, when you come down to it, isn't as ridiculous a philosophical position as you might think. (Wittgenstein: the solipsist is saying something sensible, but chooses an odd way to express it). Heinlein has a strong sense of self, and wants to erect a barrier, as tangible as possible, between him and the rest of the world. A powerful metaphor for this barrier, which he used many times, is the space suit. Have Space Suit, Will Travel (1958) is not one of his best books, but the descriptions of what it's like to walk around in a space suit are quite good. I remember them clearly, when most of the rest of the story has faded. Similarly, Space Cadet (1948), which I read at primary school, is hastily written and uninspired; but again, the only scene I can recall clearly is the one where the teenage hero throws up in his space suit after inadvisedly drinking a mint julep. I was so impressed by this that I didn't dare try a mint julep myself until I was in my mid-40s.

I hope you see where I'm going. What makes Starship Troopers so effective, I claim, is the space suit theme, which here is taken to its logical conclusion. The Mobile Infantry Suit simultaneously cuts off its wearer from the rest of the world, and makes him almost invincible. It's no coincidence that the stunning opening scene highlights the suit's amazing capabilities. The hero is dropped directly from space onto a hostile planet, and spreads mayhem with his high-tech weapons while jumping a mile at a time in his jet-propelled boots - all without needing to touch anything directly, or feel involved in the fates of the humanoid creatures he's killing by the hundred. Fans of the book uniformly hated the movie: for budget reasons, Verhoeven took out the suits, which were too complicated to render effectively. After that, everything felt wrong. The most important part of the imagery was missing.

As already noted, Heinlein wasn't writing a satire - he appeared to believe in this stuff - but I think he found a good way to dramatize what it means to be a member of the American military-industrial complex. The Suit gives its wearer superhuman technological powers, while excluding the rest of the world to the point where it barely exists at all. And the power the Suit confers isn't just military, but also political and moral. In Heinlein's world, one only becomes a full citizen after serving in the military. I don't agree that this is a desirable way to organize a society, but Heinlein was describing what he saw: in 1959, Eisenhower, a former general, was nearing the end of his second term, and would be succeeded by Kennedy, a decorated war hero. Both were very popular.

Now, of course, things have changed, and the military-industrial complex is usually cast as the villain. In Avatar, I couldn't help thinking that the robotic exoskeleton worn by the evil Colonel Quaritch in the final scene was rather like the Mobile Infantry Suit; the Colonel's defeat, as many people have pointed out, can be read as predicting the impending defeat of American Imperialism at the hands of a resurgent Third World. I do wonder what Heinlein would have made of that.

[Tadiana ✩Night Owl☽ · Rating 2 out of 5]

I first read Starship Troopers as an impressionable teenager. My dad had a lot of SF books around the house, particularly Heinlein's, and I read most of them, except the especially sexy ones that he hid from me. (I read several of them later and hated them. But that's a different story.) And I have vague memories of liking this book - a lot.

So when I decided to reread it as an adult, I was expecting some old-fashioned shoot-up-the-aliens classic pulp SF, like, say, The Puppet Masters.

What I got was a lot of this:


Not much of this:


And you can forget about this:


Basically it's one long military lecture wrapped in a paper-thin science fiction plot. I was surprised by how little action there was, and how much pontificating on military strategy and training. More than half of it reads like a textbook. It's not as painfully tedious as the infamous 100-page John Galt lecture in Atlas Shrugged (what is??), but it's pretty bad unless you're actually interested in military theory, from a proponent's point of view.

As many reviewers have mentioned, this is one of those cases where the book has virtually nothing in common with the movie, other than the name and a few basic plot details. I'm pretty certain that Heinlein is rolling in his grave over Paul Verhoeven's satirical treatment of his military screed.

And I'm still confused why Teenage Me thought this was a great book ...

[Lucas · Rating 1 out of 5]

Where do I even begin? For starters, I should let the reader know that I'm not basing my score on the politics of the book (as laughable as I think they are) but on the plot of the book, or rather the complete lack of a plot in the book. While things do happen, some of them pretty big, Mr. Heinlein has seen fit that we should not be party to any of those things. Instead, he saves the most loving descriptions for daily life at boot camp. Seventy, yes seventy, pages of a two hundred-odd page book are dedicated to boot camp. Within those pages we learn the importance of food, and being able to sleep in any condition. Thrill to the excitment of marching into the middle of nowhere! You will weep and wail along with the officers when you hear them lament the fact that they are compelled, nay forced, to flog their men when they misbehave. Honestly, you could watch the beginning of Full Metal Jacket and skip reading that whole part and save yourself some time, and be more entertained in the meantime.

Next you're treated to an extended flashback where a teacher (who is quite obviously channelling the author) lectures his students (representing the reader) about the major reason for the downfall of society in the past (today!). What one overarching reason is responsible for the collapse of society? Massive energy crisis? Economic collapse? Political anarchy? WRONG!!! It's because people listened to psychiatrists and didn't spank their children enough! The secret to an orderly society is corporal punishment, and lots of it! It does make me wonder about the particular proclivities of the author, but that's neither here nor there.

So now that our main character, Johnny Rico, is a full-fledged soldier we can finally get to some action after half the book is already finished, right? No. No, no, no, a thousand times no. You will not see action in this book that is advertised to be about killing gigantic outer space bugs. Instead, you will be treated to the doldrums of a soldier that isn't busy killing things. Guard duty! Sleeping! Maintaining weapons and space armor! Dinner and its various protocols! Even his time off gets more detail than all the fighting Rico participates in combined! The typical description for a battle will go like this: "We dropped on this planet to smash things up. Boy, what a mess that was. This guy died. These ones got hurt."

Then Rico goes to officer training school where we get more detail about learning things! And another lecture from another teacher to his students about why soldiers should be the only ones to handle government affairs! Then we get told how battallions are broken down into platoons and squads and such forth! Finally we get to the end which turns into one of the biggest anticlimaxes I've ever had the misfortune of reading. You'll get what feels like five hours of blabbing about setting up patrol and coordinates streamed endlessly at you, some thrilling detail on hypnotically suggested sleep, and then a blessed five seconds of actual confrontation with something! Then it's over before you even know it started. The end.

I realize that the life of a soldier is probably pretty accurately portrayed in the book, days upon days of boring drudgery with a few moments of life-and-death craziness, but that doesn't necessarily make for a particularly interesting book. At least not the way it's depicted here.

Don't be fooled by the first ten pages of the book, which actually contain more action than the other hundred and ninety. What you're getting when you get this book is only one step away from a military training manual, only with some references to outer space and aliens tossed in along with a couple crazy rightwing ravings as the chocolatey syrup to go on top of the whole crappy sundae. Don't fall for the hype, pass on this book.

And yes, the movie is better. It's stupid and fun. The book is just stupid.

[Leonard Gaya · Rating 3 out of 5]

Space exploration has always been the realm of engineers and the military. When Heinlein wrote this novel (the late 1950s), the US Armed Forces had recently won World War II. They were beefing up their nuclear arsenal against a potential strike from the USSR, sending troops overseas, starting an endless war in Vietnam, and sending the first uncrewed missions to the face of the moon!

Starship Troopers is mostly a Bildungsroman about the US Armed Forces (Robert Heinlein himself was a US Navy officer and engineer), written in the form of a journal or documentary, from a young man’s point of view, from boot camp to glorious war veteran. It is indeed quite instructive, should you wish to understand how the military organisation works (or might work): from daily schedules to vocabulary, and from titles and hierarchy to values and etiquette.

About half the novel is mostly action, with combat training and battlefields (especially the battle scenes that frame the story, at the start and the end). The other half is all about moral and political doctrine, written in the form of philosophical dialogues. This device will be repeated and expanded in Stranger in a Strange Land, written shortly after the present novel. In this regard, Heinlein’s book is in the tradition of Plato and the Enlightenment. Not only in shape — this alternating between action and discussion made me sometimes think of the Marquis de Sade —, but also in content — the Terran Federation is a sort of utopia, redolent of Plato’s Republic (Col. Dubois acting like an ill-tempered Socrates). The story also displays a few examples of outstanding leadership, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this novel were included into a recommended reading list for cadets in the military or junior managers in the corporate world.

It is not entirely clear however why this is considered a science fiction novel (it won Heinlein a Hugo Award), except that the “Terran Federation” stands for the USA, that society is under a military oligarchy (only the veterans are allowed to vote), and that the enemy they fight against is a rather silly race of interstellar bugs (i.e. communists). There is no clear explanation for what’s at stake in that particular war at that specific point in time. What matters to Heinlein is to develop what it means to serve as a military in general terms. Starship Troopers could just as well have been an epic story set at the time of the Roman Empire. Needless to say: Heinlein’s hopeful and slightly naive military utopia is strikingly opposed to the great dark SF dystopias of former decades: We, Brave New World and 1984.

All in all, Heinlein’s book carries some radical ideology, with lengthy arguments in favour of corporal punishment and suchlike, all of which is “To the everlasting glory of the infantry—”. A doctrine which sounds quite outdated today but that, in a way, still resonates with the cheerful militaristic inclination of a few right-wing movements. Nevertheless, the story flows smoothly and merrily, and Heinlein does have a serious knack for writing good dialogues and confusing action scenes. However, if I had to choose one SF military book to carry to the proverbial desert island, it would probably be Haldeman’s Forever War.

Starship Troopers has had a considerable influence on popular franchises, such as Star Trek (the United Federation of Planets is indeed a military utopia like the one devised in this book), or Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket. Paul Verhoeven’s adaptation is an unfaithful and rather mediocre parody, despite Denise Richards’ dizzying plastics and Michael Ironside’s delightful badassery. I guess Iron Man also borrowed his power armour from Heinlein’s brightest addition to the Mobile Infantry arsenal.

[donna backshall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whoever decided that the audiobook for Starship Troopers needed to be remixed in 2024 by the narration king of military sci-fi himself, R.C. Bray, deserves a medal.

Listening to Bray read the banter, the fear, the steadfastness and the grit of Heinlein's characters brought it all to life. Whether you're a fan of the campy movie, or have a dogeared paperback you've re-read a hundred times, you're going to appreciate R.C. Bray's performance of this classic tale of The Bug War. THIS is exactly why I love sci-fi.

---------------------------------------------
OG review, circa 2013

Starship Troopers, the book, is one of my all-time favorites. This military sci-fi novel has all the aspects of hard science fiction I love: an honest and brave protagonist in a ridiculously dangerous situation, controversial politics, space adventures, cool gadgets, and unimaginable aliens.

By contrast Starship Troopers, the movie, is also one of my favorites, but for completely different (and admittedly shallow) reasons. The movie only vaguely resembles the book, but it has hot-hot-oh-SO-HOT characters, space adventure and wonderfully campy dialogue.

I hate hearing someone say "the movie was so cheesy, why would I read the book?" because there's simply no comparison. They should both be enjoyed for their distinct merits.

[Kelly (and the Book Boar) · Rating 2 out of 5]

Find all of my reviews at: http://52bookminimum.blogspot.com/

“Nothing of value is free. Even the breath of life is purchased at birth only through gasping effort and pain.”

Since NPH is one of the reasons Starship Troopers remains a favorite film of mine, I think I’ll let him express my sentiments on the paper version . . .



I need to realize that sometimes it’s okay to not read the book. Starship Troopers is such a cult classic – it’s just soooooo bad that it somehow became great. The book, on the other hand? Well – it clearly inspired the film, but it doesn’t have the same style at all. Translation – the book is smart and while I was reading I was all like . . .



because I am stupid.

Things I found enjoyable were as follows:

1. The characters were from Terra. Know who else is from Terra????



2. There was plenty of world building. Barely a grain of sand went without being described . . .



3. In a roundabout way it was still a story of war with icky critters . . .



The bad??? It was boring. We’re talking a real snooze-a-rama . . .



The style was definitely love it or hate it and sadly I didn’t love it. I wanted this . . . .



Instead, I got something that read like a futuristic military member’s memoir. And it wasn’t even someone awesome like Captain Kirk or Picard – it was more like the life and styles of one Ensign Crusher. Y’all know what the reaction to that would be, right????

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Big nasty communist spiders are attacking Earth and all the planets it has colonized! It's a battle between man and bug, and who is to save us?

I'll tell you who! Guys with really fucking big guns, that's who! With spacesuits that make it so they can jump over buildings, and deflect bullets, and drop from spaceships to the surface of planets without getting hurt! That's who!

These guys get dropped onto planets with their spacesuits and their big guns, and they can incinerate some little brown people like you wouldn't believe, then they can leave without a single casualty. This is who is gonna fuck up the big spiders. AMERICA, FUCK YEAH! COMING TO SAVE THE MOTHERFUCKING DAYAY!

That's yer plot, other than experiencing the trials and tribulations of boot camp through the eyes of a protagonist who spends quite a bit of time philosophising about society and politics and all that good stuff. And this MIGHT make it sound like I DIDN'T like the book. That would be entirely wrong.

This book is so vivid, and so passionate, in its description of what it is like to be in this army that I couldn't help but be sucked in completely. It's an easy, quick, fun read, and it's passionate in its monologues about how society should be. I loved the sections where he's explaining his moral sentiments since I've never understood how someone could join an army and go kill people without questioning the motives of the war itself. Personally, whenever I kill someone, I like to know the reason I'm doing it.

But it truly is a different way of looking at ethics, isn't it? Mr. Protagonist believes that only those who have fought and risked everything for their nation should be considered full citizens, because they were willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of their nation*. I can see how someone with a fairly black and white view of reality might think this makes sense. But. By fighting in a war you are condoning a war. This means that if the war is ethically wrong, you are doing something ethically reprehensible. So shouldn't it matter what the war is about? (I know. I'm arguing with a dead guy. It's my review, and I'll argue with a dead guy if I want to.)

Heinlein's protagonist also makes an argument about the prison system and how it doesn't actually reform those who do time. I totally agree with him here. Somehow he tries to equate this with an argument that you MUST spank children for them to have a sense of responsibility. Uhh, yeah, back to symbolic logic class with you, Bob.

But moving on...I found it quite interesting how dualistic our protagonist's thinking is when it comes to ALL PEOPLE. F'rinstance, you can't trust a civilian to do a job that requires "fighting spirit;" women are good pilots, all seem to have great smiles, and they're "the reason men fight" (gay men apparently don't exist in this world), but women don't get to fight Bugs wearing those cool spacesuits because, well, they're all sexy and small and fragile and stuff. Then, within the military, the guys who haven't made a jump are lesser than those who have, Protagonist's peeps look down on the Navy and get in fights with them, etc. (He does have a name, but it's a boring one. I prefer calling him Protagonist.)

But then I started wondering if this kind of attitude is necessary for the military to function. I'm too skeptical to EVER join the military, and that has nothing to do with fighting spirit. But maybe, in order to do what they do, soldiers HAVE to feel like they're the best of the best, doing the best thing that could ever be done with their life. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to motivate themselves to jump out of the spaceship and kill the spiders, or guard the border against Mexicans, or defuse bombs in Baghdad, or whatever else might get them killed.

So, reading this book got me thinking about the mindset of this protagonist, and thinking about the soldiers and marines I've known, and...well...maybe as much as I disagree with this mindset, perhaps it's a necessary mindset for someone in the military. And we need a military. So maybe we need some people who think in this dualistic way.

Anyway, this is what Starship Troopers got me thinking about. Part of this Heinlein can take credit for: if this book is any indication, he was more than willing to speak his mind, and he clearly had a lot of ideas. These rambling monologues where Heinlein was channeled through his protagonist were just as entertaining, if not moreso, than the soldiers vs. bugs part of the story. Then again, I'm horribly entertained by Sarah Palin's "political" career, and occasionally read snippets of Ann Coulter's books because her anger is funny. If that doesn't sound like you, you might just find Heinlein's politics annoying.

But I was quite diverted, and I'll be reading more Heinlein soon.

*: (There's some contention on Goodreads about whether or not this is the case, but the way I interpreted the book is that you can only vote if you've joined the military--although you might not have seen combat depending on the job you ended up with. But you were WILLING to go into combat since the military assigned you your job and you didn't get to choose. So you must've been WILLING to be a soldier if you want to vote. So pthbthbthbth!)

[Michael Finocchiaro · Rating 3 out of 5]

[UPDATED]
Starship Troopers was definitely a page turner and one did feel like he was on the ground with the Mobile Infantry, bouncing around killing Bugs. But. It was also incredibly pro-war and the middle development section got a little long. You remember how great Full Metal Jacket was, but that the great parts were at the very beginning and at the very end? Well, I felt that this book also started and ended with adrenaline rushes but that the middle was a bit flat. That being said, the realism and the imagination around the weapons and tech were pretty good. I definitely see how influential Heinlein was on subsequent science fiction and it is impressive that this was written back in '59. The Bugs were never given any treatment to make them less of an "enemy" which seemed a bit like the vilification of, say, blacks or arabs by the extreme right. I would almost give him the benefit of the doubt that this was a critique of society, but from what I have read, that wasn't really his intention.

There is a lot of war theory in ST. "The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force...controlled and purposeful violence." (p. 78). That the government's motivations could be wrong or misguided is never really addressed, but then he is writing this after WWII and before Vietnam so my cynicism is perhaps too modern for this book. The worldview in the book is pragmatic and brutal: "There is an old song which asserts 'the best things in life are free.' Not true! Utterly false! This was the tragic fallacy which Brough on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the 20th century." (p. 117). Fortunately, his pessimism has not (yet) been born out and there are still many who adhere to the 'best things are free' philosophy rather than the Ayn Randian determinism demonstrated here by Heinlein. To be fair to the author, he does mention some wartime abuses and in particular post-traumatic stress syndrome in the tragic story of Dillinger and his murder of the little girl Barbara. But even here, the protagonist reserves almost no criticism of the military, just some sadness for the misfortune: "my sympathy is reserved for Barbara Anne Enthwaite whom I had never seen, and for her parents who would never see her again" (p.141) and then back to business after the 30-day mourning period.

One sad aspect of ST's dystopian future is how citizenship is restricted to relatively few (like in ancient Greece or Rome). "Anyhow, it wasn't the process of voting that made a citizen - the Lieutenant had been a citizen in the truest sense of the word, even though he had not lived long enough ever to cast a vote. He had 'voted' every time he made a drop." (p. 207). Given the current attacks on democratic systems, this is a kind of dangerous form of thinking IMHO. If citizens are never given any choices and are limited to the elite, the fundaments of democracy disappear. "No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority. If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead - and responsibility was then forced on him willy-nilly and destroyed both him and his foundation less temple." (p. 234) Again, I find this view too narrow and pessimistic.

Overall, since I am a dove politically, all the military camaraderie kind of put me off. I read it because it is a classic and a reference, but I prefer the Red Mars or if my aliens have to be insects, District 9.

[Bradley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Re-Read 12/23/25

I've been enjoying all of Heinlein in order of publication and it's neat to finally come this far again. To me, it feels like a real turning point for the author, and obviously this is one of those all time favs.

Indeed, it's the classic MilSF. :)



Original Review:

One of the original Mil-SF classics!

I've read this before. Several times, even, back when I was a newb when it came to Heinlein or SF in general. You know, pick up the Hugo Award winners and see if I like the author enough to continue on. Twenty books later, (THAT YEAR,) I discovered something. I like Heinlein. A lot.

But not ALL of Heinlein equally. Starship Troopers seemed kinda preachy to me, a little slow, and RAH, RAH, RAH Civic Duty. :) Suffice to say, I liked it pretty well. Caveats: it did come out in 1059, riding the social wave following the Korean War and very reminiscent of WWII war stories, updated for SF and focusing less on the horrors of war and more on Heinlein's usual Self-Reliance, Responsibility, and Duty.

I can't say I mind that at all. In fact, it just made me feel rather warm and cuddly and proud to be an American. Just a few years later, Kennedy would ask us what we would do for our country. We would feel responsible enough to take on those other things we called a social wrong. Like Red Scares. Cuba. Vietnam. But that wasn't this. Not yet.

Patriotism was at an all-time high. And this novel reflects that. Wide-eyed wonder and hope and gritty realism when it came to doing What Was Right.

Coming from another generation, this novel didn't quite hit the same buttons for me. But that's all right because some really smart people made a different movie by the same name but using MOSTLY the same story in the 90's that rocked hard with it's updated sensibilities and satire. :) And yet, the core RESPONSIBILITY remained very much intact. Amazing, no?


This novel is far from being Heinlein's best, but damn if it isn't excellent in its own right. I don't always have to agree with the sentiments as they apply now to appreciate the idealism on parade then. :)

[Markus · Rating 1 out of 5]

The first book that I read by Robert Heinlein turned out to be a surprise in more than one way. I picked it because it seemed to be the short and fun story among them, and saved his other famous works for later.

The problem with many classics is that they are painfully tedious. The problem with many science fiction novels is that they are mindless entertainment in space. Starship Troopers is neither of these things. It is way more entertaining than the average classic and way smarter than the average sci-fi book.

The issues with it are much deeper than that.

For this is a novel of political philosophy more than a novel of science fiction. It is a pure glorification of violence, of soldiers, and of the despotic ways of armed forces. It is blatantly amerocentric, militaristic propaganda.

First of all, the book propones the view that only those who have served in the military should be given civil rights. One of the arguments contained in the book actually makes a certain amount of sense, namely that only those who care about their state and take an interest in government should be allowed to vote. This is quite a fair statement (especially in this era of populism). However, the conclusion is nonsensically absurd. How does this relate to soldiers? Not at all.

Secondly, the characters fall into two categories. The first one is the protagonist and his teachers, reflected semi-philosophers acting as Heinlein’s voice in describing his military utopia. The second is all the rest of the soldier characters, who are, to put it mildly, not particularly bright. In other words, a wonderful set of recipients for exclusive voting rights.

Thirdly, the setting operates on the assumption that after the great nations of the world battle it out in massive global wars and subsequently collapse, high and mighty benevolent veterans from the wars will step in and clean up things. This is if possible even more absurd than the idea above.

Fourthly, strip away the flawed reasoning and the ridiculous ode to soldiery, what are we left with? ‘Muricans (and wannabe ‘Muricans) killing space bugs.

Starship Troopers has many layers: it’s a propaganda text in the guise of a political treatise in the guise of science fiction. Other than that, it has about the same amount of depth as the Aral sea.

That said, I stand by the second paragraph. On one hand, this book is indeed a decent sci-fi war story with suspense and good writing. On the other, however, it’s political aspect is frighteningly ignorant and delusional.

[Paul Weiss · Rating 5 out of 5]

Far, far more than a simple juvenile space yarn!

On the face of it, an exciting juvenile adventure story in a marvelous classic hard sci-fi setting! The edition I read summarizes it well, "The Mobile Infantry of the startling twenty-second century attracts young and eager to serve Johnnie Rico. He enters basic training as a naïve youth who must learn quickly how to cope with every soldier's problems of courage, discipline and loyalty. But he barely learns the value of freedom before he finds he must fight for it bravely - in fantastic interplanetary battles against the most incredible adversaries of the future." Futuristic weaponry, interstellar travel, aliens, glitzy slam-bang technology, imagination and suspense - STARSHIP TROOPERS has got it all!

But even a moment's analysis below that tantalizing, exciting surface story will reveal the much more profound, sterner stuff which will form the basis of numberless formal and informal philosophical debates for many, many years to come. The suggestion that the statement "Violence never settled anything" is utter nonsense; the surprising thesis that the term "juvenile delinquent" is an oxymoron; the proposition that man has no moral instinct, only a cultivated sense of moral duty that must be learned; the completely contrarian idea that franchise, the right to vote, is not a universal right but rather a responsibility which must be first earned and then exercised as a matter of duty; the suggestion that capital punishment is not only reasonable but should logically be carried out against a perpetrator judged "not guilty by reason of insanity"; the place of the fairer sex in the armed forces; the relationship between honor, experience, rights, duty and responsibility; the morality of imperialism and war; and much, much more - how is it possible that an author could cover so much ground in a mere 200 pages?

Only an author of the caliber of Robert A Heinlein could pull it off! Hand STARSHIP TROOPERS to your 10 year old child who enjoys a rollicking space adventure and you'll turn him into a science fiction fan for life. Hand it to the dean of the philosophy department at your local university and you'll spark a series of fascinating, intellectual debates that could last until the turn of the century.

Highly recommended.

Paul Weiss

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chock-a-block full of gung-ho jingoism, narrow minded fascist pipe dreams, and casual descriptions of institutional dehumanization as well as violence...basically everything you would expect from a book written in the perspective of a futuristic jarhead. I have never read a book in which I agreed with so little, but loved so much.

[James Corey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Originally posted at www.the-expanse.com

I've been wanting to do this for a while. Write a series of book reviews of the books that had the most direct influence on my writing, and on The Expanse series in particular. Hopefully, this is just the first.

Starship Troopers, by Robert Heinlein:

Starship Troopers moved onto my nightstand a couple of days ago. I always have a nightstand book, and it tends to be something I've read before. I'll read a few pages while my wife does her pre-bed puttering, and I need something I can easily put down when the lights go out. If it's a new book and it has really grabbed me, it's harder to stop reading.

So I've been going back through Starship Troopers a few pages at a time, and it's been really informative re-reading this classic of military SF after having now written two novels that include elements of military SF.


Synopsis for those who haven't read it:

Johnnie Rico is the 1950's version of the All American Boy, living in a society that rewards federal service with full citizenship rights. Most of the people in his society forgo federal service, with the feeling that getting the right to vote isn't worth two years of signing yourself over to the government.

Johnnie's parents are wealthy people who look down on federal service. They intend to send him off to Harvard and then into the family business. But in an attempt to impress his friend and a cute girl, Johnnie winds up signing up for federal service and being assigned to the Mobile Infantry just before a war breaks out with an insectoid race.

The book jumps back and forth between Johnnie's memories of his training as a 'cap trooper', and the current events of his tour of duty during the war. We follow Johnnie through boot camp, his time as an enlisted grunt, and then his passage into Officer Candidate School and later his time as an officer with the Mobile Infantry. During this time, we see the entire war unfold from Johnnie's perspective, from the first shot (an asteroid attack on his home town) to the final victory.

The book is an interesting mix of political philosophy, tech porn (powered armor!), and insider looks at life as a soldier clearly informed by the author's own time in the Navy.

Thoughts:

Starship Troopers influence on my vision of the future is less clear than I had originally suspected. Yes, like everyone else in the universe, I fell in love with his descriptions of the powered armor that his mobile infantry wear. It's one of those ideas that is so clearly correct, that it immediately becomes part of the SF zeitgeist. And, in fact, the military is hard at work to make his vision a reality. Strength augmenting exoskeletons have already been developed that would allow a soldier to carry more gear into battle. Wrap some armor around that, mount weapons on it, we've got Mobile Infantry suits.

But outside of the armor, not much else of Starship Troopers finds its way into The Expanse, with one notable exception I'll talk about later.

Heinlein's future looks like 1950's America has taken over the world. I always forget that Johnnie is from Argentina until I read the book again. While I like the idea of a global society that has largely abandoned regionalism, I find myself very resistant to the implication that this global society will just look like America.

Heinlein's vision of gender roles is also very trapped in the 1950's. Johnnie's mother is the stereotypical 50's housewife who doesn't work outside the home, and who has to flee to her room when confronted with an emotional situation. The only other female character of note is Carmen, the cute girl who Johnnie attempts to impress by signing up for federal service. Here, Heinlein does make an attempt to 'futurize' his women by saying that they are better at acrobatics and fine motor control, and can therefore be pilots. But, while the idea of women as combat pilots probably seemed fairly radical to a 50's American man (not Russians though, their female pilots were the terror of the WWII skies), Heinlein can't help but maintain this sense of gender segregation. MEN are good at some things, WOMEN are good at totally different things. And while it is implied that there are male combat pilots (so men are also good at the things women are good at), there is no indication that women are ever in the infantry. Given that sheer physical strength is no longer an issue (everyone is wearing strength augmenting armor), this seems like a missed opportunity.

And finally, the politics. Lengthy essays have been written on the vaguely fascist society of Starship Troopers, so I'm not going to get into that, except to note the one way in which it parallels something in The Expanse series. In Starship Troopers, only people who do a tour of federal service are true citizens. This service grants them the right to vote and hold public office. People who choose not to do federal service have all the same basic rights as full citizens, except that they are denied access to the political process. The Earth of The Expanse series is also a global government, under a mutated future version of the United Nations. It too has a society stratified by a citizen's level of engagement. However, instead of stratification on political and governmental service, its society is stratified by a general willingness to work. People on our version of future Earth can choose to go on the dole, a government stipend we call Basic Support (this is covered in Caliban's War). Once on Basic, the government will pay for all of your basic needs: housing, food, medical care, primary education, etc. But they don't pay for any luxuries or for advanced education. In order to get money to attend University, a citizen must be willing to earn 'work credits' by taking an actual job for two years. The government doesn't want to waste an expensive university education on someone who will just decide to go on the dole afterward. So, in both stories the citizenry is largely stratified by what I call, "the engaged and the apathetic."

Bottom Line:

I have a love/hate relationship with this book. The political and gender views are firmly trapped in 1950's society, and that part of it drives me nuts sometimes. I don't blame Heinlein for this, as he is clearly a product of his time. Fifty years from now all of the cultures in modern SF will probably appear just as quaint. At the same time, the book is astonishingly readable. Johnnie's time in bootcamp, and then later as a cap trooper in the mobile infantry, is fascinating. I find myself arguing with Heinlein's political philosophy as it comes out of his character's mouths, even as I thrill to their victories. His vision of SF military life clearly informed my own, in both the things I stole from it and the things I rejected. His version of a world government and a society stratified by those who want to contribute and those who don't shows up in my work as well.

Most of all, though, I think his vision of a humanity that explores, colonizes, and then rises up to meet the challenge those things bring informed by own vision of the future. I want to think we someday spread ourselves across the solar system/galaxy/universe, and we bring our problem solving skills with us. I hope if we run into other intelligent life that we never go to war with it, but finding ways to co-exist will be just as challenging as fighting, and I like to think our species will be up to that challenge.

Ultimately, Starship Troopers is a hopeful view of the future, and that love of an optimistic future has stayed with me ever since.


Next Time: The Stars my Destination

[Werner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988) was part of the generation of American science fiction writers whose interest in the genre was shaped within the insular little world of U.S. SF fandom in the years between the World Wars, centered around a handful of pulp magazines, with John W. Campbell's Astounding Stories ultimately the foremost of them. Making his first SF short story sale to Astounding in 1939, in time to become, like his slightly younger colleague Isaac Asimov, one of Campbell's proteges and leading contributors to the magazine in pulp SF's “Golden Age,” he would go on to be one of the genre's biggest 20th-century names, winning the Hugo Award four times (the first time for this novel). Despite a liking for science fiction that goes back to my childhood, though, I've never sought Heinlein out as a writer. Overall, my taste in the genre runs more to its “soft” branch, or to sociological SF, sword-and-planet scenarios, post-apocalyptic and alternate history works –not so much to the “hard” school, closely aligned with strict extrapolation from (and often devoted to expounding a lot of) actual science, which characterized the pulp tradition. (Heinlein fit into the latter very well; in the late 1930s he was a postgraduate student in physics and math at the Univ. of California.) Then too, with a few exceptions, military-oriented SF isn't generally my thing. There are also significant differences between my worldview and his. So my prior experience with his work was limited to a handful of his short stories in anthologies (which for me have been a mixed bag). But when my oldest grandson was thoughtful enough to gift me with a copy of this book last Christmas, I was resolved to read it ASAP; and it turned out that I appreciated it more than I'd expected to.

Our setting here is the far future (I don't recall the exact century being specified), and our protagonist and narrator is a soldier whom we meet in medias res as he's about to “drop” down, along with other troopers, from an orbiting starship onto the surface of a hostile planet, for a raid in the course of a high-tech interstellar war. We don't learn his full name until chapter 11 of a 14-chapter book (that's actually done for a purpose, which I won't divulge, but for which I give Heinlein high marks on a couple of counts!); until then he's just “Johnnie.” In the following chapter, we drop back to the time when he's finishing up high school on Earth and about to turn 18, when his best friend convinces him that after graduation, they should sign up for military service together. (The war breaks out while he's still in basic training.) Beginning with chapter 2, the plot proceeds in linear fashion, though there's a longer than usual chronological gap before the final chapter. You might suppose, then, that this will be primarily a space opera action-adventure potboiler with primary emphasis on battles and military hardware. But that supposition would be wrong.

The book opens with a battle scene, and there's a grand total of one other such scene in the entire novel. Both of these are described in an exciting and suspenseful fashion, with plenty of action, though none of it grisly-gory. But these are hardly the meat of a 335-page novel. Likewise, there's some attention paid to describing the trooper's formidable armored combat suits and their weaponry, communications capabilities, etc., just sufficiently so that you can understand the action taking place. But this isn't heavy-handed nor lengthy, and there's no hard science for its own sake. (No effort is made to explain faster-than-light space travel, for instance; just that it's made possible by the “Cherenkov drive.”) Most of Johnnie's narration describes his training (at one level or another), and the conditions of starship life in a combat unit. Heinlein served in the Navy from 1929-1934 (after graduating from Annapolis –he had to return to civilian life on a medical discharge), and allowing for the mostly cosmetic differences of setting, futuristic technology and some specific future customs and practices, a lot of the lifestyle and ethos he describes clearly derives directly from this real-life experience. According to one SF website, “...Troopers was the first SF novel in which military life was depicted in a manner believable to readers who had actually served.” Readers looking for a constant high level of slam-bang action won't appreciate this, but for readers who value verisimilitude, this is actually a plus.

Plausibly realistic description of what training and life in a space navy might be like for a mobile-infantry trooper, however, though important to the author, still wasn't his main reading for writing. His real reason is to make the novel a vehicle for expressing certain social messages relevant not only to American society in 1959, but to Western society in general in succeeding generations down to the present. This is very much a novel about ideas, and about the consequences of ideas.

As Johnnie learns in school, 20th-century Earth societies collapsed, at least partly because of an epidemic of teenage crime produced by the ideologically driven abandonment, at the societal and legal level, of not only corporal child discipline, but pretty much any punitive child discipline at all. Teens grew up with no sense of moral duty to others in their society in general; the resulting aggressive violence made the cities increasingly unlivable. A third World War hastened the collapse. In its immediate aftermath, order was gradually restored by vigilante groups of veterans, who had that kind of sense of duty; and as a federated world state took shape under their tutelage, they created a polity in which full citizenship with voting rights was restricted to veterans. (It was also a state where crimes were punished primarily by the whipping post rather than by prison terms.) By Johnnie's time, this had produced a stable, widely prosperous society with low crime and maximum personal freedom for most of the populace. All those who applied for military service were accepted, and if they stuck out at least one two-year term (not necessarily in combat service), they became voting citizens. But frivolous applicants were discouraged, training was rigorous enough to weed out those who couldn't hack it, and the service itself was no cakewalk. In the service, there was a strong emphasis on discipline and on self-sacrifice for the good of the civilian society which military services exist to protect. The implications for American society in the author's present, facing a then unprecedented rise in “juvenile delinquency” as well as what many perceived an an existential external threat from the Soviet Union, were fairly obvious. They remain obvious, as the decline of law and order has become even more noticeable than it was in 1959, and as existential threats multiply in the post 9/11 world.

Heinlein's own general socio-political attitudes were broadly right-of-center (more so than mine, in some respects), though he doesn't go into those much here, and he later supported the Vietnam War, a stance that in hindsight was recognizably misguided. By the late 1960s, this led the rising younger generation of intelligentsia and college-educated SF fans to hate and demonize him. This novel was grist for their anger. One reviewer has described his viewpoint here as “hyper right-wing nationalism,” which is ironic, considering that he happily depicts all nationalities as absorbed under a benevolent world government, a goal which was really popular with SF writers in the Campbell school, but not so much so with those of us who actually are (peaceful) nationalists. Another reader (and probably more than one!) has characterized it as “Fascist,” though Heinlein was actually a very strong libertarian. For my own part, I have significant disagreements with him at the philosophical level. I don't, for instance, deny that humans have a moral instinct and reduce all valid ethical principles to whatever aids individual or group survival, nor explain all wars as caused by population pressure (his Darwinism, IMO, misled him in these respects), and I think there are serious problems with restricting suffrage to veterans, and doubt that it would work as well in practice as he imagined. Yet in his basic thesis that children and teens need constructive moral discipline, and that a willingness to defend your community against aggressors with your life if necessary is a laudable thing, I would contend that he wasn't wrong.

Also on the plus side, this is a very clean novel, with no bad language and no sexual content. It also has a positive view of women in combat –none serve as infantry troopers (probably because the weight of the armored suits would be too heavy for most), but we're told that they make better combat pilots than males do, and they generally captain the starships. (For 1959, that's a pretty feminist stance!). Personally, I really enjoyed the book overall, and would recommend it to SF and military fiction fans.

[Jenny · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was terrible and not interesting at all. This book is for people who are interested in the nuances of military training and organization and did not feel like classic science fiction to me. I guess technically it takes place in the future and in space but this is such a minor part of the book that it shouldn't really fall into the sci-fi category. As I entered the last 50 pages, I seriously considered stopping reading. I was confused by the military ranks and didn't care about any of the characters. There are too many characters and they aren't explained very well so it's hard to keep track of them. I don't recommend this book at all.

[Paul Haspel · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Starship Trooper,/Go sailing on by,” Jon Anderson sings in a 1971 song by the British rock band Yes – evidence of the extent to which the science-fiction novels of Robert A. Heinlein generally, and his 1959 novel Starship Troopers specifically, took hold in world popular culture through much of the 20th century. Starship Troopers, the story of a militarized Earth state whose armies battle an invading force of hive-mind arachnids or “Bugs,” expresses Heinlein’s oft-controversial political ideas even as it sets forth a fast-paced, action-packed, suspenseful story.

Heinlein’s interest in military life and military philosophy becomes all the more understandable when one considers that he was a 1929 graduate of the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland. His career in the Navy was cut short by tuberculosis, and his lifelong interest in applied science found an outlet in the science-fiction stories that he began publishing in the influential SF magazine Astounding Science Fiction from 1939 on.

Originally a liberal, Heinlein became more politically conservative during the Cold War era; and Starship Troopers may have had its genesis, at least in part, in Heinlein’s displeasure at U.S. leftists’ calls for nuclear disarmament. The novel’s protagonist, Johnnie Rico, introduces us to a future Earth, the center of a Terran Federation, where suffrage and full citizenship are restricted to those who have completed some term of service – meaning, in most cases, the military. This invocation of a social state like that of the classical Greek city-state of Sparta is one of the novel’s many controversial features.

Heinlein’s philosophy is often set forth by Jean Dubois, Johnnie’s instructor in a Moral Philosophy class, as when Dubois offers a grimly sarcastic response to a girl in the class who says that violence never solves anything. Invoking the total destruction of Carthage by the Romans at the end of the Third Punic War, Dubois says, “Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms” (pp. 26-27).

Against his parents’ wishes, Johnnie joins the Mobile Infantry and endures a singularly harsh boot-camp experience. Of his training, Johnnie later says that “I may have given the impression that boot camp was made harder than necessary. This is not correct. It was made as hard as possible and on purpose”. He says that “it was planned like surgery” for a highly specific reason: “Its immediate purpose was to get rid of, run right out of the outfit, those recruits who were too soft or too babyish ever to make Mobile Infantrymen. It accomplished that, in droves….Our company shrank to platoon size in the first six weeks” (pp. 54-55).

Johnnie’s drill instructor, Sergeant Charles Zim, offers his own articulation of the Terran Federation’s militaristic philosophy when a grumbling recruit named Hendrick asks why soldiers are even necessary in a world where one person can kill thousands by pushing a button: “War,” Zim says, “is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government’s decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him…but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing…but controlled and purposeful violence” (p. 64). The reader senses at once that things will not end well for the loud-mouthed and ever-complaining Hendrick.

Dubois, Johnnie’s former Moral Philosophy instructor, writes Johnnie a letter while Johnnie is enduring some of the roughest aspects of the boot-camp experience. Dubois, an infantry veteran himself, and a formal M.I. colonel, expresses pride that Johnnie has volunteered for Infantry service, and writes that “The noblest fate that a man can endure is to place his own mortal body between his loved home and the war’s desolation” (p. 94). Dubois echoes, in the process, one of the lesser-known verses from Francis Scott Key’s “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

Receiving Dubois’s letter, Johnnie thinks back to one of Dubois’s Moral Philosophy courses, when Dubois expounded on the concept of “value”: “Nothing of value is free. Even the breath of life is purchased at birth only through gasping effort and pain….The best things in life are beyond money; their price is agony and sweat and devotion…and the price demanded for the most precious of all things in life is life itself – ultimate cost for perfect value” (p. 97).

The M.I. recruits’ training involves their learning to deploy and maneuver in powered suits that give them all sorts of formidable capabilities:

A suit isn’t a space suit – although it can serve as one. It is not primarily armor – although the Knights of the Round Table were not armored as well as we are. It isn’t a tank – but a single M.I. private could take on a squadron of those things and knock them off unassisted if anybody was silly enough to put tanks against M.I. A suit is not a ship but it can fly, a little – on the other hand, neither spaceships nor atmosphere craft can fight against a man in a suit except by saturation bombing of the area he is in…. (p. 102)

An M.I. soldier in a powered suit may “look like a big steel gorilla, armed with gorilla-sized weapons” (p. 103), but he is able to leap vast distances “on the bounce,” and can deal out death and devastation, on a grand scale, against any enemy.

The execution, during boot camp, of an M.I. recruit who committed a particularly horrible crime gets Johnnie thinking back to yet another Moral Philosophy class in which Dubois stated that human beings have no moral instinct, no natural rights. In connection with the immortal passage from the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, Dubois told his students that “Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost” (p. 125). Looking back to the late-20th-century crime and chaos of North American society before the founding of the Terran Federation of Johnnie’s time, Dubois stated that the youth violence of those times occurred because “their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of ‘rights’…and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure” (p. 125).

It was interesting to hear Heinlein, through Dubois, channel Thomas Jefferson (“The tree of liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants”) and Abraham Lincoln (“Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure”) in support of his heavily armed brand of no-whining libertarianism. Yet I can’t help reflecting that I don’t think Jefferson or Lincoln would have approved. And Jefferson would no doubt have noted that the correct word is "inalienable," not "unalienable."

Johnnie graduates from boot camp, becomes a soldier, and therefore can serve in what has come to be known as the Bug War. The Bugs, humankind’s adversary – arachnid creatures from the planet Klendathu – are intelligent, ruthless, and singularly hard to kill, even for an M.I. in a powered suit. Johnnie recalls that “This was the period, of course, after the Bugs had located our home planet…and had raided it, destroying Buenos Aires and turning ‘contact troubles’ into all-out war” (p. 159). It is also a time that Johnnie describes as “the worst time in all my life” for “a personal reason: My mother had been in Buenos Aires when the Bugs smeared it” (p. 150).

Early in Johnnie’s time as a soldier, his lieutenant carries out a noble act of self-sacrifice on behalf of the enlisted personnel under his command. Johnnie starts to think about making a career of life in the M.I. – and even considers seeking an officer’s commission – and once again he recalls the philosophy of Colonel Dubois, who once told Johnnie and the rest of the Moral Philosophy class that “Citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part…and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live” (p. 171).

At Officer Candidate School, Johnnie meets Major Reid, another Moral Philosophy instructor, and another mouthpiece for Heinlein’s own philosophy. Reid tells Johnnie and the other O.C.S. applicants that “Under our system, every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage” (p. 191). He likes how Johnnie – who, over the course of Starship Troopers, does show that he is a fast learner – describes authority as the converse of responsibility. Major Reid states that “To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy” (p. 192), and adds that the “unlimited democracies” of earlier times were unstable because they failed to recognize that distinction.

Johnnie Rico and his fellow O.C.S. candidates receive temporary, probationary officers’ commissions on the eve of battle. Their Commandant, Colonel Nielssen, tells them that when they are in combat, “The whole merciless load will land without warning. You must act at once and you’ll have only God over you. Don’t expect Him to fill in tactical details; that’s your job. He’ll be doing all that a soldier has a right to expect if He helps you keep the panic you are sure to feel out of your voice” (p. 201).

The Federation plans to conduct a raid against the Bugs, with hopes of capturing “brains” or queens and thereby gaining valuable intelligence through which they can win the war. The Bugs, with their lack of individuality, emerge as suitable antagonists for Johnnie and the rest of the M.I.

What follows is a tense scene of waiting, with both Johnnie and the reader knowing that the Bugs are in their underground tunnels and able to emerge at any point to engage the Terran forces. Captain Blackstone or “Blackie,” Johnnie’s company commander, tells Johnnie that “the Bugs can burrow mighty fast, so you give special attention to the listening posts outside the area of the tunnels. Any noise from those four outside posts louder than a butterfly’s roar is to be reported at once, regardless of its nature….When they burrow, it makes a noise like frying bacon – in case you’ve never heard it” (p. 250).

I may not like Heinlein’s politics, but I appreciate his storytelling verve. Throughout the rest of Starship Troopers, the reader listens with Johnnie for that frying-bacon sound that means that the Bugs are coming.

Starship Troopers ends, as it begins, with a rousing action scene - one that rounds the story off well. The novel seems ideally suited for cinematic adaptation, and therefore it is surprising that Paul Verhoeven’s 1997 film version of Starship Troopers was such a disappointment. My own feeling is that the film never managed to overcome the disconnect between the source novel’s unabashed militarism and director Verhoeven’s disdain for such thinking (as a child, he survived the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands). And besides, one could argue that Starship Troopers was already filmed, quite successfully, in the form of James Cameron’s Aliens (1986) – a movie that seamlessly incorporates into the fictive world of Ridley Scott’s earlier film Alien (1979) a Heinlein-style scenario of an elite, super-tough military squad taking on an arthropod-esque and exceedingly ferocious enemy.

Does Heinlein really mean what he writes in Starship Troopers - or is he engaging in a bit of field-camo utopianism, posing philosophical questions to get the reader thinking about the relationship between military power and democratic political freedoms? Either way, Starship Troopers unquestionably will get you thinking, even as its storytelling dynamism carries you along at breathtaking speed.

[Ivana Books Are Magic · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I say that Starship Troppers is a novel that has had a profound influence on me, most people look at me like I'm crazy. If they haven't read it themselves, I can see why it might not seem too promising, especially if one isn't a SF fan to start with. Nevertheless, I must stand my ground here. I’ve read this novel a number of times now and one doesn’t reread a novel that many times for no reason. This novel functions wonderfully on many levels. In my opinion that is what makes it so great. It works well both as a YA and SF novel. There are many great SF elements in it, for example the ingenious usage of power suit. Heinlein was not considered a master of science fiction without a reason and I’m sure SF fans will find a lot to like in this one.

Rico, the protagonist of our novel, is a Filipino growing up in a world set in future. I shall not describe this world in detail just yet but let’s just say it seems pretty believable and it creates some interesting moral dilemmas. The characters in this novel are surprisingly racially diverse considering the time period the novel was published in. Women being deemed superior pilots because of their better reflexes was, if I’m not mistaken, quite bold for that time. So, bonus points for that. The story is easy to follow and the protagonist himself is very likeable (I would say pretty adorable). We feel for the characters and we get engaged as readers. As far as the narrative is concerned, everything worked out perfectly. Nevertheless, there is another layer to this novel.

What layer would that be? The one that deals with individual responsibility and morals, the one that questions the way any society is organized, the one that asks important questions. Yes, that layer. The philosophical aspect of this novel was what I enjoyed the most. Remember those essays Rico had to write? I remember one instant where he had to prove with scientific arguments what causes wars and it turns out to be population pressure. Yes, increase in population (and hence reduced resources) is that triggers wars. I mean there is an intellectual aspect of this novel that often (for whatever reason) gets ignored, but it exists nevertheless. In other words, this novel asks questions that deserve to be asked. Moreover, it provides answers that are quite logical.


I think I was about 15 when I read Starship Troopers for the first time, which is perhaps appropriate because this novel can be labelled as young adult (and I can recommend it if that’s the genre you go for). If I say this novel was one of those life- changing books for me, would I be going too far? I don’t think so, because when I look back at my life, I can see its influence. That in itself makes it a pretty special book. I remember so clearly the effect it had on me the first time I read it. I’m sure it wasn’t only the story that moved me so.

You see, the story is interesting but it is not the main merit of his novel. Likewise, the character development of Rico is handled very well, but that is not the only significant aspect of this novel. Yes, this could be deemed a fantastic YA read, but it is also so much more than that. This novel contains some very important messages, but as you read it, you almost don’t notice them. Everything is so well balanced. You have this feeling of being in Rico’s head. Perhaps that is why I keep on reflecting on I when I finish reading it. While I’m reading it, I always have this impression of only following the story, yet when I’m done with reading, I always end up thinking about it a great deal.

That’s the thing. The point is that this novel made me think. That is what I originally loved about it and that is what still attracts me to it. Seemingly simple, but having a lot of depth, this novel stayed with me. It influenced the way I think. It made me question the relationship between society and the individual. Deep inside, there was an even more profound message and lesson to be learned. Nothing in life is free. As Heinlein put it in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, there ain’t such a thing as free lunch. We have to work hard for everything in life. Thinking that we can lay back and let the government or whoever worry about our problems is so fundamentally wrong that it is not even funny. If one wants to live in a decent world, one must pay the price for it. If one wants to be a parent, one must be prepared to punish their child when they do something wrong, not just stand back and be lazy about it, because punishment of any sort (according to modern psychology) results in trauma. You know what results in real trauma? When a child knows his or her parents couldn’t care less. Everything in life requires effort, from relationship to work, there is no simple way and there are no easy answers. This book teaches us a lesson about life and it does it n such a casual and effortless way it is almost hard to notice it.

There are those who call this novel militant but I don’t think this world that Heinlein created was supposed to be taken as a strict model to build on. What I think Heinlein was doing (and doing it well) is examining human history, proposing certain ideas and bringing things to their logical conclusions. Yes, he created a society where only veterans ( i.e. those who enlisted to serve their society ) got to vote . This enlistment could be prolonged should a need arrive (as for instance in case of a war). The point was that the individual should not be given the right to vote if he wasn’t willing to die in the protection of the society he lives in. In other words, he or she shouldn’t be able to take an active part, unless took an active part in protecting that society. I don’t think this novel was written as a celebration of military life and I certainly don’t think it is militant in any way or form. On the other hand, it might make you better understand military men and be more compassionate towards veterans, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, wouldn't you agree?

Even if you’re a pacifist, I think you shouldn’t find this novel offensive. There is a sound logic behind that division between civilians and veterans that this novel proposes. It is known that revolution eats its own children. The society in this novel tries to bypass that, by separating those who want to be active participants in society from those who aren’t willing to do so. We know the history of mankind is a bloody mess. Here in this novel there are some suggestions how to avoid it. It is not to be taken too literally, it is not something you should preach but hopefully reading this novel will make you a little more open minded and make you questions thing. This novel isn’t dated. Precisely because of that philosophical aspect of it, I’m pretty sure this book won’t be dated any time soon.

What kind of novel is Starship Troopers? Well, one wouldn't be wrong if one described it as a classic SF novel. It is certainly considered a SF classic for a good reason. Like the best of science fiction works, this novel explores the complex creation that is human kind, using a future world to question our own as well as to propose possible corrections to our society. In addition, it could also be called a YA novel because the protagonist Rico indeed grows up before our eyes. From a young man that acts as a boy, he makes the transition into an adult which sadly (as Heinlein noted in his Stranger In A Strange Land) is not something everyone is capable of. Not all people turn into adults, some remain caught into the limbo of shifting and avoiding to take the responsibility for their own lives forever.
When I started writing this review, I mentioned the fact that I’ve been rereading this novel for years. When it comes to my favourite authors, I seem to do rereading in cycles, every five years or so. I think rereading tells us a lot about a quality of any work of literature. In my opinion, there are two reasons why a novel gets reread again and again. It is either very good or it has a sentimental value for its reader. In this case, it might be both. I have a copy at my home that I will probably read at least once more and here is why. Because it is a great novel that functions perfectly on many levels. What I liked most about it, is surely its philosophical and intellectual aspect, but it functions perfectly both as a great SF and YA novel.

[Jeff · Rating 3 out of 5]

"What do you mean 'They' cut the power? How could they cut the power man they're animals!"

Aliens (sure it's the wrong movie, but a cool quote nevertheless)

The book has very little in common with the movie. The film is something that is ubiquitous on cable. You can probably see the entire thing in snippets just by changing the channels over the course of a year.

In both the film and book, the soldiers battle big bug thingies. The book is only bookended with battle sequences, the rest is training and talk. The film has plenty of CGI action.

The book features much discussion about the nature of the soldier and the place of the military in the distant future. The film has Denise Richards.

The film has a coed shower sequence and some sex. Sadly, the book doesn't.

The tech Heinlein envisions reminded me of video games like Halo and Heinlein wrote this in 1959. Kudos, sir.

Ultimately, it's a fairly interesting read that lags in the above mentioned "discussions".

[Louie the Mustache Matos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Robert Heinlein was an incredible science fiction writer who wrote intellectually stimulating hardcore novels of the genre. This is not just one of the best, but probably the most controversial except for Stranger in a Strange Land.

Starship Troopers really follows a Hispanic recruit, Juan Rico from Argentina as he initiates his military career, through a rigorous boot camp all the way through to his battles. The audiobook is really well-performed.

Heinlein’s unique jargon is communicated without definition, but he always takes the time to describe the thing he is talking about so that the reader has a clear understanding as to what is the purpose of the thingamabob. I love the way he names things and contextually demonstrates the device so that he never has to actually define it. You just understand what he means. This is a great piece of classic science fiction.

[Christopher Paolini · Rating 4 out of 5]

Starship Troopers is the archetypal military sci-fi book. . . and yet it’s far more concerned with the politics and philosophy of its setting than so many of its successors. The action is almost an afterthought. The book also has a rather odd story structure that can take some effort to get into. But it is worth the effort, and though Heinlein often takes a different view of society than many of us do today, I still find myself wishing that more authors were willing to grapple with the questions and issues that Golden Age sci-fi authors so often threw themselves at.

[TAP · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maybe someday they’ll get everything nice and tidy and we’ll have that thing we sing about, when “we ain’t a-gonna study war no more.” Maybe. Maybe the same day the leopard will take off his spots and get a job as a Jersey cow, too. But again, I wouldn’t know; I am not a professor of cosmo-politics; I’m an M.I. When the government sends me, I go.

Starship Troopers is not what I expected. 10% action, 40% philosophy, and 50% mechanics of the military. I really did not care about all the training and challenges that led up to the warfare. I wanted to see the warfare, and there is only a tiny dose of that. It’s not bad, but I got bored more than once. I appreciate how seriously Heinlein approaches his content; but with all the focus on developing a soldier, I wanted to see a soldier in action.





***SPOILER ALERT*** kinda.











My favorite part of the book is the end when we realize that Juan is Filipino once he explains that his native language is Tagalog. This is a nice touch and I like that Heinlein didn’t feel the need to create a white savior soldier in a book published in 1959.

[J.L. Sutton · Rating 4 out of 5]

“If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its head off?”



So much more than any movie adaptation, or battles against the alien 'bugs,' Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers is a solid story about finding one's way in a future army unit called mobile infantry. Against the backdrop of government propaganda and patriotism, what goes into Johnny Rico's decision to join, stay in and make a career out of mobile infantry? This forms the basis of the most interesting part of the novel. While the teaching of morals and ethics is clearly part of the propaganda machine in this story, can a government's teaching of such subjects ever be divorced from some sort of inculcation? What is the role of the military and of the individual soldier in society?
There are lots of interesting questions.

[Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Giant Bugs attacking Earth!
Brave people defending our planet!
Grand Science Fiction!

Johnny Rico wears tech-warrior mech-suit as a member of the Mobile Infantry on his path to become a Citizen. For only soldiers can take part in shaping society.

Quotes from the book:

"'You. What is the moral difference, if any, between the soldier and the civilian?' 'The difference,' I answered carefully, 'lies in the field of civic virtue. A soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not.'"

"War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is /controlled/ violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him...but to make him do what you want him to do."

"'The best things in life are beyond money; their price is agony and sweat and devotion...and the price demanded for the most precious of all things in life is life itself- ultimate cost for perfect value.'"

"'Citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part..and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live.'"

Teenagers will enjoy the action and adventure.
Retired folk will appreciate the political discourse of Heinlein.

There is a movie of the same name. Remember the rule: The book is always better than the movie.

Enjoy!

[HaMiT · Rating 3 out of 5]

چک که کردم، این اولین کتابی بود که مهر 97 از ایران کتاب خریدم. یادمه همون موقع‌ها هم توی سایت‌ها راحت گیر نمیومد و با شوق و ذوق خریدمش. حساب کردم، از اون موقع صدتا کتاب فقط از ایران کتاب خریدم که فقط 26 تاشون رو خوندم تو این چند سال. اگه همون موقع می‌خوندم، بیشتر خوشم میومد؟ مطمئن نیستم

من از اعتقادات هاینلاین کاملاً بی اطلاعم و بعد از خوندن کتاب نمی‌خوام هم دنبالش بگردم، چون به کتاب از دو زاویه می‌شه نگاه کرد
اول به عنوان کتابی که می‌خواد فاشیسم، نظامی‌گری و خشونت رو ترویج بده که بعید می‌دونم همچین چیزی بوده باشه
دوم به عنوان نقدی بر پروپاگاندای حکومتی و نظامی‌گری نوشته شده. حکومتی که حق شهروندی و رأی دادن رو فقط به کسایی میده که به مدت دو سال سربازی برن، با این استدلال که فقط اونهایی که حاضرن جونشون رو برای حکومت بدن لیاقت تصمیم‌گیری توی امورات رو دارن. جوون هیجده ساله‌، آینده‌ی فوق‌العاده‌ای که می‌تونه داشته باشه رو ول می‌کنه و می‌ره دنبال حق شهروندی، اونجا برای دو سال شستشوی مغزی می‌شه و در خدمت حکومتی قرار می‌گیره که بهش حق رأی می‌ده
این ایده که شخصیت اصلی داستان وارد ارتش می‌شه و سرباز بودن رو تجربه می‌کنه و درگیر بحث‌های اخلاقی، فلسفی و تاریخی می‌شه خیلی جذاب بود. تا یه جاهایی هم خوب پیش رفت ولی کم کم خسته‌کننده شد، چون همزمان با اون موضوعات، یه داستان جفت و بست دار رو تعریف نکرد و زیادی درگیر جزئیات زندگی نظامی شد
و توی همین مورده که اقتباس سینماییش، با تغییراتی که داده می‌درخشه و یه داستان جذاب رو روایت می‌کنه
گرچه این کتاب گیر نمیاد که بخونید، ولی فیلم و کتابش مکمل خوبی برای همدیگه‌ هستن

[Chris Lee · Rating 2 out of 5]

“Starship Troopers” is less of a space-fairing action novel and more of a futuristic military procedural manual. It won a Hugo in the 1960s, was cheered for its take on a future military, and garnered many positive reviews at the time.

So, what is it about? Well, this is where it gets kind of murky. On the surface, we follow a young man named Juan "Johnny" Rico as he joins the military, particularly the mobile infantry. A war is raging between humans and a bug-like alien species.

Let me curb your enthusiasm a bit. If you were thinking about going to grab the butter-flavored popcorn to sit down to a book of action, this is not going to do it for you. Your popcorn will become stale long before you reach the end. It does have a few combat sequences, but for the most part, it is an ideological dive into fairly narrow political viewpoints.

First and foremost, this book was not for me. I am not all that interested in talking about the controversial aspects of the book, such as its pro-war symbolism, voting rights, dehumanizing, or human moral psychology. All one has to do is pick up a history book for a lesson in these matters. If dreamy political idealism is your thing, this might do it for you.

The structure has quite a bit of exposition, and the info dumps are quite rampant. For me, these sections really stuck out. You have to make up your own mind if you feel these ideals are preachy or have enough introspection to garner a more worldly conversation. I'm just pointing it out.

A positive: I sort of liked the descriptions of the spaceships, the suits, the weapons, and the powered armor specifically, which seems to be a staple in most modern military books, movies, and games.

🎵| Soundtrack |🎵
❖ Future Palace - A World in Tears
❖ Van Morrison – Moondance
❖ Wet - Bound
❖ Beast in Black – No Surrender
❖ Animals as Leaders - The Brain Dance

⭐ | Rating | ⭐
❖ 2 out of 5 ❖