I'm obsessing over "Starship Troopers" as allegory:

[CanuckAmok]

this is a movie I saw in the theatre when it first came out. Having never read the book, I dismissed the movie as being just another fun, effects-driven summer blockbuster.

But...

On a whim, I rented it last week as a treadmill movie, and I was blown away by how prescient it is.

Observe.



Set in the future, the world is governed by a global "Federation". The Federation is clearly an evolution of Western (US) culture, and fairly homgenious. There are essentialy two classes: Citizen and Civilian.

Everyone is born a Civilian. One becomes a Citizen by joining "Federal Service", aka the military. Whether there are other ways of obtaining Citizenship isn't discussed in the movie, but it's implied that there are.

At one point, a high-school history teacher lectures about the "failure of democracy" and how the Federation was founded by veterans who took over (whether they were elected or seized power isn't discussed).

An observation of the movie: everyone in it is gorgeous. Whether this is just a product of today's "Hollywood Aesthetic" or not is a matter of opinion, I suppose, but in one scene one of the characters explains that she's joined "Federal Service" so she can qualify to have children. She states that it's easier to get a childbirth license if one is a Citizen. So, are the "beautiful people" beautiful because it's a Hollywood movie made in 1997, or are they beautiful due to a couple of generations of genetic/racial engineered breeding, not unlike the Third Reich? Is this an expansion of the myth of the Aryan, or the concept of the Handmaid's Tale? You decide.


Anyway, here's where it gets allegorical:


The Federation is obviously Imperialist. One of the reasons Federal Service is such an aggressive recruiter is because humans are expanding into other star systems, and engaging in combat with alien life-forms. (The PNAC/Manifest Destiny).

Why? It's not really explained, but it's implied that the Earthlings are mining other plaqnets for their natural resources. (the Middle East).

One of these life-forms, called "Bugs", is a species of huge, aggressive arachnids who are of limited intelligence but have evolved to a point where they can use natural resources (plasma) to direct meteorites in specific directions.

In the back-story, it's revealed that (Mormon!) colonists were slaughtered by Bugs on an alien planet. (Bombing of US Embassies, the Marine Barracks in Beiruit, etc, etc, etc.)

The Bugs hurl meteorites at Earth, but most of these meteorites are blasted into splinters by Earth's "SDI-type" defence systems. (Terrorist attacks on the US mainland, usually diffused before causing damage).

However, one of the meteorites gets through the defenses and lands squarely on Buenos Aires, killing everyone in the city. (September 11/01).

The media, owned by the Federation, broadcasts stirring images of the devastation in Argentina, and interviews with people at "Ground Zero" ("The only good bug is a dead bug!").

Everybody freaks out, and young people, stirred on by patriotism and rage, join the Federal Service in record numbers. (September 12/01).

The Fedaration declares war on the Bugs (do I need to draw a parallel?).

The Federal Service launches a major offensive against the Bug's home planet. (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, etc, etc).

The Federal Service are completely taken by surprise by the opposing force of the Bugs, and by their apparent intelligence and organisation. The Bugs kill 300,000 members of the Mobile Infantry and the orbiting fleet of Earth starships before a general retreat can be organised. The entire slaughter is recorded and rebroadcast over and over by inbedded Federation journalists, some of whom are graphically slaughtered on-camera by Bugs (Iraq, in case you didn't recognise it).

The Federal Service intelligence and strategists determine that some of the Bugs are "Smartbugs", and possess a more advanced intelligence than the regular Bugs (the good ol' CIA/NSA, better late than never).

It's also openly debated that it's quite possible the Bugs' civilization is defensive in nature, and that the Bugs' offensives against the Earth and human colonists in their solar system are strictly a response to what the Bugs determine to be a threat, and the origin planet of that threat. The media pundits who suggest this are shouted-down by beligerent talk-show hosts (O'Reilly, are you reading this?), and those in the government who adopt this belief are demoted or retired, or just shuffled out of public view.

The Federal Service, armed with new intelligence about the Bugs' tactics and abilities, regroups and begins to attack the Bugs' solar system en masse, intending on "leap-frogging" onto each planet until they had amassed enough local force to attack and destroy the Bugs' home planet and in the words of the Federation pliticians "ensure the culture of humans, not Bugs, {i}dominate{/i} the galaxy") (Bush's "perpetual war", invading Afghanistan, Iraq with the intention of invading Iran, Syria, etc, etc etc)


I won't give away the ending in case you haven't seen this movie. Go rent it, if you can handle really, really graphic violence and gore.

[GirlinContempt]

1. I'm just surprised you haven't read the book

[CanuckAmok]

3. i kant reed buks

[GirlinContempt]

4. You

?!?!?!??!?!?!?

[CanuckAmok]

5. Nelson Emory Balsac?

I love his work!

[GirlinContempt]

26. haha

you said balsac

[henslee]

31. Funny, not many girls are into sci-fi.

[GirlinContempt]

32. Yeah, not many people

girls or guys, are as ridiculously nerdy as I am :D

[fudge stripe cookays]

34. Yes, but you look hot in nerd glasses.

Whereas I would just look like a potato with spectacles. There's a difference.

Oh so few of us can actually carry it off. :D

[GirlinContempt]

37. You know, I've never seen a pic of you

So I can't comment ;)

But the nerd, it has to come from within. All outer trappings are meaningless without the power of geek resonating from your core ;)

[fudge stripe cookays]

45. I alphabetize my spices.

And I know the entire script of "Office Space."

But I'm still not sure if my core is geeky enough!

Check my journal. There's a pic of me and Fargo the Wondermutt in there. :-)

[GirlinContempt]

46. I think you'd look FAB in nerdy glasses!

[fudge stripe cookays]

47. Thanks!

But the closeup in the mirror presents a completely different picture.

[henslee]

38. I dont think its nerdy. I think its well rounded.

[GirlinContempt]

39. Yeah, here's the thing.

On top of my love for sci-fi, I'm big into genetics, I code. collect comics, old school video game systems, I'm getting tattoos of skeletor and thundercracker, I used to role play, I build and support computers... I'm sure theres more, I'll think of it another time.

But, well rounded this is not

[henslee]

41. Oh lord. Hey ever read Man in the High Tower by Dick? A good one.

[GirlinContempt]

42. Nope, can't say I have

[henslee]

43. Wow, its cool. It takes place in the U,S after WWII but the Nazis have won

the war and they now occupy the U.S. east of the Rockies. The Japanese occupy the U.S. West of the Rockies.

[EstimatedProphet]

49. Dick was an excellent writer-a real visionary

[EstimatedProphet]

48. Yeah it is!

[DS1]

2. Also the Island-Hopping Campaign through the Pacific Theatre in WWII

Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, etc

[asthmaticeog]

6. Ditto GinC - the book's a worthy read, different vibe.

On edit: it occurs to me that I should elaborate. The book is essentially a screed in which pretty much every main character is a stand-in for author Heinlein's views (not unlike Rand, actually). Lots of flashbacks to classroom scenes of history teachers pontificating, yadda yadda. The flick was far more satirical, and actually arrived at some very different conclusions than the book. Director Veerhoven reportedly never finished reading the book because he found it too depressing.

[Swede]

7. It was a fascist society.

I havn't read the book either,but your take on this movie is a darn good one.

[asthmaticeog]

8. Fascist how?

There was freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, equality of genders and races, and while the voting franchise was restricted to those who'd served the public (the military was not the only way to serve), leaders *were* democratically elected. Furthermore, the story doesn't touch on what the relationship between the government and the business sector was like, so by what measure can you possibly call it fascist?

edit: typo

[Swede]

9. The dominance of everything military.

Citizenship is earned through military service, and values are learned on the battlefield. If you don't see totalitarianism in this movie you must really be enjoying Bush's Amerika.

[asthmaticeog]

10. It's a war story, so NO DUH it has a military focus.

It's plainly stated that military service isn't the only way to earn the voting franchise - both in the film AND in my post above. You *did* read my post beyond just the header, right? And militarism isn't synonymous with totalitarianism anyway. And neither's fascism.

BTW, "enjoying Bush's Amerika?" I disagree with you about a movie and I call you out on your plain ignorance of what fascism even consists of, and that makes me a Freeper? :eyes:

[Swede]

12. Sorry I added that dig in,it was uncalled for.

Rightwing ideology run amok is what struck me about this movie.

Definition: Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government

[GirlinContempt]

15. Sorry, but I think you just proved his point re: facism

There was freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, equality of genders and races, and while the voting franchise was restricted to those who'd served the public (the military was not the only way to serve), leaders *were* democratically elected. Furthermore, the story doesn't touch on what the relationship between the government and the business sector was like, so by what measure can you possibly call it fascist?

[Swede]

18. "a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

This is no leftwing utopia these people are living in.

[GirlinContempt]

20. For your claim of fascism to somehow work,

one would have to take what you've presented and extrapolate to a dichotomy thusly:

It was no left wing utopia, there for it is fascism, one or the other can exist.

Clearly, a false claim. Just as claiming they were in a 'leftwing utopia' would be false. However there are shades and degrees between fascism and socialist utopia.

[asthmaticeog]

21. That's one aspect of fascism, not the whole kit & kaboodle.

And it can apply to non-fascist governmental constructs as well. To have fascism, you have to have that AND authoritarianism AND repression AND corporate-statism.

And speaking of which, where's the racism in the film? The system I saw depicted was a meritocracy. :shrug:

[Swede]

22. The "bugs" are the gooks of this film.

But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on facists aspects I see in this movie.

[asthmaticeog]

24. No, we won't have to disagree. You're demonstrably wrong.

You keep arguing that the film is fascist, where I and other posters have destroyed that argument repeatedly. You're absolutely entitled to dislike the film, but your arguments about fascism are completely out of line with established facts about fascism, and they don't apply to the film at all.

And the Bugs aren't "gooks." The Vietnamese didn't start a war with the US by unprovoked attacks leading to the destruction of an entire city, as the Bugs in the film did to Earth. It's a totally inappropriate analogy. Furthermore, though I don't know the etymology of the term, "gook" was a term used by higher-ups to dehumanize the Viet-Cong enemy in the minds of the grunts - a horrible precondition for being able to fight them. In the science fiction film we're discussing, the enemy was literally not human. They were, in fact, giant bugs, so I don't see what's out of line about them being called bugs.

[Swede]

25. My argument is valid.

The bugs are the "other", the enemy that those in power need to exploit. You don't see it,I do.

[asthmaticeog]

29. The argument is not valid.

Point out one episode in the film where government leaders are exploiting the war to further their power. Remember, we're discussing a FILM with a SCRIPT here. Again, I point out that the central event in this fictional war was the unprovoked destruction of a major city. Yes, in real life, wars and enemies are almost always exploited by thiose in power to maintain or consolidate control. But this again is fiction, a FILM with a SCRIPT. Point out one event IN THE FILM that indicates that this is the case. The reason I don't see it is because it isn't there to see. Hell, we hardly ever even SEE anyone in power, the protagonists are young soldiers.

[Swede]

27. Ebert's take on the film sees the same things I do.

"Discussing the science of ``Starship Troopers'' is beside the point. Paul Verhoeven is facing in the other direction. He wants to depict the world of the future as it might have been visualized in the mind of a kid reading Heinlein in 1956. He faithfully represents Heinlein's militarism, his Big Brother state, and a value system in which the highest good is to kill a friend before the Bugs can eat him.

It doesn't really matter, since the Bugs aren't important except as props for the interminable action scenes, and as an enemy to justify the film's quasi-fascist militarism. Heinlein was of course a right-wing saberrattler, but a charming and intelligent one who wrote some of the best science fiction ever. ``Starship Troopers'' proposes a society in which citizenship is earned through military service, and values are learned on the battlefield."

So I guess I'm not alone in seeing fascism here.

[GirlinContempt]

28. That STILL isn't fascism

By your OWN definition.

PARTS of it are similar to PARTS of a fascist state, but it is not fascism.

Edited for another definition:
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

[asthmaticeog]

33. Argumentum ad verecundiam.

Ebert is an authority on popular film, not fascism. And anyway, what HE describes isn't fascism either. "Quasi-fascist militarism" is not fascism. I'm through with this argument. Crack a book and come back when you have ANYTHING to back yourself up.

[Swede]

36. Right back at ya slick.

nt

[EstimatedProphet]

35. Actually, the film is anti-fascist

See, the fascist imagery is used in the movie to lampoon the ideas of fascism. It may be subtle, but but it's definitely not promoting fascism.

[Swede]

40. Gee,do you think?

I thought Verhoven was a secret Nazi. I did enjoy the movie,by the way.

[EstimatedProphet]

44. Ok, but what you were saying earlier was that it was fascist

So, which is it?

[DrGonzoLives]

57. Whoever you're quoting never read the book

And the fact that you're willing to just accept it as fact demonstrates that you have an axe to grind of your own.

First of all, "Big Brother state" is just ridiculously stupid. The only thing different between our gorenment and Hein;ein's in the book is the added restrictions on the voting franchise to those who have entered federal service.

Second of all, there are at least two instances in the book where MI troops risk their lives to go after a wounded/captured comrade. They don't just kill them when they can't get them out.

Next, "right-wing saberrattler" is an equally ridiculous statement as the first I mentioned. Heinlein wasn't for invading China (who he saw as the biggest threat to the west), though he was for keeping a strong military around just in case. I guess by this idiotic reviewer's definition (and, by extension, yours) John F. Kennedy was a "right-wing saberrattler" as well. The reviewer should also learn to spell "sabre-rattler."

``Starship Troopers'' proposes a society in which citizenship is earned through military service, and values are learned on the battlefield."

How is this fascism? Do we not have our own restrictions on voting? Does that make us fasicst? Considering that we have (almost) universal suffrage and only around 25% of the population votes, are we really all that different? One of the main thrusts of the book was that a good democracy requires responsibility, and only those willing to take some kind of responsiblity for maintaining society should exercise control over it.

A military (or Federal service) career is universally scorned by civilians in the book, and the government actively tries to discourage people from joining up, after which you can quit any time you like, no questions asked, even ten seconds before entering battle. Compare that to the modern U.S. and tell me who is more "fascist."

[DrGonzoLives]

56. So, anything not a left-wing utopia is fascism?

Try again.

[asthmaticeog]

23. I missed your edit, so I'd like to address the definition you posted.

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Almost NONE of which describes the government as depicted in the film.

centralization of authority under a dictator
Not the case. Again, though there were service restrictions on the voting franchise, this government was democratic.

stringent socioeconomic controls
Nowhere is it indicated that this is true of the system in the film.

suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship
Quite the opposite - there's freedom of thought even for "civillians" who haven't fulfilled citizenship requirements.

a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
As I point out in two other posts, there's gender and racial equality. As for nationalism, there are STRONG overtones of imperialism ("a galaxy dominated by HUMAN culture -- NOT BUGS!"), and imperialism is bound to nationalism, so there's the only aspect of fascism the film's premise can be said to fulfill. You got nothin' Swede.

[EstimatedProphet]

11. The movie had very fascist overtones

I did like the movie, in part because it subtly pointed out those fascist overtones-for example, the uniforms came straight out of Nazi Germany, the cutscenes where they showed video of society made that society look very disturbed, the soldiers giving kids loaded weapons to play with etc.

I never read the book Personally I can't stand Heinlein. I think his characters are cardboard cutouts. they're so glib, so absolutely convinced that they are right in what they do, regardless of what they do. they're smug. I've only managed to read a couple of his books before I gave up.

On edit: your note about how the characters are stand-ins for Heinlein is exactly what I am getting at.

[asthmaticeog]

13. Lots of that was part of the satire.

The "Triumph of the Will" type news clips, the over-the-top uniforms, yadda yadda, were the director taking the piss out of Heinlein's authoritarian streak. Even the transformation of the Johhny Rico character from comically vapid pretty-boy to comically intense commander was a jab - in the book he's a more static character.

And yeah, you're totally right about Heinlein - I compare him to Rand in a post above, insofar as there are more speeches than dialogues and practically every character is a mouthpiece. I never even bothered with "Stranger," the premise sounded too creepy. But "Troopers" is a worthy read, viewed in the context of the paranoid anticommunism of the late '50s. And there might be validity to arguing for compulsory public service of some kind - NOT military, necessarily - as a condition of citizenship.

[EstimatedProphet]

14. Exactly

The "Triumph of the Will" type news clips, the over-the-top uniforms, yadda yadda, were the director taking the piss out of Heinlein's authoritarian streak. Even the transformation of the Johhny Rico character from comically vapid pretty-boy to comically intense commander was a jab - in the book he's a more static character.

That's why I like it. One of the things that's always gotten me about the movie is how few people actually 'got' that part of it. Read fan reviews of the movie and you'll see a lot of people that really buy into the imagery at face value, and completely miss the rampant militarism, or sometimes even embrace it.

[asthmaticeog]

19. I suspect people missed that stuff because

action film is a right-wing genre parctically by definition. OK, obviously not by definition, but overwhelmingly so. The lone, gruff renegade (though sometimes with a more level-headed and therefore weaker buddy/foil) triumphing over some grotesquely evil organization by cleverness and sheer force of will? This is THE classic rw social myth, so it's not a genre that places a whole lot of weight on collective action, and even when a group is involved, it's always under the authoritarian direction of the single charismatic hero.

Now caper flicks - THOSE are lefty. Which might explain George Clooney's attraction to the not-so-hot "Oceans" franchise...

[EstimatedProphet]

51. That, and action films tend to be immature in their outlook

another reason that I like the way this film was done. It points out the simplistic black/white mentality that is often present in action films. Since they are about blowing things up so the good guys win, they often have little in the way of character study or plot development. ST makes jests along these lines, like the fact that Rico turned into a serious officer so fast, as you mentioned.

Unfortunately it ends up being lost on a lot of the fans. A while ago I read the fan comments on IMDB. and it was full of boneheads talking themselves up about how they should be in the sequel because they were such badasses! Seriously!

[Telly Savalas]

55. It was marketed as a right-wing action flick.

If the studio tried to sell it for what it was, it wouldn't have done as well in the box office.

[CanuckAmok]

63. There's one brief scene that sells the whole thing:

It's in one of the newsreels, and the tagline is something like "and everybody is doing their part". It cuts to a group of young children standing outside a school, stomping a bunch of cockroaches while a teacher laughs hysterically and claps her hands in approval.

It's probably 10 seconds of the film, but it says so much.


I also think Verhoven intentionally downplayed the effects of violence, to bring that element of the typical action scene to attention. Example: one of the characters has her arm burned off by some sort of bug acid/flame thrower thing, and in the very next scene, she stands armless and grimacing in pain but still ready to fight. Another one is when Michael Ironside has both legs sheared off and still behaves coherently and without any fear of death for the few minutes until Rico kills him.

Nobody goes into shock, nobody panics, nobody dies of blood loss, etc etc etc...

It's like every episode of Magnum, where Thomas gets a .45 slug in the shoulder and only ever has to wear a sling; he never has a shattered clavical or any other serious injury typical of a bullet wound. A friend of mine accidentally shot himself in the arm with a 5.56 round and required three reconstructive surgeries, and he still has nerve problems.

And how many times did Jim Rockford get cracked in the noggin with enough force to knock him out for minutes, without any resulting brain damage?

edited for atroshus speling.

[CanuckAmok]

17. I have to agree. Militarism does not necessarily = Fascism.

Example: The Soviet Union.


More often than not, fascism and militarism are hand-in-hand, but either can exist without the other.

[Paladin]

16. Hey, Any Movie That Puts Doogie Howser In An SS Uniform.....

....gets my thumb's up. I thought it was terrific; Verhoeven is a great action director.

Does anybody else remember the controversy the movie caused upon its release, due to all the fascist overtones? Definitely not your run-of-the-mill sci-fi flick; about the only group I've encountered that doesn't like the movie is the Heinlein purists---some of whom, I suspect, didn't find the movie quite fascist enough for their tastes....

[entanglement]

52. I thought Neil Patrick Harris pulled off his role very well

n/t

[henslee]

30. I'm obsessing over showgirls (Vehoveens other classic )as allegory. nt

[CanuckAmok]

53. It's a classic morality play in the Renaissance tradition...

Everyslut meets the devil, and has to decide between good and evil.

[Fenris]

50. Man, I wish sundog was here.

We could discuss the finer points of Verhoeven's Dutch films like the infinitely enjoyable "Spetters." :D

[The Sushi Bandit]

54. One reason this flick was great - Denise Richards!

[DrGonzoLives]

58. PLEASE read the book

The movie is good for nothing other than seeing boobs and lots of mindless action. There is no other point to it, as the director never even read Heinlein's book, and the writers who claim they did are lying through their teeth.

[EstimatedProphet]

60. Personally, I think the movie does a good job of lampooning action flicks

There's a lot of subtle comments about the 'might makes right' mentality of action films, where Our Hero shoots/blows up/kungfus a neverending stream of opponents.

I can't read Heinlein though. He's like reading words printed on a brick as it is being repeatedly smashed into your face.

[CanuckAmok]

61. ...

The movie is good for nothing other than seeing boobs and lots of mindless action.

I know you're making a point in this sentence, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is.

[billyskank]

59. How can it be allegorical and prescient at the same time?

You are confusing applicability with allegory. The former lies in the freedom of the imagination of the reader/viewer, while the latter is in the purposed intent of the author. Unless Heinlein was a foresighted sage, Starship Troopers cannot possibly be an allegory for the war against terrorism.

BTW, I've read the book but never bothered to see the whole film. I saw enough of it to see how lightweight it is, that is all. Maybe it was made that way on purpose.

[CanuckAmok]

62. Well...

It's allegorical in the sense that the War on Terror is just copied from a proven series of influential (manipulative?) events: Vietnam - Gulf of Tonkin, WW2 - Pearl Harbor, Spanish-American War - the USS Maine, WW1 - Germans bayonetting babies, Gulf War I - the Iraqi maternity hospital (remember that one?), etc, etc, etc...

Here's how it breaks down:

low-key hostility & public apathy, then a spectacular event, resulting in public outcry & military action.

You can set your watch to it.


What I meant by allegory is that the movie reflects that tried-and-trusted series of events to a "T", and by prescient, I meant it is eerily similar in actual events to 9/11 and the resulting invasion of (and uncalculated resistance from) Iraq.


So it can be both.
:P

on edit: I forgot the Boxer Rebellion, but you get the picture.

[Squeech]

64. Robert A. Heinlein was not a fascist

He wasn't even a militarist. He was a proud alumnus of the military, specifically the Navy, and he was pissed when they wouldn't let him re-enlist to help fight World War 2. (Is the desire to defeat Nazi Germany a common characteristic of fascists in your experience?)

Nor was the government in the novel a fascist government. Yes, the vote was limited to citizens who'd served a hitch in the military or some equivalent federal service. This was justified in the novel both by the pragmatic reason that it was stable (anybody aggressive enough to enlist in a revolution has already enlisted in the ruling class and can vote) and because they have a putatively advanced system of behavioral psych, called History and Moral Philosophy, that deals with the mutual obligations of society and its citizens, and teaches that only those who are willing to put their asses on the line for the community have demonstrated the empathy to make good decisions. This may strike you as fascist, but there's no Fuhrerprinzip in it, so I don't think it qualifies. Having read most of Heinlein's published work, It's obvious to me that he very strongly values independence of thought-- as opposed to the fascist ideal, where everybody is supposed to agree with Dear Leader.

There were a couple issues Heinlein was dealing with in the book. Explicitly, he was trying to tell his readers (American adolescent males) what he thought was appealing about military life. And the really cool part was, he was trying to keep it on a fairly elevated moral plane-- we kill because we must, because superior officers we trust think it necessary to defend ourselves, not because we get our jollies doing it. Implicitly, he was also trying to think through what kept the military (or at least his version of it) free of the sort of psychopaths we commonly see in banana republics, where congenital thugs enlist so they *can* get their jollies taking potshots at peasants. Heinlein's idea of a mandatory high school course in his invented science is part of his plan to weed out the bullies and monsters before we give them either arms or authority. (Note that this privileges the first clause of the Second Amendment. Does that sound fascist to you?)

There's a short story by Heinlein, I'm forgetting the title now, where there is a military coup-- an ambitious officer attempts to seize a nuclear arsenal in satellite orbit and use it to cource the various governments of earth. He is thwarted only by one of his techs, who gets in and disables all the bombs, exposing himself to fatal doses of radiation in the process. He's the hero of the story-- and in fact he reappears in another Heinlein military adventure yarn, Space Cadet, as one of four iconic heroes the cadets are taught to revere, in an attempt to inculcate a tradition of respect for civilian authority and the rule of law. Does this sound fascist to you?

All the movie took from the book was the names of the characters and the plot outline of the war on the bugs. All the philosophy and aesthetics of the movie are in (admittedly) distinct opposition to the book. As a result, Heinlein is now spinning in his grave with a rotational velocity sufficient to power 250 average American homes, if we could only hook him up to a generator.

[BigMcLargehuge]

65. Very well put!

I'd also add that ST was Heinlein's attempt to vocalize his support for American nuclear proliferation. But that's more policy related than governmental system related.

[Bridget Burke]

66. "The Long Watch" is the story. John Dahlquist was the hero.....

Who died to prevent a military coup.

www.heinleinsociety.org/concordance/books/lw_hc.htm

I grew up on the Holy Trinity--Heinlein, Clarke & Asimov. I loved his "Juveniles" & the earlier novels & short story collections. In those days, "Adult" science fiction was still pretty innocent. "Stranger in a Strange Land" is NOT my fave & I could not get behind some of his later stuff. Besides, I'd discovered many other SF writers by then.

Heinlein's politics are hard to pin down; he was all over the map. But I didn't read him for his opinions, but because he told wonderful stories. Much as I read Kipling--"juveniles" among his better works & the heck with his politics. (I'm not the only one to notice the similarity & I don't think Heinlein would have been offended.)