Starship Troopers
discussion
Why so little action?
It has been quite a few years since I read it, but I remember reacting in a similar way. The novel begins with a fine nail-biting burst of action, and then goes through a very long set-up for a final burst of action that seemed to me hasty and not terribly satisfying. When it comes to action, Heinlein was hit and miss. Some of his juveniles have plenty of action, and Glory Road has plenty (followed by a long anti-climax), but overall it seems he was more interested in ideas than action.
Ideas are more powerful than action.
I think you are comparing apples and oranges.Not only are they two books from two different time periods, but they also serve two completely different purposes. Yeah, they resemble on the outside, with this whole first person narrator, that tells the story of his military career in a SciFi setting. But that's about it.
ST has so few action (as you lament in your other post), because it's not about the action. It's also not about characters - Rico is a blank slate. He get into the military without really knowing why, he has no real friends, no love affair, nothing. Basically everyone around him dies - that's the constant. ST is about this world Heinlein created - that's why there are so many chapters taking place in classroom. There, some officer (Heinlein) can tell Rico (you) how things are supposed to be and why. I mean...the book even contain a chart how a military unit should be set up, percentage of officers and stuff like this.
OMW is a a space opera on the other Hand. Characters are IMPORTANT, John Perry is no blank slate. He is 75 when the novel starts! Unlike Rico he does have a past that will become very important in the book. However the book isn't about how this society works or how their military is structured. We never even see how the CDF is composed, we don't see how colonial politics work or how a CDF squad is composed. Thats completely left out. This book is about action, drama and emotions.
MOM is also much more about the universe out there, how it is so strange that is beyond anything we can Imagine. How any preconceived notion it even dangerous. In ST on the other hand, this is also a point where you can see that the book is actually about the human society - the bugs are just there. And they are pretty bland, they have so religion, so language, no architecture. They are simply supposed to be some kind of THEM, so that there is a WE Heinlein can describe.
Now, these are my thoughts - while the resemble on the surface, OMW and ST are fundamentally different book, that should not be compared in a way like this.
But why wrap some philosophical lectures inside a package if a military recruit, but spend most of the time you're not preaching going over the repetitious mundane aspects of training. It's like going to a taping of a cooking show, and the chef gives you a lesson in French as he makes an Italian meal, he spends the whole show cutting up veggies and such for the mis en place, and then he fails to cook anything and you don't get to taste test it.
Had it been called "Thoughts on civic duty" I wouldn't complain, but it's called Starship Troopers. And we get precious little star shipping and troopering.
Dune had plenty of philosophy and lectures, and training and coming of age, but there was a lot more plot and action.
Ack, that answer was for your "Does OMW surpass ST" post over at the Old Man's War page. Anyways - it fits here aswell. At least a bit.Well, it could be called "Thoughts on civic duty" - because thats what it is basically. It's just wrapped up in a SciFi story because thats Heinleins medium. Titles can be misleading, sometimes they are deliberately - I just read a book called "Fountains of paradise" and it was actually about a Space Elevator ;)
ST has other Qualities - like the fact that it somehow unclear if it's a utopian or a dystopian future.
Or to take your example: If you can talk French fluently at the end of the Show, who cares about the Italian meal or the veggies?
You know, I never really thought of it that way. You're right, there really isn't a whole lot of action through out the book. I guess I didn't notice because it wasn't a problem for me. Starship Troopers is one of my favorite books and one of the few I've read more than once. For me, it connects as authentic military experience. Sure it's hyped up and supersized and involves other planets and giant bugs and big cyber-armor war suits and whatnot--and you're right, it would have been cool to see more of those things in there--but what is there feels real. As a military member, the voice and experiences and travels of the young hero resonnate with me, and I didn't need the action to get that.
So I guess what I'm saying is, for me and probably a lot of other military readers, the action part is available in a lot of books (and probably mostly by those who have never seen it themselves), but the voice and feel of Starship Troopers is the rare treat that makes this book authentic and special.
Xeldrak wrote: "I think you are comparing apples and oranges.Not only are they two books from two different time periods, but they also serve two completely different purposes. Yeah, they resemble on the outside,..."
Apples and Oranges are both fruit. And even more, Scalzi literally framed his book around Starship Troopers, acknowledging this heavily when he first released Old Man's War as a serial. He wrote an essay on Heinlein to accompany it.
So where they differ, they do so intentionally and where they align they do so intentionally. This requires more than a dismissal that they are simply too different to comment as if they were the metaphorical apples and oranges.
Xeldrak wrote: "OMW and ST are fundamentally different book, that should not be compared in a way like this. "I agree with your observations about the books but specifically NOT about the notion that we should not then compare them!
Given that there is very little plot in ST and the characters are paper thin, we're left with a political hypothesis that could have been done in an essay instead of a work of Science Fiction.
As I said before, I don't particularly mind the lectures, they're interesting concepts, but I don't see what the point is of suffering through the mundane qualities of boot camp and ship inventory page after page after page.
It's not even up to the level of lots of foreplay but no sex. It's more like lots of SexEd and no action at all.
Hey kids, you have these body parts that are REALLY fun to play with and use and interact with... and we're even going to start our lecture with a little romantic video, but then we're going to spend the rest of the semester talking about acne and body odor and your voice breaking at awkward times.
To me, the lectures don't NEED the story and the story doesn't benefit from the lectures. I'd prefer if we had a STORY where elements of the lecture were shown to be meritous.
Is there any reason you think that we couldn't have all the Lectures just collected into one essay of 10-20 pages? And the coming-of-age in the military story pulled out into its own work (and hopefully some pay off besides training and convenient ascension up the ranks without really showing us why he's good at being a soldier/officer)?
To me it's sort of like taking a Cheese Cake and shoving it in a Turkey. I like both Cheese Cake and Turkey, but if the two don't inform one another, it just sort of spoils the whole mess.
The training IS the story. It is about how he became a trooper and not so much about being a trooper. You get to see how he goes from the boy he was to the man he becomes. It's not an action story even though that's what you wanted it to be. I had a friend who disliked movies if they weren't what he expected but he failed to see that sometimes the joy comes from having your expectations subverted.
I agree that the training is the story, although the training is put into action briefly at the beginning and at the climax. I would have enjoyed more action, but I also like the novel as written.
@Phil - In defense of your friend, accurate naming and marketing is important. We all have limited time and money and hopefully we learn what we like. Meeting expectations is a value in and of itself. You want desert and you get soup, it's jarring, even if you LIKE soup.
Well, this book had very few starships, very little troopering, and the WASTED potential of inventing the tropes of the genre but not taking them out for a spin.
Had it been called "Lectures and Boot Camp" I wouldn't mind. But there is very little plot, the characters are little more than names, and none of the GREAT inventions Heinlein came up with have ANY baring on the plot.
Thus it's tarted up and the fact that it's basically a few lectures on a radical citizenship idea that is neither explored in practice with PLOT and consequence, I can't say that it's persuasive in the least.
What's the point of putting fictional wrapping paper around a few lectures? The training has NO relation to the lectures. Thus there is an incongruity and discord between what was delivered and the expectations of a philosophical essay and a novel.
I've read this book numerous times over the years, classic in so many ways, and I think some of you are missing the point of 'the story' and what Heinlein was getting at. He was a military advocate as well as politically based author that was disgusted with the progression of his society; the decline of values, ethics and morality. He was writing about the steady downfall of these and how, taking a controversial view of the future, the world should be in his opinion. All you have to do is look at the current world around you- we placate the minority at the expense of the majority, where personal rights are expected without any obligation to pay for them. He saw all, foretelling our present world, and what we may one day be forced to finally face and correct through harsh and debatable means in order to save ourselves from a complete breakdown of order and civic morality.
In telling the story of the character, which is really secondary IMO, he is in fact making an alternate future the main character.
If you want action-packed sci-fi combat with lots of trigger pulling, check out David Drake if you've never heard of him. Good military sci-fi author and much of his writing was/ is based on his experiences in Vietnam.
@Johnny, I get the love letter to disenfranchisement bit. I just don't think an extended discussion of boot camp did anything to further any of the arguments!Almost all of them are flashbacks anyway and they never bear any fruit as far as the plot of the novel. Basically, there is no need for the novel at all. He could have simply written down the professor's essays.
Presenting them as flashbacks while the main character goes to boot camp is tedious and disjointed. NOTHING important is shown to us, it's just told to us in an lecture and then the main character continues through boring boot camp.
We keep getting told that something they do in the military makes these people worthy of the privilege to vote, but we never learn WHAT that is. Heck, even within the military we are told that you deserve no respect until you go on a combat drop. over and over again this is the initiation to citizenship.
To be one if us, you have to drop. But we see only two drops! And neither one tells us what is so magical save a sort of frat initiation politics! The more eventful final drop is declared a failure by the main character too. He basically discounts his whole performance.
So what value is ANY of the scenes outside the lectures?
Heinlein was a WW I vet if i remember correctly, and authors tend stick with what they know- his only difference was that he didn't embellish the combat aspect, due in fact, and assumption on my part, is that there is really nothing glorious about war- it's sanctioned murder for political, ideological or economic reasons. And before you jump to conclusions, I did 12 years active duty and I am a combat vet. I know exactly where he's coming from in this book.He's focusing on the honor of being citizen through selfless service- you have to earn your freedom along with so called 'inalienable' rights.
And my answer to your question as to why he wrote what he did instead of doing an essay or thesis on the topic? Who knows- people can argue the topic all day, but unless you could talk to him it's really a mote point. He did it because he's an author, and he could, so he did it his way to convey whatever thought or point he was trying to make.
RAH was born in 1907, so he could not have served in WW1. He was, iirc, invalided out of the USN in the early 1930s due to TB.He probably did know, from his naval service, quite a few combat veterans (WW1, Haiti, etc) and would know that action is not the normal state of a military unit.
Maybe the best answer to the question of why he wrote a novel instead of an essay or thesis on the topic is that the novel was popular when it was published, has remained fairly popular throughout the decades since, and has gained many fans--so he was obviously doing something right!
Ed wrote: "RAH was born in 1907, so he could not have served in WW1. He was, iirc, invalided out of the USN in the early 1930s due to TB.He probably did know, from his naval service, quite a few combat vet..."
I stand corrected- was going off a fading memory with that one.
@Harvey- Well said, and you can't argue success like that.
Offhand, one of the few st authors I know to be a combat veteran is Joe Haldeman.
This book is actually on the official Navy reading list, by the way, which is unexpected and pretty cool!
Heinlein presents us with a world where you can only vote if you go into the military and survive training, but he doesn't make the case AT ALL about WHY this experience is necessary and sufficient for enfranchisement. In fact, we get nothing at all about why voting even matters and how veterans would vote otherwise than the hoi polloi.
It's really a totally unformed argument. Like saying "I think only men should vote, so here's a story about a male only boarding school."
I don't see how Rico's story adds anything to his professor's lectures. The lectures are really the only argument being made. How does Rico show/add/prove the argument?
Doug wrote: "ST is a Heinlein discussion of enfranchisement and particularly military enfranchisement. The movie is a cartoon and did the book no good."I agree- the movie didn't do justice to it in the least. For a modern movie in a sci-fi military setting, it reminded me more of 19th century tactics.
I have to agree with Rose, in the limited scope the book takes when it didn't have to. It could have been an epic or at least several layers more grand. Instead, I think it's a self serving and yet modest argument with a thin veneer of story.
This book is about politics. Like most fiction, it's intended to explore problems and ideas in an environment that can bring the ideas to the forefront. The book's core issue is whether citizenship requires risking one's life for one's government. This necessitates a wartime setting. Combat itself isn't relevant to the citizenship question, therefore there's not much action necessary. Why this was written as science fiction is a different question; I assume Heinlein was comfortable with the medium.I've read this book several times. I completely disagree with Heinlein's conclusions. One should always be given a voice in one's life and one's government, by default. Barring that default, one cannot state only a military life contributes to a society's welfare. Teachers, firefighters, community volunteers, research scientists, doctors and nurses are but few of the many professions or avocations that help build a good society. Heinlein is arguing for a return to the feudal system.
Probably more than any other book, this one gave Heinlein a reputation as a right-wing ideologue. However, the vision of service in his book did not seem strictly military: anyone of age could enlist and the service would find a role for them.
I have to agree with RAH for the most part in this case, so I guess that makes me a right-wing militant. Oh well..."I've read this book several times. I completely disagree with Heinlein's conclusions. One should always be given a voice in one's life and one's government, by default. Barring that default, one cannot state only a military life contributes to a society's welfare. Teachers, firefighters, community volunteers, research scientists, doctors and nurses are but few of the many professions or avocations that help build a good society. Heinlein is arguing for a return to the feudal system."
Very true- you have to look at the total picture for what, who and how a society is deemed productive and successful. It's not only service in the military that earns you the right to be a citizen. On the same token he's arguing against those that only want to reap the benefits of said society without contributing to its growth and well-being. It's talking about the greater good of the whole at the expense of the individual, instead of the individual above the whole.
That is the basis for the military ideology- duty, honer, selfless service and integrity. The same could be said for the Code of Bushido or any of the warrior's codes over the centuries.
I am really enjoying reading through all of your comments. This is one of my favorite books, and I remember reading it as a young soldier (and several times after). I never noticed the lack of action in the book, and even now that you mention it, I don't think it matters. Being a soldier is so much more than action, and my thoughts about this novel have always been that RAH captured exactly what it is like to serve. I found comfort in reading about the loyalty among cap troopers and the pride they felt in doing such a challenging job. Many times throughout my life I thought of the scene RAH describes as Johnny was out on his first pass: "Johnny didn't fit in any longer." He captured the experience so well; whether returning from training or a deployment, the civilian world is an incredibly complex and intimidating place.
I enjoyed all aspects of this book, and appreciate the limited action even more now that I am thinking about it. I felt prepared as a reader in understanding just what it took to put a trooper into drop.
On a deeper level, he raises some great points about service and citizenship. I read one of the comments above that mentioned various aspects of service besides joining the military. I agree that there are several ways to serve, and I constantly encourage such service. I would love to see the American people take an equal level of pride and interest in serving their communities and country. If this was the case, we may not face many of the challenges presented to us today...
I think he wrote it to reach people who normally would not read a socio-political essay. Some people learn better when they don't realize your trying to teach them.
Two points:1. RAH returned to the Navy during WWII, though he served as a desk jockey.
2. When looking at Starship Troopers, you must remember that it was written as a YA novel in the 50s. That put limitations on both length and content that would be greatly different today. (It was in fact his last YA novel.)
For some real fun, go find a copy of 'Grumbles From the Grave' which is a collection of letters RAH wrote to his editor(s). It includes a lot of arguments about cuts/edits to his novels as well as general discussion about his thoughts and feelings about Hollywood, military service, citizenship, etc.
Christopher wrote: "@Johnny, I get the love letter to disenfranchisement bit. I just don't think an extended discussion of boot camp did anything to further any of the arguments!Almost all of them are flashbacks any..."
Others have eloquently discussed the political lessons in ST and RAH's political views.
But specifically in reference to the drops and the fantastic military inventions RAH visualised in ST. There is a purpose to them. But it is not to glorify the Mobile Infantry, or the might of the Terran Federation, or even the glory of battle.
First, the hardware. RAH described the most fantastic and powerful military weapons (including suits and starships) that he could conceive and THEN he tried to make the reader realise that ultimately, it was still human beings, men and women, throwing themselves into battle that created victories. The most advance technology ever invented could not do the job without them.
The drops. Each time the Troopers dropped, it did not demonstrate the ability of Terra to kick alien butt. What it proved beyond doubt was the willingness of each ST to die in defence of Home and it's people. It did not matter if the battle was won or lost. What did matter was each time the summons was issued, the ST once again placed their own bodies between the destroying alien hordes and those who could not and would not fight. No frat initiation starts out with the assumption that you will die.
The ST buy the franchise with their lives. That's what makes them worthy to vote.
RAH created an extreme scenario to illustrate a point. He did not literally mean that only soldiers should vote, but that a nation, was only strong when its citizens remained willing to put their own safety and comfort on the firing line for the good of all. When that stops, the nation falls. The fall of Rome began when Romans stopped volunteering for the Legions and they hired more and more foreign auxiliaries to fight for them. All the decadence and corruption that followed was a natural consequence of that fact.
This is probably the first Heinlein I read (more than 30 years ago) and I never considered it as an action book.Like in "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" and "Stranger in a Strange Land" i think the story is only here to lead to a reflexion
In Heinlein books the reader need to read between the lines and take some time to think of the questions raised by the story.
I have always considered it as an allegory of Jefferson.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Also, Rico's teacher said that there is no raison to give vote only to veterans. But it works.
When i was young these novels helped me broaden my vision of others opinions.
Even if i disagree with the "only veterans can vote" proposition.
Please excuse my poor English
Great discussion.I still read this book from time to time, and still enjoy it.
I first read it as a young Reserve infantry soldier, and enjoyed it for the military culture it describes. I didn't notice the relative lack of action, but as others have said, real servicemen, even those in theatre, will tell you there's a hell of a lot of routine between bursts of action.
Now, I read it more as homage to a proposed utopia, also realizing the down side of enfranchising only those who've done military service. As those in the military will tell you, you really, really don't want the worst !@#$%^&* you've worked with voting or running for office. Also, if government affects everyone, everyone should have a stake.
This is a little off topic but Heinlein wrote an essay (I think it was in Expanded Universe) stating that the founding fathers of the U.S. never intended for everyone to vote. Originally it was just land owners. He proposed (possibly tongue-in-cheek) that he'd be fine with other limitations. For example, in order to make it fair only black women should vote for a number of years. Or base it on intelligence and your vote only counts if you correctly answer a quadratic equation first.
ST is, in common with many of Heinlein's books, an exposition of his political and social views, as well as a ;what if?'. He brings out a number of points, such as how things achieve value by the work needed to get them, and the oxymoron that is 'juvenile delinquent', but mostly he challenges assumptions. Johnny Rico, for example, is not the Aryan Superman of the rubbish film but a Philippino. The action scenes are limited, but there is one moment when the writing struck me very, very hard. Almost in passing, describing retreat that turns into a rout, he has Rico speak of a fallen comrade, and has him say something that initially slides under your attention and then bites you four lines on. It goes something like "We tried to get him out of his armour, but his head came off".
I think it also reflects his own experience as a ship board naval officer. There's a comment in the book about the unreality of most novels about the military because they place too much emphasis on action. As well, one of the incidents in the book, the story of the contents of the safe, occurred to him early in his career. You find a similar focus on ship board routine in "Citizen of the Galaxy". William H. Patterson's biography does a good job of showing how his naval career influenced his writing.
Al wrote: "I think it also reflects his own experience as a ship board naval officer. There's a comment in the book about the unreality of most novels about the military because they place too much emphasis o..."Exactly. He was doing that old author trick, writing what he knew. Except for the powered armour and aliens, that is.
Andy wrote: "I completely disagree with Heinlein's conclusions. One should always be given a voice in one's life and one's government, by default. Barring that default, one cannot state only a military life contributes to a society's welfare. Teachers, firefighters, community volunteers, research scientists, doctors and nurses are but few of the many professions or avocations that help build a good society. Heinlein is arguing for a return to the feudal system"I think there may be more to it than that.
In pre-world war II germany, the german military was not given the right to vote. So if you served in the military you were purely a tool of the government with no voice to say otherwise. This was a construct that dated back to Prussian times and essentially was based on the idea that if you fight for your lord, you have no dissenting opinions.
As a result of that, many german military officers in particular stayed silent during the war (Excepting the assassination attempt) because they had been conditioned that their life was one of service.
RH flipped the bit on this and posed the question what if the only people who got to vote had to truly serve the government they were voting on. Granted by making it only military focused, he excluded a lot of potentially valued contributors to society. But he also didn't discuss the wider aspect of how that worked either.
For example would a policemen be considered serving? What about a government scientist? These things were left unclear, which i think drives the narrative that it was only a military system.
There are also shades of the swiss system in his book and the israeli system. You can avoid military service in both of those cases, but you are not considered a "full" citizen (at the time of his writing).
So i think the story needs to be read/assessed in the context of his times.
Swiss/Israeli compulsory service to be a citizen
The recent (to him) atrocities committed by a "non honorable nonmilitary government" during the NAZI years.
If seen through the lens of the NAZI angle, i think his system makes more sense.
No, in neither Switzerland nor Israel is compulsory service required to be a citizen; it's required of a subset of citizens. In Israel, that subset excludes the ultra-orthodox. In Switzerland, that subset, I believe, excludes females.A government needs much more than a military force to function. For one thing, it needs tax collectors so the soldiers can get paid.
I thought at the time of ST's writing the Swiss required everyone to participate?
I just reviewed this book for my podcast (No Deodorant in Outer Space) and i felt sort of similar to the original comment that sparked this discussion. There is not enough action. The author's heavy-handed, philosophical waxings definitely raise interesting questions (they sparked lively discussion among my cohosts), but I still think this book would have been better served by sprinkling more action throughout. What I can say, is do NOT see the movie first (which I did), cause I think it skews your expectations.As far as the concept of "franchise" voting in exchange for federal service (which would be guaranteed), its an interesting idea to require service for your country, but ultimately the disenfranchisement which would result creates two one-sided of a viewpoint. Its hard enough trying to get people to voting polls without something like what the author is suggesting.
Anyway, its a good book for the questions and philosophies it gets into, but it could have been better by a stronger plot and conflict.
I just finished Robert A. Heinlein: In Dialogue with His Century Volume 2: The Man Who Learned Better and the part about him writing Starship Troopers was interesting. He wrote it to be about love, in particular about mans love for his fellow man and his willingness to give up his life for him. He wanted to illustrate Rico's growth from a selfish, self-centered boy to a mature young man who thought of others well-being at the end. He was quite disappointed that most people (including me, I'm afraid) concentrated more on the military and political aspects of the book.
Phil wrote: "I just finished Robert A. Heinlein: In Dialogue with His Century Volume 2: The Man Who Learned Better and the part about him writing Starship Troopers was interesting. ..."Interesting insight - thanks for sharing that.
I have to say I'm surprised, too, given the level of coverage and detail he gives to the political and military aspects of the environment in the book.
Nick wrote: "I thought at the time of ST's writing the Swiss required everyone to participate?"Switzerland had universal military service, where all able-bodied males (not everybody) had to serve. They were not unique; it was noteworthy because of the country's long neutrality. I believe Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Austria also had universal military service. Israel still does.
I think the love for fellow man does kind get buried as well... It's interesting. A lot of times author's do not realize the full impact of their words.
Glad this topic came up. I stopped reading the book about 2/3 of the way through and wondered if anyone felt the same. So many consider it essential SF, I thought something must be wrong with me. I kept thinking 'If I want a philosophical lecture I'll go back to graduate school'. Clearly there's a lot of people posting here who love the book and really get it - I especially don't wish to offend any who have served and who revere the authentic military aspect of the book. I just thought the title promised more story and tension, more action. It was a treatise on citizenship and military service cloaked as a SF novel. I don't read quickly, but I love reading, so I pick them carefully. This one was not as advertised.
Overall, I thought Haldeman's Forever War was less wordy and (probably) a more accurate depiction of military life. Haldeman was, iirc, a combat veteran in an army where many of the personnel where too young to vote, drink, or sign a contract.
I think Teague makes a good point. My expectations going in (I.e. Power armor, alien bug war, intergalactic war, etc) definitely affected my perception. I really wonder what I would have thought if I had read this as an adolescent? Might be totally different. It's interesting to read about the military insights and the philosophy behind enlistment, but if you keep expecting conflict to arise your let down.
Also, I keep hearing about the Forever War being a counterpoint to this book. I'll have to check that one out. Thanks for the reminder!
I did consider the lack of action a fault to the book. The book sags in the middle, where it has a bit too much training and a bit too much mundane life. Although I enjoyed the book a lot, it really needed a bit of action between the portion where he gets use to military life, and when he becomes an officer. Those story lines were too much alike to not be broken up by an action scene.
John Steakley's "Armor" was the true counterpoint to this book. He even admitted that it was an homage to Starship Troopers and meant to address the question of not enough action. But about Heinlein's viewpoint. War IS boring, or at least in his viewpoint and experience it was. Long periods of downtime interspersed with intense short periods of battle. The downtimes are boring. And any army has to have the background duties filled. Go read some Ernie Pyle. He made his living documenting the fact that the combat experience of the war machine was just the tip of the iceberg of the complete war machine.
What Heinlein tries to give the reader is the total Mobile Infantry experience. It really is not so much a science fiction novel as it is a war memoir. In that aspect it is genius.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Starship Troopers (other topics)
Robert A. Heinlein: In Dialogue with His Century Volume 2: The Man Who Learned Better (other topics)
Starship Troopers (other topics)
Expanded Universe (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Robert A. Heinlein: In Dialogue with His Century Volume 2: The Man Who Learned Better (other topics)Starship Troopers (other topics)
Robert A. Heinlein: In Dialogue with His Century Volume 2: The Man Who Learned Better (other topics)
Starship Troopers (other topics)
Expanded Universe (other topics)
More...
But I find it sort of puzzling that the book itself doesn't really exploit the new ideas that Heinlein presented. We get a lot of text about boot camp, but very little action. Basically just the first and last chapters.
It seems strange that Heinlein would be so creative as to give his space marines (Mobile Infantry) these grand new weapon systems, powered battle suits with an array of weaponry and amazing capabilities, and then NOT document at any length how much fun they'd be to pilot.
Instead, at what should be the climax of the book, we have our main character overwhelmed by clerical work and his big accomplishment is doing an INVENTORY! Yawn.
Save for the bookends of action, the broad middle of the book is like a diary of meh. A few daddy issues are explored but even when the author puts Rico and his father face to face they dodge the juicy bits and instead sort of settle for mundane dialogue even though the interesting issues are all still there.
Much like the rest of the book really. Heinlein put a LOT of time into setting up the dominoes but we never knock them over and see what happens. He chops up the mis en place but never makes the meal. He designs the car but we really don't get to take it out on the track.
And it's not as if Heinlein is without the creativity to provide the action. He comes up with a really awesome toy in the mobile suit and he even comes up with a means of landing on a planet (high altitude re-entry) that are sure to get the blood pumping for the reader, but he doesn't run with it.
I didn't mind the sort of extended lectures he delivers via Rico's old professor. I get that Heinlein is trying to argue a philosophy. But it's so barren in the middle that even the sort of heady lectures seem more exciting than the mundane aspects of boot camp.
I prefer the little kid attitude of taking the toy out of the box and playing with it than the sort of adult collector attitude we get in ST where you buy the toy and then put it in a cabinet.