Starship Troopers has been one of my favorite books for over half a century. I grew up across the road from Currie Barracks, formerly Camp Arthur Currie. When I first read the book I could look out my kitchen window and see the boot camp exercises for real, much as they were described in the book. I could recognize local Calgary landmarks in his descriptions of the Camp and activities. My next door neighbor's dad was even a Captain "building a swivel chair spread". When I read chapter 1 (the raid on the skinnies) Chinook helicopters were flying over my house to hover and drop soldiers for rappelling practice. Synopsis: A kids graduates high school and starts a career in the military. It was written to boys and young men (Heinlein's primary audience at that time due to his serilizations in Boys Life magazine) who were likely to be drafted into the military, whose biggest life question was "What will happen to me if I am drafted?"
That's a really cool story and, to be honest, I didn't even know Camp Arthur Currie was real. I thought it was just something Heinlein improvised. Your last point makes sense too. Thanks for watching!
First, let me state that I agree with most of what you say about the novel. I have personally read the novel so many times that I've lost count, over 20 times at least, and it remains one of my favorite novels, and has been since I was 14-15 when I first read it. Now, some critiques. 1. Verhoeven doesn't get an opinion in my estimation. He rather famously admitted that he didn't bother to read the book. As I recall, he read the first two chapters and tossed the book to his screenwriter, Edward Neumeier, and had him read the book. This is probably why some of the "good stuff" actually made it into the movie. I suspect Neumeier actually enjoyed the book, he certainly seems to just parrot Verhoeven's talking points in the few commentaries I've heard that include both of them. 2. I disagree with comparing the Terran Federation with Sparta, as Athens, or even pre-Imperial Rome, is probably a better comparison, except (tentatively) in the role of women. Sparta was the opposite of the Terran Federation described in the novel. It was an oligarchy, ruled by two co-equal, hereditary kings, with a supreme "race" (Spartan citizens) lording over non-Spartan freemen (Mothakes), free non-citizens (Perioikoi), and state-owned slaves (Helots). While the Spartans did have militant dominated society (which lead to their eventual downfall), there was no way for "advancement" for non-Spartans, and there was no drive to recruit and promote non-Spartans to any greater status. The Terran Federation, on the other hand, while having a basically ex-military controlled government (you were not permitted to vote until you were retired or completed your service term), it freely permitted, and in fact vigorously defended the rights of civilians to earn the voting franchise, and no other right is actually granted by becoming a citizen other than the right to vote and otherwise participate in politics. As you rightly stated, all citizens and civilians enjoyed the exact same rights, ostensibly based on the Bill of Rights, and equal treatment under the law. No one is forced to serve a term, no one is forced out unless they commit a grievous act, and what that act entails could differ quite a bit, when compared to the other services one may choose during their term, while "military", it could be any number of non-combatant, and even non-military related occupations, such as Carl, who became a scientist and never appears to have left the Sol System. One cannot be forced to resign due to medical discharge, as Carruthers shows when he can't make it through basic, but instead of being forced out, he's simply moved to a position he can physical cope with and continues to serve his term and (hopefully) earn his franchise. While a "limited" democracy, the rights that Heinlein lays down in the novel are actually stronger than the rights we seem to enjoy in today's democracies, and certainly light-years greater than the democracies of his own time when he published the novel in 1959, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We are still far short of the example set by Heinlein's Terran Federation when it comes to equality, be it racial, gender, or cultural. 3. An observation about the movie. **Let me also acknowledge that you did say the Terran Federation was not fascist in the book, and I agree.** This is my declaration that the Terran Federation wasn't fascist in the movie either, and Verhoeven failed in what he claims he tried to make. It fails to give a satirical look at fascism, if you don't understand why I make this claim, as many don't seem to, I encourage you to find a copy of Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator, because THAT is a true satire of FASCISM, both of the Italian and German flavors. There is no reference to anything fascistic in the movie outside of the silly uniforms, and clumsy attempts that fail if you give the movie more than a casual popcorn watch. If anything, the Terran Federation is given a more positive reputation in the movie, because the movie does something that the novel does not: It makes it 100% clear that the Arachnids fired the first shots (killing colonists who are independent of the Terran Federation and then attacking Earth directly), do not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants (again, killing unarmed civilians and launching a direct WMD attack on a population center), and refuse to participate in diplomacy (the whole point of capturing brains and queens is an attempt to force them to the negotiation table). The Terran Federation was not warlike, nor did it appear to be an expansionist government (it actively maintained an "Arachnid Exclusion Zone", intended to prevent antagonizing the Arachnids), and was not at war before the Arachnids attacked. It did not depend on a master race theory or master nation theory that encouraged it to go to war just to prove the right of it's greatness. While the "Kill 'em all!" scene gets a lot of criticism; Rico, Dizzy, Carmen, and Xander are justified in their apparent anger and hate of the bugs, their hometown, and everyone they loved, was just smeared off the planet. The propaganda in the movie is completely honest, portraying exactly what we see happening to the characters in the movie (the meteor propelled by bug plasma impacting the Rodger Young wit Carmen aboard, the casualties of Klendathu with Rico's face plastered on national television), and the media (state-run or not) practices freely to a ludicrous degree (scrolling hundreds of thousands of casualties, BY NAME, in a live broadcast isn't exactly a morale builder, it's stupid, inconsiderate, and harmful), and continues to do so throughout the film, unheeded by censors... except in that silly clip at the end of the film which was clearly a sexual reference and joke, Verhoeven seems to love those. If you compare any of those points to Italian Fascism or German Nazism, the entire comparison falls on it's face. Both nations itched to go to war and prove their supremacy, one of them included a racial dimension to that supremacy, both sides needed to go to war to prove that theory and maintain their own powerbase at home. Both pushed the narrative that other races or nations were weaker and undeserving before even firing a shot. The media was severely restrained and dominated with propaganda that always reported only good news, or the terrible news it couldn't hide in the best possible light, people were indoctrinated to see others as lesser beings. While you see a little of that in the movie, when Science Professor Blanche is talking about a bug worker, the Terran Federation doesn't even appear to know at the time that the bugs are intelligent, they just think they are animals, and Blanche is giving a GLOWING report of how superior bugs are to humans. Another point against any open fascism in the movie, she'd be fired or sent to a concentration camp if she was in Nazi Germany and spoke so highly of Russians or Jews. Carl states, much later, that the Whiskey Outpost operation was a sacrificial mission to prove that the bugs were intelligent enough to lay a trap, indicating that there were at least some Arachnids that had the ability to make plans, a prerequisite to forcing negotiations.
Since I can't edit on my phone: let me add one more item to point three. Accountability is more proof against fascism. The Sky Marshal accepts his failure and resigns after Klendathu in the movie. That does not happen in a fascistic government, the leader(s) cannot be wrong. Everyone else is wrong, failures, traitors, etc.
You might be surprised to hear this, but I don't think I disagree with anything you've said here. I may have overstated the reference I made to Sparta (it was really an off-the-cuff, throw away line at best). In the video I said, "...what you get in the Terran Federation is essentially a politically-realist liberal order with touches of Sparta and what the ancient Greeks called Timocracy." I tried to be nuanced there, but maybe I didn't do a good enough job.
"In war, truth is the first casualty" - Aeschylus Not disagreeing with what you write... In space, where non-Terrans life forms are present, "race" takes on a whole new meaning. So, fascism of one race / ethnicity better than another is quite the turn. I've heard folks comment / imply that the destruction of Rio de Janiero was done by the Terrans to boost enrollment to fight the bugs in a sort of Imperialistic movement in space, and the fascist goal of proving their superiority over bugs, But, that could be a preconceived notion that the film was fascist and invented the 'fanfiction' theory of Terran bombing to support it. Interesting to ponder, if ture, would it change your notions of the film / director outlook.
@@kurtfox4944 Yeah, I've heard/read this false flag attack narrative before, but there is nothing in the movie, at least the first movie, that really supports it. I think it's a simple case of finding evidence to support your desired outcome. It's more Verhoeven's sloppiness and the nature of popcorn theater that reinforces this stuff. The recruiter is a man with three replacement limbs, hardly encouraging. The Terran Federation has an Arachnid Quarantine Zone to prevent contact with the bugs, the Mormons ignored the warning to settle there and the Federation didn't force them stay out, the Rodger Young, with Carmen AND Xander is there to show you what happens with the meteor in real time, the rookie Xander reading the declaring the reading indicate it's from the AQZ, etc. etc. It only after that the Terran Federation declares war, and Verhoeven seems to think that responding to having a city Hiroshima'd and an enemy invading your territory makes you a fascist if you choose to fight back. In Verhoeven's judgement, then, Ukrainian soldiers are fascists for fighting back against Russia's invasion. I wonder if Verhoeven believes Russian propaganda that Zelenskyy, a literal Jew and descendent of Holocaust survivors, is a neo-Nazi. Anyway, Verhoeven's mistake is making a point of showing us everything that happens to the characters before showing it in the news reels, or by showing the events later such as the Battle of Klendathu, showing that Rico was actually there and showing what happened off the reporter's camera to be consistent with what is on the reporter's camera. If Verhoeven REALLY wanted to show something that would indicate intent on the part of the Terran Federation, he could have put a political officer on the Young to mildly declare that the meteor was of bug origin and squash, no matter now gently, Xander's report to Captain Deladeir that the meteor came from anywhere else... but the movie doesn't do that, it just has Xander read off a screen quite clearly. In fact, it's hard to say that there are any political officers at all...Carl is an INTELLIGENCE officer, which all nations have to some extent. But not one political officer is seen anywhere in the movie telling anyone to disbelieve their lying eyes. And the media, again, is clearly not censored in any fashion, if the reports post-Klendathu and the casualty lists are any indication. Verhoeven was sloppy, in my estimation, and it seems like he tends to hand off his homework to other people or mock the source material, even when the source material itself is already a scathing commentary on society, such as the works of Philip K. Dick.
In order to become a "full citizen," one must be a "veteran" NOT NECESSARILY a military veteran,... you have to volunteer for ANY TYPE of federal service, which is what the Terran gov't chooses for you
Nice video. I don't agree with some of Heinlein's ideas, but many of them are spot-on. Loved this book from the first time I picked it up. I can honestly say Starship Troopers is my favorite Heinlein novel. I was super excited for the movie when it came out and was pretty disappointed. In fact, I think the movie is pretty much trash.
Thanks for watching! I quite enjoyed the book and I'm sure I'll read it again someday. I really loved The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. I think I'm going to reread it soon and give it a review. Have you ever read Stranger In A Strange Land? I haven't read that one yet.
Very good review, however...Heinlein stated you had to be veteran to be a citizen but not necessarily a military veteran. I believe he said that there were 5 pathways to veteran status. He only told us about three in the book, Mobile Infantry, Navy, and persons working to make arctic areas of the world habitable. I never saw the film because I found out Paul Verhoeven was directing. He hadseemed to imply that all the main characters in his movie Soldier of Orange, the Free Dutch soldiers, the resistance members, the Dutch Waffen SS officer, and the collaborators were morally equal in an interview about the film. I had already got that vibe from actually seeing the film.
A good review here Jordan, and I think you sum up Heinlein's strengths and weaknesses well enough, though I would quibble slightly and say Starship Troopers is a coming of age story in sorts, so it's not completely a 'Novel About Ideas'. My take on why Heinlein's controversial is that he was willing to explore ideas that weren't sexy and weren't popular at all. He's like Joe Rogan in the way that he wasn't afraid to entertain an idea and *gasp* explore it without resorting to virtue signaling or making his own opinions obvious on the page. It also doesn't help when he shows that the things he would talk about might have some positive elements to them. Now, also like Rogan, he sometimes goes too far in these explorations. But I respect the honesty and balls he had for exploring these topics without moralizing or telling people what to think...though he tells people what he thinks a better world would look like, and wants others to see it too. I wouldn't call Starship Troopers my favorite of Heinlein's oeuvre, that would probably go to The Moon is a Harsh Mistress or Stranger in a Strange Land (though I have to re-read the latter before I really make my final opinion known). I don't know how much Heinlein you've read, but I don't recommend reading his books after Stranger in a Strange Land. A lot of it is crap, and I say that as someone who gives Heinlein the benefit of the doubt more often than not. I do like the film and I think Verhoeven is a talented director, though yes I don't think he saw the finer points of the novel. To his credit, he acknowledged that he didn't really read the book and made the film based on his impression of the book. Anyway, I don't want to go on for too long.
As I recall, Heinlein considered Starship Troopers to be part of his Juvenile novels, like Space Cadet. It wasn't his choice that it's consider otherwise.
Thanks, Britton. You are certainly right that Starship Troopers is a coming-of-age story, though I would also call it a big idea novel. Yes, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is one of my favorite SF novels. I've taught it before and I think it's both thought-provoking and an overall blast. I've never read Stranger in a Strange Land, though I've always wanted to; that said, I have read most of a two-volume biography of Heinlein and that partially inspired me to write the following article at Quillette: quillette.com/2020/06/12/the-libertarian-history-of-science-fiction/ I liked your Joe Rogan analogy, btw. Thanks for watching!
Good review, don't disagree with a lot of it, but no character development? Johnnie Rico goes from a superficial high school rich kid brat to a military officer and leader of men...
There is a LOT of character development, but it's extremely subtle. It's extremely weird for a military-oriented novel because the story isn't about fighting the enemy, it's all about the main character's internal changes as time goes by, and since the character is meant to be an "everyman" instead of a hero, he gets pulled along rather than being a primary driver of the story. He doesn't have any singular grand epiphany, the changes are gradual and realistic, but there IS a clear "what is this story about" that comes through . . . It's about THE DRAFT and how a free country should (and should not) go about fighting a war against Communism, a war that was VERY REAL when this novel was written, as the Cold War was in full swing and the Korean war had just ended. The concept here is that if you structure your military properly, you don't NEED some sort of patriotic superman or shackled conscripts to fight. Your "everyman" can and will do it, and do it well.
@@JMeganSnow This is a good comment. I agree with this and, though I wasn't shrewd enough to make your first point in my video, I do discuss your latter point for a bit in the video. Thanks for watching and for your thoughtful feedback. :)
@@JMeganSnow I agree that it is subtle. There is no sense of timing. The events of the book take place over several years, and he goes from a spoiled rich kid fresh from high school to a competent military leader who loves his men and inspires love and loyalty from his men. The whole point of the system is that the Mobile Infantry officers are NOT the cookie cutter clueless west point cadets that were often leading in the US military at the time Heinlein was serving.
Heinlein admitted himself that this was more of a lesson book than a story book. The fact that military service is required actually makes sense; if you are not willing to serve your nation, how thoroughly should your nation serve you? The only 'right' that I saw that was missing from the general citizenry was voting; it's not like the general populace were held to low level status. RAH was not strictly militaristic, but he recognizes that without the involvement of the people, governments stagnate. Military excels (usually) at organization and compartmentalization. I'd give the novel 4/5, and the movie (having previously read the novel) 2/5, and Verhoeven probably should have read the entire novel and attempted to comprehend it.
Thanks for watching! Yes, I agree. On the main, the only two rights missing from the general citizenry is voting and the ability to hold office. Those making the claim that it's not a democracy because they've limited suffrage should remember that most democracies throughout history have limited suffrage. In democratic Athens, only a small percentage of the population could vote, but no one says ancient Athens wasn't organized like a democracy.
You have some seriously weird ideas about Sparta if you think it in any way resembled what Heinlein talks about here. Sparta was a hardcore SLAVE state, basically totalitarian, not some kind of military republic. They literally declared war formally on their *own slave population* every year. They were militaristic in the extreme because that was how they maintained control over their slaves, and why, to them, you were either a warrior or you were nothing--because you literally were.
I wasn't trying to make a one-to-one comparison at all, merely observing the echoes... though I'm hardly the first to observe the likeness between aspects of Sparta and the Terran Federation. I came across several articles to this effect. Like this one: theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/08/rights-responsibilities-political-economy-starship-troopers.html
Good review. I'm more warm to the book than you, but I think your commentary was fair and nuanced. I think the book's story/character work feels shallow because subsequent military science fiction in print and onscreen has really leaned into the personal lives and pathos of the people they're portraying in a way RAH didn't have room for in what was, essentially, his last, "boy's juvenile." Johnny Rico does go on a character arc, but it's much more broadly painted than Honor Harrington's, or Bill Adama's, or Benjamin Sisko's, or Mike O'neal's, etc etc.
@@iWizard given your review repertoire online I can unabashedly recommend the Honor Harrington series to you. I'll confess that my favorite HH books are the first two, On Basilisk Station and The Honor of the Queen, but the series maintains a reasonably high quality throughout. Truth in advertising, it would be presumptuous of me to call David Weber my friend, but he is a friendly acquaintance and I am fond of him personally. We both write for Baen. Albeit, he's the starting pitcher and I'm the back-up utility in fielder. :)
If you didnt understand what the overarching plot was about, you missed it, its the eveloution of the rich, and privileged, youth, into a responsible, freedom loving, productive member of the society he lives in. otherwise, I agreed with a lot of what you said
Anyone who thinks this story is fascist doesn't know anything about Robert Heinlein. He covers what the book is about in Robert Heinlein's Expanded Universe. He bluntly states that anyone who things it is fascist doesn't understand English
Paul V totally missed what being Mobile Infantry was all about...he spent all his "fx" money on "bugs" and outfitted his MI in football uniforms... one MI trooper was the equivalent of a platoon of regular infantry...Powered Armor made them nearly invincible... I loved the book... did not like the movie...
The book and film are so different that the latter hardly even seems based on the former. Having seen the film first, I had no idea this was the case until now.
Starship Troopers has been one of my favorite books for over half a century. I grew up across the road from Currie Barracks, formerly Camp Arthur Currie.
When I first read the book I could look out my kitchen window and see the boot camp exercises for real, much as they were described in the book. I could recognize local Calgary landmarks in his descriptions of the Camp and activities. My next door neighbor's dad was even a Captain "building a swivel chair spread".
When I read chapter 1 (the raid on the skinnies) Chinook helicopters were flying over my house to hover and drop soldiers for rappelling practice.
Synopsis: A kids graduates high school and starts a career in the military. It was written to boys and young men (Heinlein's primary audience at that time due to his serilizations in Boys Life magazine) who were likely to be drafted into the military, whose biggest life question was "What will happen to me if I am drafted?"
That's a really cool story and, to be honest, I didn't even know Camp Arthur Currie was real. I thought it was just something Heinlein improvised. Your last point makes sense too. Thanks for watching!
Great video - well done!
Thank you very much, sir!
First, let me state that I agree with most of what you say about the novel. I have personally read the novel so many times that I've lost count, over 20 times at least, and it remains one of my favorite novels, and has been since I was 14-15 when I first read it.
Now, some critiques.
1. Verhoeven doesn't get an opinion in my estimation. He rather famously admitted that he didn't bother to read the book. As I recall, he read the first two chapters and tossed the book to his screenwriter, Edward Neumeier, and had him read the book. This is probably why some of the "good stuff" actually made it into the movie. I suspect Neumeier actually enjoyed the book, he certainly seems to just parrot Verhoeven's talking points in the few commentaries I've heard that include both of them.
2. I disagree with comparing the Terran Federation with Sparta, as Athens, or even pre-Imperial Rome, is probably a better comparison, except (tentatively) in the role of women. Sparta was the opposite of the Terran Federation described in the novel. It was an oligarchy, ruled by two co-equal, hereditary kings, with a supreme "race" (Spartan citizens) lording over non-Spartan freemen (Mothakes), free non-citizens (Perioikoi), and state-owned slaves (Helots).
While the Spartans did have militant dominated society (which lead to their eventual downfall), there was no way for "advancement" for non-Spartans, and there was no drive to recruit and promote non-Spartans to any greater status.
The Terran Federation, on the other hand, while having a basically ex-military controlled government (you were not permitted to vote until you were retired or completed your service term), it freely permitted, and in fact vigorously defended the rights of civilians to earn the voting franchise, and no other right is actually granted by becoming a citizen other than the right to vote and otherwise participate in politics. As you rightly stated, all citizens and civilians enjoyed the exact same rights, ostensibly based on the Bill of Rights, and equal treatment under the law.
No one is forced to serve a term, no one is forced out unless they commit a grievous act, and what that act entails could differ quite a bit, when compared to the other services one may choose during their term, while "military", it could be any number of non-combatant, and even non-military related occupations, such as Carl, who became a scientist and never appears to have left the Sol System.
One cannot be forced to resign due to medical discharge, as Carruthers shows when he can't make it through basic, but instead of being forced out, he's simply moved to a position he can physical cope with and continues to serve his term and (hopefully) earn his franchise.
While a "limited" democracy, the rights that Heinlein lays down in the novel are actually stronger than the rights we seem to enjoy in today's democracies, and certainly light-years greater than the democracies of his own time when he published the novel in 1959, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We are still far short of the example set by Heinlein's Terran Federation when it comes to equality, be it racial, gender, or cultural.
3. An observation about the movie. **Let me also acknowledge that you did say the Terran Federation was not fascist in the book, and I agree.** This is my declaration that the Terran Federation wasn't fascist in the movie either, and Verhoeven failed in what he claims he tried to make.
It fails to give a satirical look at fascism, if you don't understand why I make this claim, as many don't seem to, I encourage you to find a copy of Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator, because THAT is a true satire of FASCISM, both of the Italian and German flavors.
There is no reference to anything fascistic in the movie outside of the silly uniforms, and clumsy attempts that fail if you give the movie more than a casual popcorn watch. If anything, the Terran Federation is given a more positive reputation in the movie, because the movie does something that the novel does not:
It makes it 100% clear that the Arachnids fired the first shots (killing colonists who are independent of the Terran Federation and then attacking Earth directly), do not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants (again, killing unarmed civilians and launching a direct WMD attack on a population center), and refuse to participate in diplomacy (the whole point of capturing brains and queens is an attempt to force them to the negotiation table).
The Terran Federation was not warlike, nor did it appear to be an expansionist government (it actively maintained an "Arachnid Exclusion Zone", intended to prevent antagonizing the Arachnids), and was not at war before the Arachnids attacked. It did not depend on a master race theory or master nation theory that encouraged it to go to war just to prove the right of it's greatness.
While the "Kill 'em all!" scene gets a lot of criticism; Rico, Dizzy, Carmen, and Xander are justified in their apparent anger and hate of the bugs, their hometown, and everyone they loved, was just smeared off the planet.
The propaganda in the movie is completely honest, portraying exactly what we see happening to the characters in the movie (the meteor propelled by bug plasma impacting the Rodger Young wit Carmen aboard, the casualties of Klendathu with Rico's face plastered on national television), and the media (state-run or not) practices freely to a ludicrous degree (scrolling hundreds of thousands of casualties, BY NAME, in a live broadcast isn't exactly a morale builder, it's stupid, inconsiderate, and harmful), and continues to do so throughout the film, unheeded by censors... except in that silly clip at the end of the film which was clearly a sexual reference and joke, Verhoeven seems to love those.
If you compare any of those points to Italian Fascism or German Nazism, the entire comparison falls on it's face. Both nations itched to go to war and prove their supremacy, one of them included a racial dimension to that supremacy, both sides needed to go to war to prove that theory and maintain their own powerbase at home. Both pushed the narrative that other races or nations were weaker and undeserving before even firing a shot. The media was severely restrained and dominated with propaganda that always reported only good news, or the terrible news it couldn't hide in the best possible light, people were indoctrinated to see others as lesser beings.
While you see a little of that in the movie, when Science Professor Blanche is talking about a bug worker, the Terran Federation doesn't even appear to know at the time that the bugs are intelligent, they just think they are animals, and Blanche is giving a GLOWING report of how superior bugs are to humans. Another point against any open fascism in the movie, she'd be fired or sent to a concentration camp if she was in Nazi Germany and spoke so highly of Russians or Jews. Carl states, much later, that the Whiskey Outpost operation was a sacrificial mission to prove that the bugs were intelligent enough to lay a trap, indicating that there were at least some Arachnids that had the ability to make plans, a prerequisite to forcing negotiations.
Since I can't edit on my phone: let me add one more item to point three.
Accountability is more proof against fascism. The Sky Marshal accepts his failure and resigns after Klendathu in the movie. That does not happen in a fascistic government, the leader(s) cannot be wrong. Everyone else is wrong, failures, traitors, etc.
You might be surprised to hear this, but I don't think I disagree with anything you've said here. I may have overstated the reference I made to Sparta (it was really an off-the-cuff, throw away line at best). In the video I said, "...what you get in the Terran Federation is essentially a politically-realist liberal order with touches of Sparta and what the ancient Greeks called Timocracy." I tried to be nuanced there, but maybe I didn't do a good enough job.
"In war, truth is the first casualty" - Aeschylus
Not disagreeing with what you write...
In space, where non-Terrans life forms are present, "race" takes on a whole new meaning. So, fascism of one race / ethnicity better than another is quite the turn.
I've heard folks comment / imply that the destruction of Rio de Janiero was done by the Terrans to boost enrollment to fight the bugs in a sort of Imperialistic movement in space, and the fascist goal of proving their superiority over bugs, But, that could be a preconceived notion that the film was fascist and invented the 'fanfiction' theory of Terran bombing to support it. Interesting to ponder, if ture, would it change your notions of the film / director outlook.
@@kurtfox4944 Yeah, I've heard/read this false flag attack narrative before, but there is nothing in the movie, at least the first movie, that really supports it. I think it's a simple case of finding evidence to support your desired outcome. It's more Verhoeven's sloppiness and the nature of popcorn theater that reinforces this stuff.
The recruiter is a man with three replacement limbs, hardly encouraging. The Terran Federation has an Arachnid Quarantine Zone to prevent contact with the bugs, the Mormons ignored the warning to settle there and the Federation didn't force them stay out, the Rodger Young, with Carmen AND Xander is there to show you what happens with the meteor in real time, the rookie Xander reading the declaring the reading indicate it's from the AQZ, etc. etc. It only after that the Terran Federation declares war, and Verhoeven seems to think that responding to having a city Hiroshima'd and an enemy invading your territory makes you a fascist if you choose to fight back.
In Verhoeven's judgement, then, Ukrainian soldiers are fascists for fighting back against Russia's invasion. I wonder if Verhoeven believes Russian propaganda that Zelenskyy, a literal Jew and descendent of Holocaust survivors, is a neo-Nazi.
Anyway, Verhoeven's mistake is making a point of showing us everything that happens to the characters before showing it in the news reels, or by showing the events later such as the Battle of Klendathu, showing that Rico was actually there and showing what happened off the reporter's camera to be consistent with what is on the reporter's camera.
If Verhoeven REALLY wanted to show something that would indicate intent on the part of the Terran Federation, he could have put a political officer on the Young to mildly declare that the meteor was of bug origin and squash, no matter now gently, Xander's report to Captain Deladeir that the meteor came from anywhere else... but the movie doesn't do that, it just has Xander read off a screen quite clearly. In fact, it's hard to say that there are any political officers at all...Carl is an INTELLIGENCE officer, which all nations have to some extent. But not one political officer is seen anywhere in the movie telling anyone to disbelieve their lying eyes. And the media, again, is clearly not censored in any fashion, if the reports post-Klendathu and the casualty lists are any indication.
Verhoeven was sloppy, in my estimation, and it seems like he tends to hand off his homework to other people or mock the source material, even when the source material itself is already a scathing commentary on society, such as the works of Philip K. Dick.
In order to become a "full citizen," one must be a "veteran" NOT NECESSARILY a military veteran,... you have to volunteer for ANY TYPE of federal service, which is what the Terran gov't chooses for you
Yes, that's true. Cheers, and thanks for watching!
I have not read this book, but this was a great analysis! with great insights! thnx!
Thank you very much!
Nice video. I don't agree with some of Heinlein's ideas, but many of them are spot-on. Loved this book from the first time I picked it up. I can honestly say Starship Troopers is my favorite Heinlein novel. I was super excited for the movie when it came out and was pretty disappointed. In fact, I think the movie is pretty much trash.
Thanks for watching! I quite enjoyed the book and I'm sure I'll read it again someday. I really loved The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. I think I'm going to reread it soon and give it a review. Have you ever read Stranger In A Strange Land? I haven't read that one yet.
@@iWizard I liked Moon... SiaSL has its moments. I liked the first half or so. The second half was bad, imo.
Very good review, however...Heinlein stated you had to be veteran to be a citizen but not necessarily a military veteran. I believe he said that there were 5 pathways to veteran status. He only told us about three in the book, Mobile Infantry, Navy, and persons working to make arctic areas of the world habitable.
I never saw the film because I found out Paul Verhoeven was directing. He hadseemed to imply that all the main characters in his movie Soldier of Orange, the Free Dutch soldiers, the resistance members, the Dutch Waffen SS officer, and the collaborators were morally equal in an interview about the film. I had already got that vibe from actually seeing the film.
Yes, you're right about that. I thought I mentioned that, but maybe I didn't state it explicitly enough. Thanks for watching!
A good review here Jordan, and I think you sum up Heinlein's strengths and weaknesses well enough, though I would quibble slightly and say Starship Troopers is a coming of age story in sorts, so it's not completely a 'Novel About Ideas'.
My take on why Heinlein's controversial is that he was willing to explore ideas that weren't sexy and weren't popular at all. He's like Joe Rogan in the way that he wasn't afraid to entertain an idea and *gasp* explore it without resorting to virtue signaling or making his own opinions obvious on the page. It also doesn't help when he shows that the things he would talk about might have some positive elements to them. Now, also like Rogan, he sometimes goes too far in these explorations. But I respect the honesty and balls he had for exploring these topics without moralizing or telling people what to think...though he tells people what he thinks a better world would look like, and wants others to see it too.
I wouldn't call Starship Troopers my favorite of Heinlein's oeuvre, that would probably go to The Moon is a Harsh Mistress or Stranger in a Strange Land (though I have to re-read the latter before I really make my final opinion known). I don't know how much Heinlein you've read, but I don't recommend reading his books after Stranger in a Strange Land. A lot of it is crap, and I say that as someone who gives Heinlein the benefit of the doubt more often than not.
I do like the film and I think Verhoeven is a talented director, though yes I don't think he saw the finer points of the novel. To his credit, he acknowledged that he didn't really read the book and made the film based on his impression of the book. Anyway, I don't want to go on for too long.
As I recall, Heinlein considered Starship Troopers to be part of his Juvenile novels, like Space Cadet. It wasn't his choice that it's consider otherwise.
Thanks, Britton. You are certainly right that Starship Troopers is a coming-of-age story, though I would also call it a big idea novel. Yes, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is one of my favorite SF novels. I've taught it before and I think it's both thought-provoking and an overall blast. I've never read Stranger in a Strange Land, though I've always wanted to; that said, I have read most of a two-volume biography of Heinlein and that partially inspired me to write the following article at Quillette: quillette.com/2020/06/12/the-libertarian-history-of-science-fiction/
I liked your Joe Rogan analogy, btw. Thanks for watching!
Good point.
The Verhoeven film would've been great if it were Bug Hunt at Outpost 9. As it is, it's an onscreen abortion of something much better.
Good review, don't disagree with a lot of it, but no character development? Johnnie Rico goes from a superficial high school rich kid brat to a military officer and leader of men...
It's possible I overstated that a bit. Maybe I shouldn't have said development, but DEPTH. Thanks for watching!
There is a LOT of character development, but it's extremely subtle. It's extremely weird for a military-oriented novel because the story isn't about fighting the enemy, it's all about the main character's internal changes as time goes by, and since the character is meant to be an "everyman" instead of a hero, he gets pulled along rather than being a primary driver of the story. He doesn't have any singular grand epiphany, the changes are gradual and realistic, but there IS a clear "what is this story about" that comes through . . .
It's about THE DRAFT and how a free country should (and should not) go about fighting a war against Communism, a war that was VERY REAL when this novel was written, as the Cold War was in full swing and the Korean war had just ended. The concept here is that if you structure your military properly, you don't NEED some sort of patriotic superman or shackled conscripts to fight. Your "everyman" can and will do it, and do it well.
@@JMeganSnow This is a good comment. I agree with this and, though I wasn't shrewd enough to make your first point in my video, I do discuss your latter point for a bit in the video. Thanks for watching and for your thoughtful feedback. :)
@@JMeganSnow I agree that it is subtle. There is no sense of timing. The events of the book take place over several years, and he goes from a spoiled rich kid fresh from high school to a competent military leader who loves his men and inspires love and loyalty from his men.
The whole point of the system is that the Mobile Infantry officers are NOT the cookie cutter clueless west point cadets that were often leading in the US military at the time Heinlein was serving.
This should be good!
Enjoy!
Heinlein admitted himself that this was more of a lesson book than a story book. The fact that military service is required actually makes sense; if you are not willing to serve your nation, how thoroughly should your nation serve you? The only 'right' that I saw that was missing from the general citizenry was voting; it's not like the general populace were held to low level status.
RAH was not strictly militaristic, but he recognizes that without the involvement of the people, governments stagnate. Military excels (usually) at organization and compartmentalization. I'd give the novel 4/5, and the movie (having previously read the novel) 2/5, and Verhoeven probably should have read the entire novel and attempted to comprehend it.
Thanks for watching! Yes, I agree. On the main, the only two rights missing from the general citizenry is voting and the ability to hold office. Those making the claim that it's not a democracy because they've limited suffrage should remember that most democracies throughout history have limited suffrage. In democratic Athens, only a small percentage of the population could vote, but no one says ancient Athens wasn't organized like a democracy.
You have some seriously weird ideas about Sparta if you think it in any way resembled what Heinlein talks about here. Sparta was a hardcore SLAVE state, basically totalitarian, not some kind of military republic. They literally declared war formally on their *own slave population* every year. They were militaristic in the extreme because that was how they maintained control over their slaves, and why, to them, you were either a warrior or you were nothing--because you literally were.
I wasn't trying to make a one-to-one comparison at all, merely observing the echoes... though I'm hardly the first to observe the likeness between aspects of Sparta and the Terran Federation. I came across several articles to this effect. Like this one: theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/08/rights-responsibilities-political-economy-starship-troopers.html
Good review. I'm more warm to the book than you, but I think your commentary was fair and nuanced. I think the book's story/character work feels shallow because subsequent military science fiction in print and onscreen has really leaned into the personal lives and pathos of the people they're portraying in a way RAH didn't have room for in what was, essentially, his last, "boy's juvenile." Johnny Rico does go on a character arc, but it's much more broadly painted than Honor Harrington's, or Bill Adama's, or Benjamin Sisko's, or Mike O'neal's, etc etc.
I agree with this. Tell me: have you read the Honor Harrington series? If so, is it any good?
@@iWizard given your review repertoire online I can unabashedly recommend the Honor Harrington series to you.
I'll confess that my favorite HH books are the first two, On Basilisk Station and The Honor of the Queen, but the series maintains a reasonably high quality throughout.
Truth in advertising, it would be presumptuous of me to call David Weber my friend, but he is a friendly acquaintance and I am fond of him personally. We both write for Baen. Albeit, he's the starting pitcher and I'm the back-up utility in fielder. :)
solid.
Thank you!
If you didnt understand what the overarching plot was about, you missed it, its the eveloution of the rich, and privileged, youth, into a responsible, freedom loving, productive member of the society he lives in. otherwise, I agreed with a lot of what you said
Thank you for watching! Cheers.
Anyone who thinks this story is fascist doesn't know anything about Robert Heinlein. He covers what the book is about in Robert Heinlein's Expanded Universe. He bluntly states that anyone who things it is fascist doesn't understand English
I couldn't agree more. Thanks for watching!
Paul V totally missed what being Mobile Infantry was all about...he spent all his "fx" money on "bugs" and outfitted his MI in football uniforms... one MI trooper was the equivalent of a platoon of regular infantry...Powered Armor made them nearly invincible... I loved the book... did not like the movie...
The book and film are so different that the latter hardly even seems based on the former. Having seen the film first, I had no idea this was the case until now.