Why do people tag Heinlein as a . . .

[Storm Raven]

Its weird, in that I always saw Starship Troopers as an anti-war book. Sure it has a militaristic government. But Rico sees the horrors of war, loses his hometown, comes to see through the propaganda, and eventually learns the government started the war by intruding into 'bug' territory.

I thought the message behind the veterans only have the right to vote, was that the veterans would be less hesitant to find a new war glamorous and refuse to fall into lockstep with the drums of war. It has been awhile since I read it, but that is what I still carry around from it.

In the book, the reason is less sophisticated than that. In the fictional history of the book, at some point in the past society collapsed and a period of anarchy took place. A group of veterans took the lead in reforming a government, and extended the right to vote in the reformed government to other veterans because they felt they could trust them. The system was then kept for no other reason than it seemed to work. In other words, the political system in the book was the result of expedience and not messing with something that seems to be working okay.

 

[Remus Lupin]

I thought I was pretty clear: is there anything other than a misreading of Starship Troopers that people hook on to in order to support the tag?

Well, in that case, as near as I can tell, no.

 

[frankthedm]

Heinlein is best know for Starship Troopers. The government in that book isn't fascist, but is militaristic and denies citizenship rights to people who have not done government service. Many people use the term fascist to describe anyone or anything they consider to be too militaristic/nationalistic. So they apply the term to Heinlein because he wrote a book featuring a militaristic government they assume he considers to be ideal.

Sounds on the money.

And I suspect that many of the people who use ST do decry Heinlein as a fascist are doing so not based upon the book, but on the movie...

A movie that felt like the director was actively trying to discredit the source material.

 

[Psion]

Verhoeven admits that he never finished reading the actual book.

That's just lazy. It's not like it was Battlefield Earth or something. ST is a relatively short book and an easy read. No excuse for that.

Nonetheless, I will say I found Michael Ironside's portrayal of the ex-military teacher one of the redeeming features of the Starship Troopers movie (which I affectionately referred to as "Starship Troopers 90210" at the time.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Heinlein is best know for Starship Troopers.

Actually, he's best known for Stranger in a Strange Land. Without that book, he would be unknown to the mainstream. No one accuses Heinlein of being a flower child, though.

 

[Rykion]

Actually, he's best known for Stranger in a Strange Land. Without that book, he would be unknown to the mainstream. No one accuses Heinlein of being a flower child, though.

Starship Troopers is one of Heinlein's best known works. I suspect that the movies and TV series have moved it into mainstream culture more than any of his other works. It's possible that Stranger in a Strange Land is better known, and it was almost definitely the more well known of the two in the '60s and '70s. People tend to fixate on Starship Troopers when discussing what they believe to be Heinlein's governmental ideology.

 

[grimslade]

That's just lazy. It's not like it was Battlefield Earth or something. ST is a relatively short book and an easy read. No excuse for that.

Nonetheless, I will say I found Corbin Bernen's (sp) portrayal of the ex-military teacher one of the redeeming features of the Starship Troopers movie (which I affectionately referred to as "Starship Troopers 90210" at the time.)

Michael Ironside you mean.

 

[Psion]

Michael Ironside you mean.

I said (sp).

Yeah, not the first time I've mixed those two up. In my defense, it's not a movie I could stomach watching again.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sounds on the money.A movie that felt like the director was actively trying to discredit the source material.

I enjoyed the movie. *dodges bad apples*

 

[Kahuna Burger]

People tend to fixate on Starship Troopers when discussing what they believe to be Heinlein's governmental ideology.

Well, compared to his other books that I have read, it contained a lot more cheerleading for the system. It wasn't just happening to be set there, you had the (to me jarringly out of place) little lectures on the system. You also had the system presented not as something that was questioned by characters in the book, but defined as having worked for a very long time without any sort of serious challenge (iirc, it was even stated that it was the only system that was immune to revolution because anyone capable of revolution would be given the franchise.)

A book that presents a system and opposition to it may be advocating the system, advocating its opposite, advocating questioning as a good in and of itself or just using the conflict as a storytelling opportunity. But is it really that big a leap to read a book which presents a system, presents scholarly musings on how awesome the system is, presents just plain folk declarations of how awesome the system is and casually tells us that the system has worked without significant dissent for generations and get the impression that the author is advocating the system?

I'm certainly open to authorial statements to the contrary, but it's just not that strange that people think of ST as a statement of political opinion. It read like one to me, and I've read some others of his books which took a very different tone to political issues.