Talk:Starship Troopers/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This article is self-contradictory in its effort to prove that ST was nazi.

"The situation and response described above is parallel with the development of the Freikorps in Germany after World War I, and these corps in turn contributed greatly to the rise of Adolf Hitler. The fictional "Treaty of New Delhi" can be accurately compared to the Treaty of Versailles."::

Yet if you pusue the link to Freikorps, you will find that the Freikorps "remained outsiders during the Third Reich". The Freikorps had no loyalty to Hitler. Or Nazism. Hence the comparison actually CONTRADICTS the ST/Heinlein=Nazi idea. Permission to restore NPOV by replacing this paragraph with a clarifying and neutral one? Tom S.

Great work, Einstein! The Nazis officially denied having a link to the Freicorps! You know, they denied having a hand in Krystallnacht too! And they denied starting WWII also! Better get to work correcting all those articles!

(Actually, I would also suggest deleting those passages for the simple reason that drawing the parallel is extremely vague, and that there's more direct quotes in the section). --L. 22:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

L., please don't make personal attacks.--Bcrowell 18:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Bcrowell, you know, there's a street sign in Chicago, and it says "ONE WAY".... --L. 21:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

"only those who have volunteered for federal service (which includes military service) are permitted to vote and hold political office"

This is a somewhat controversial point, but by my reading (and I'm not alone) *only* military service qualified someone for voting. Anyone have thoughts on how best to address this in the article? I've read at least a couple of essays on the point, but foolishly haven't bookmarked them.

- I'm sorry, that's way off. Federal Service INCLUDES the military, but is not EXCLUSIVE to it! REMOVED INSULTING SENTENCE. MY PERSONAL APOLOGIES FOR NOT HAVING READ WIKIQUETTE! TOM S. The book explicitly states that ALL Federal Service gives franchise; yes, that includes the military. AND teachers, law enforcement, medical services, etc. The idea (as stated in the book) is that if you were patriotic enough to devote your time, effort and possibly risk your life (yes, that risk of life includes the military... AND firefighters, police, etc.) for the society, then you would exercise said franchise with society's needs in mind. Tom S.

I recall it being military only, too, but then, I haven't read ST in awhile. --squadfifteen

Perhaps both sides should offer textual evidence for their accertions, and we can let the reader decide. Viper Daimao 19:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Here we go... :-)

One novel which the article does not mention; but which follows directly in ST's footsteps is John Steakly's "Armor" -- this is an excellent novel which deals much more with the hardware and tactics of future combat. While its tone is much more action related (with virtually no political subtext) it combines action with a strong anti-war theme. Instead of taking the theme of war and the military from the view of its effects on society as a whole, the novel has a much more individual perspective. Much like WWI's "All Quiet on the Western Front", the novel features the grunt soldier as hero and, rather than the enemy being the insect-like "Ants" (the direct decendent of the "Bugs" in ST), the real enemy is an unfeeling, uncaring general staff.

Should something be said about the tone of the movie? I thought it was largely a spoof of the topics from the book. It definately didn't take the same attitude... --BlckKnght

I think the current entry explains it well enough (basically a satire), but perhaps it could be expanded a little. The preciding paragraph on the book could be made a little more neutral, IMHO. Some mention of Haldeman's The Forever War should be made, since it was an earlier "reply" to Heinlein's book. - DrBob

- The tone of the movie intentionally portrayed the system as a nazi/neo-fascist system. The director said as much in an interview. That's why they designed the uniforms to closely model the SS uniforms of Nazi Germany. It makes me want to puke.

- - Verhoeven grew up in occupied Holland during World War 2 (He was 3 - 8) . He had close contacts with Nazis at war and what they left behind. That doesn't make him right about ST, but he has some definite opinions of his own. -- BT

Having read the book a half dozen times in the last 20 years, I have to say it doesn't seem fascistic to me at all. The goverment Johnny Rico serves could be described as a meritocracy: anyone can participate in the government who proved, by "difficult and dangerous service" that they put the welfare of the whole ahead of their own -- or were at least willing to fake it for a term of 2 or more years.

Some reviewers (possibly not having actually read the book all the way through) seem to think that only military veterans get to vote, but the book takes pains to point out the various other forms of federal service possible, noting that not everyone qualifies for the military. If you flunk basic training, that doesn't make you a non-citizen: you can volunteer for something else.

Actually, the federal service issue isn't all that clear, there seem to be some contradictory statements in the book. Check the links on the main article for an analysis. -- Ansible

Heinlein has taken a Christian principle and applied it to politics: "the leader among you should be the servant of all" -- or as Rev. Moon put it, the leader should be the one who works hardest.

The book wasn't pro-Fascist in any sense of the word. But the movie was. Verhoeven should be shot for what he did to this marvellous story, but that's a topic for another day... --LDC

Can we be consistent with the date for the film? At the top, we have 1997; lower down, 1995 (twice). I'm sure it wasn't released in 1995; 1997 sounds right --AdamW

According to the IMDB, it's 1997.

On the other hand, Joe Haldeman's The Forever War is an antiwar statement sometimes thought to be a direct reply to Troopers. is the kind of sentence I do not think belongs in an encyclopedia. "Thought" by whom? Unless the article makes this clear the passive voice and the qualifier "sometimes" (when? today? Last week?) merely serves to veil the author's point of view. NPOV should be about reporting on common (whether dominant or not) points of view, not just the author's. If someone can specify who makes this claim, the article would be informative; if not, the sentence should be cut.

Apropos, I thought Card's Ender's Game and the volumes that follow were an explicit reply to Starship Troopers. This is just my own opinion, so I wil not add it to the text. But perhaps Card himself or some critic has made this point publicly? If so, could someone introduce it to the text? 132.235.232.88

Based on a Google search, I think this new text is both accurate and NPOV.: "On the other hand, Joe Haldeman's antiwar novel The Forever War is popularly thought to be a direct reply to Troopers, though Haldeman has stated that it is rather a result of his personal experiences in VietNam. (1998 SciFi.com interview at http://www.scifi.com/transcripts/1998/JoeHaldeman.html)"

I have never understood the term anti-war. Activists who sought a Communist victory in the Vietnam War generally claimed to be "anti-war" but I never regarded them as pacifists: they just wanted their side to WIN the war. Perhaps "against the war" was short for "against the US military campaign in the war".

What aspect of ST was Joe Haldeman's FW against? The idea that we should defend ourselves from foreign invasion? The practice of sparing enemy civilians and then becoming their allies against a common enemy? --Ed Poor

Jesus Christ, Ed, some large percentage of people who say they're "anti-war" use the term to mean "anti-war". They don't like wars. They don't think wars are a good thing. They wish existing wars would stop. They wish countries would try very hard not to begin new wars. Many VietNam War protesters didn't care who won. (Think about this: In the real world, North VietNam won. The USA lost. Was the USA conquered by North VietNam? No, the loss had effectively no impact on US society. Therefore, was this war really necessary to defend the USA?)

The US was not conquered. But millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians fled their countries, a large fraction of them drowned. In Democratic Kampuchea, more millions disappeared in the Killing Fields. The war was not necessary for the US. It was to protect the hapless Vietnamese and Cambodians against a murderous utopia. Those who protested against the war were ideologically close to those who exterminated millions of innocents. They never opposed the war waged by the North Vietnamese or the Red Khmers against the previous governments of South Vietnam and Cambodia. Here I'm refering to the ones OUTSIDE the US who protested when they, themselves, their brothers and cousins were NOT in danger of dying in the vietnamese jungle. These were accomplices of the killers. Period.

Those, IN the US who were in such danger, and believed that their own life was worth more than that of Vietnamese, that the Cambodians could fight their own war, and did not feel they should die to save them from their own countrymen, those, I do not blame them. If I had been in their position I might also have fled to Canada. After all, my own beloved ones were not in danger. If given the choice I might prefer not to die to help Vietnamese (and not to vote, if I lived in Heinlein's Universe). But I still feel that the moral standards of those who did not escape the draft was higher. --Azirafal

IMHO, Forever War was an attempt at NPOV. ST had presented arguments for the Just War and means to prosecute it. Haldeman replied: "Ok, but many wars are not Just Wars, and in fact almost every historical war has very serious elements of injustice, against not only "the enemy" but neutrals and even the combatant's own citizens and/or warfighters. Let's think about this as well."

Do injustices commited in a war somehow make a just war unjust? Does a war entered into with just ideals (Vietnam, Iraq) but later shown to be pointless make an unjust war? Or is the entire concept of "Just War" flawed in that it demands near-omniscience, or at least A LOT of luck to mitigate the risk of turning out to be unjust?

Yes, injustices play their part in making a war unjust; the end almost never justifies the means. Also, I don't want to start a flamewar, but a lot of people think neither Vietnam nor Iraq were "just wars". I think the concept of "Just War" is flawed in any case, much like Philip Dick says in "The Mold of Yancy". Who will tell us which wars are just?

Characters in the book also advocate the use of corporal punishment, in military discipline, civilian criminal matters and raising children.

It isn't just characters, the whole society of the book uses corporal punishment. The only character who questions this is a girl who gets talked down to in the "History and Moral Philosophy" class, and she comes around.

Do we say, "characters advocate CP" or do we say "the society of the book takes CP as justified"?

Take a look at current version. How's this?

I do not understand modern society's aversion to corporal punishment at all. You WILL suffer physical consequences for breaking society's rules. Which is worse, being spanked by your mommy early in life, or raped by that 300lbs gangster in the shower room at Riker's later on because your mother didn't pound home the lesson of not stealing stuff when you were a kid?

Heinlein developed an entire philosophy on "morality, politics, and war," and he fits his justification of corporal punishment into this theory extremely smoothly. The current page only talks about the "politics," and leaves the other topics fragmented. I would personally make a segment called "Heinlein's philosophy" (or something like that), then sub-divide it into "morals," "politics" and "war" to present how Heinlein presents the ideas in a progressive order. --L. 17:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Added (speculative) paragraph comparing the Mobile Infantry war against the Bugs to the campaigns of the U.S. Marines against Japan in World War II. orthogonal 11:33, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm not overly comfortable with this speculation myself. Most of the military activity depicted in the book seem to be raids, more of a political nature than as a strategic activity. There are only two attempts to hold ground, Operation Bughouse is shown as a failure, and the temporary conquest in the attempt to capture brain bugs. (The name of the planet/operation escapes me at this late hour.) Elde 09:06, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

For those of you who haven't yet, DO NOT SEE STARSHIP TROOPERS 2. I thought it was the most pointless thing ever; it was like someone shot it in their backyard. The first film was far better in many ways. I just wanted to let you know that the film is dumb.-B-101

I always thought the bugs were a communist analog more than a Japanese one. This may be a generational thing on my part but I believe one character refers to them as practicing communism by a species evolved for it. I don't think the author made clear that non-military service could earn the vote whatever he said subsequently. On the other hand it isn't a physical meritocracy, because at one point it is stated that anybody, even a deaf blind paraplegic can volunteer & earn the franchise - a moral meritocracy perhaps. [Neil Craig] 9/11/4

Although I cant recall that he ever used the word specifically, Heinlein is nonetheless describing in specific, explicit, no uncertain terms a meritocracy.

Given RAH's preference for the "capable man", I'd say it is a meritocracy, too. --squadfifteen

There seems to be an unintelligible sentence in this article. Under 'Film and animated series', the 5th paragraph, last sentence, from "...either..." onwards:

The MI's onscreen tactics were ... Fans of the book were deeply offended by these changes; indeed, they were on the whole deeply offended by the entire movie, either not realizing that Verhoeven's true intentions or infuriated by them.

Jenks 16:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It used to say something intelligible, but as a result of a feud, it's been improved into illegibility. I'll fix it up and we can start the whole cycle over again. :-)

Atlant 17:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Flaws"?

However, he does concede that communism fails only because of flaws in human nature. The Bugs are a purely communist society, and indeed for the insectoid drones, communism is the ideal way of life. But of course, Heinlein repeatedly makes the point in the book that (in the words of one of the characters): "correct morality can only be derived from what man is—not from what do-gooders and well-meaning aunt Nellies would like him to be".

I see nothing in the Heinlein quote here that suggests that communism fails because of "flaws" in human nature, only because of human nature as it is. "[W]hat do-gooders and well-meaning aunt Nellies would like him to be" doesn't sound to me like a synonym for "unflawed". --Trovatore 05:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidate?

I find this article absolutely fabulous and I think it deserves to be a featured article. It also answered my longstanding question about whether the movie is a brilliant satire (not of the book) or just stupid action :) EnSamulili 08:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It also answered my longstanding question about whether the movie is a brilliant satire (not of the book) or just stupid action :)

Okay, enquiring minds have to know: which did you decide the movie to be? :-)

Atlant 11:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was brilliant satire, but I had doubts my sense of humour just might be twisted :) --EnSamulili 07:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's brilliant satire too.

Atlant 00:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I liked the book too much to see the satire. I thought the acting was wooden and the film laughable. --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Beverly Hills

Deleted commentary: "Some wits, referring to how these elements are combined with an attractive young cast, like to call the film Triumph of the Will, 90210."
I never heard that one, but I did hear, Doogie Howser, SS. —wwoods 19:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

How about, Melrose Space... --L. 16:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Not enuf sex. Or blondes. Trekphiler 18:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Jerry's edits

Everything I wrote was from memory, so it needs to be checked. I'll do it this weekend. By the way, I took out the word "subtext" because that refers specifically to what's not explicit, and you can't get much more explicit than the politics in ST. —JerryFriedman 19:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, if you add a reference showing some specific person unquestionably calling ST "fascist" or saying that its society resembles Nazi Germany, your name will shine. —JerryFriedman 19:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Capital punishment

I commented out my claim that capital punishment in ST was swifter than in the U.S. at the time. The book isn't clear on the time, but it seems that N. L. Dillinger's simple case might have taken almost a year, and I don't know how long capital cases took back then. If anyone knows whether my statement was true, you could put it back in or delete the comment. —JerryFriedman 16:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I wonder about Heinlein's influences. It seems to me that the hanging scene is largely a recreation of the poem Danny Deever by Kipling. The regiment is faced with a disgrace in their midst and must deal with it. In Kipling it is murder of a fellow soldier, in ST it is (rape) and murder of a civilian.

Are there any other themes or scenes in the book that he might have gotten from somewhere else? -- BT

Unalienable

My "unalienable" got changed to "inalienable". According to Declaration of Independence (United States)#Differences with draft, the original signed text has "un-", though Jefferson's draft and the version on the Jefferson memorial have "in-". You could make a case for either, but the novel (at least the edition I'm looking at) has "un-", and that's why I changed it back. —JerryFriedman 16:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality, Nazism, fascism

User L. added some text about homosexuality and homophobia to the section on Nazism: On the other hand, critics point out that in other works (most notably Stranger in a Strange Land), Heinlein is distinctly homophobic, although homosexuality is not raised as a topic in Starship Troopers. I've deleted it. There were a bunch of problems here:

(1) It has nothing to do with Nazism.

(2) It has nothing to do with Starship Troopers.

(3) The statement that "Heinlein is distinctly homophobic" is extremely POV and unsupported. In fact, Heinlein exhibited very positive attitudes toward homosexuality in books such as I Will Fear No Evil. In the article on Stranger in a Strange Land, User L. has added a discussion focusing on two passages that he/she considers homophobic; these might be the strongest evidence for homophobia on Heinlein's part, and they are actually pretty weak, since they deal with the hung-up character Jill, who is used as a dramatic foil for Smith's sexually liberated viewpoint.

(4) "Critics point out" is vague and unverifiable. The major print criticism on Heinlein (listed at the bottom of the Heinlein article) doesn't even mention any charge of homophobia.--Bcrowell 17:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Bcrowell and I have an ongoing discussion on the talk page of SIAST, and I'm afraid I do not agree whatsoever with his above statements. There is nothing POV about statements that call gay men "misguided," and I have already pointed out that his interpretation of it being nothing but an expression of Jill's attitude is false, considering that some passages were written as exposition. However, since, as I noted in the original passage, that homosexuality as a distinct topic is not brought up in Starship Troopers, I will let this slide for now.

On an entirely different note, saying that homosexuality and Nazism have no relation is an extremely insensitive and false statement given what happened in history. --L. 22:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

While national socialism promoted racial supremacy, it was not given such precedence in Italian fascism and was discouraged in similar fascist models such as integralism which stressed loyalty to the state as more important than racial characteristics. The argument that the book is different from fascism because of its multi-racial cast is not entirely accurate. --Homagetocatalonia 01:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right. The fascist/Nazi parts of the article are muddleheaded and poorly written, and the irrelevant discussion of race is an example of that. Also, the section on politics and the section on 'The "Nazi" attack on Starship Troopers' contain a lot of the same material, and should be merged. I think the Nazi section should be deleted and merged into the politics section, since there is absolutely no rational case to be made that the society described in the book bears any resemblance to Nazism.--Bcrowell 05:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that no rational case exists for arguing the parallels between Nazism and Starship Troopers. The problem is that the society in the book isn't a model fascist state, it simply bears strong parallels in some aspects. Both sections on Nazism are muddled and need a rewrite in the politics section. Regardless of the treatment, discussion of fascism and the book is relevent just because so many people saw parallels; defending the book against those charges is POV. The discussion of Nazism needs to be phrased as "critics have observed resemblences for these reasons..." JJ 06:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

At the very least, the discussion should not identify fascism and Nazism. Nazism was a specific and highly racist brand of fascism; its racism and anti-Semitism were defining characteristics. Calling ST "Nazi" is pretty silly for those reasons.

Now, in my opinion, it's also pretty silly to call it "fascist", but it's a different discussion. The state described in ST, as far as I can tell, tries to stay out of people's way as far as possible, which I think effectively refutes the charge of fascism. It may not be realistic to posit that, when only veterans (whatever that means) have the vote, they will use it in such a way--but realistic or not, it is what's described. --Trovatore 07:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems like we all agree more than we disagree. If anyone has the time and motivation to take a whack at it, I say go ahead. I would like to suggest that no statement be made along the lines of "critics have observed..." or "critics say..." unless there's some actual evidence that (plural) critics --- and serious, respected critics, not a couple of bloggers --- have really said that. The Heinlein article gives references to (I think) all the major criticism that's been published in book form.--Bcrowell 06:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest deleting the first part of the 'Nazi attack' section (as well as the title) and creating a section called "controversey," which would include such things as the Nazi analogy and the Forever War's note of Heinlein's complete lack of combat experience. The book's controversey is mentioned in the article's opening, and therefore requires a seperate secion. It does not matter one bit that Heinlein's fans (or anyone else) say this analogy is "irrational" - like it or not, Moorcock, who as a fellow sf writer is much better qualified to criticize Heinlein than some literary critic, makes an undeniable analogy. Godwin's Law is also clear on the subject, though that reference should be editied. I would not suggest merging it with the politics section because, as mentioned above, the politics sections is currently muddled and selective, and requires major renovations, which I would do if it involved making a new article rather than edit an existing one. --L. 16:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Negative opinion of realism in the film

Hi. The paragraph The MI's onscreen military tactics were also found questionable by many. [...] The best that could be argued is that the movie's aim was to show the brutality of conflict, not to demonstrate real-world tactics. kind of bugs me.

The "were also found questionable by many" doesn't have a basis. Perhaps "are questionable" or "are unrealistic". The way that it ends with "The best that could be argued" makes it seem as if the listed (and very valid) oddities of how the military worked are acting negatively to the film which to me seems like a review/criticism of the film and not simply listing aspects of it. If the film makers accidentally added all these oddities then I can see how it would be informative to suggest the movie could be criticized for such an accident, but it doesn't express whether it was accidental or deliberate.

I guess it bugged me because to me it seemed very deliberate. If you watch the film there are plenty of bits which are somewhat strange. The class autopsy near the beginning of the film featured students doing nothing more than pulling the creatures apart in a gruesome way with seemingly no scientific purpose.

That's my thoughts. Sorry. 62.252.3.70

Verhoven's incompetent troopers aren't alone. TV and movie writers can't seem to grasp the fact planets are gravity wells of no use to anyone, and the rare stand-up fights would more resemble battles between aircraft carriers, while the overwhelmingly most common actions would be convoy action, protecting trade between planets--just as in WW2. --squadfifteen

Verhoven's incompentant troopers were supposed to show that although the humans thought they were superior to the bugs they were actually not. This becomes apperent during the 'random light' seen where someone has made a mistake or is it due to the 'know it all' attitude of the humans.