Monday, 17 August 2015 06:41 pm
Book Review: Starship Troopers
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deckardcanineI went into my third Robert Heinlein book with a bit of trepidation. It's reputedly one of his most controversial, if not the most. I really like The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, but that's pretty controversial in its own right. And Stranger in a Strange Land becomes downright repulsive toward the end. Could Starship Troopers be much worse?
Nope. Not to me. I found it no more troubling than TMIaHM.
For starters, the most controversial aspects aren't central to the plot. ST follows first-person narrator Juan "Johnnie" Rico (Heinlein must have either dug Spanish names or expected them to become extra common) in an unspecified future period, from shortly before he enlists in the military to...some later point in his career. Yup, in the end, he hasn't retired, gotten wounded or discharged, or reached an especially high rank. He doesn't seem to merit any more attention than most other soldiers. And the war's not over. The only sign of anything like closure is that he just had a hand in a seemingly important victory and has happily received a certain familiar teammate. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
The first chapter details a battle in the middle of the story. I understand the need to draw readers in promptly, but when we haven't previously learned anything about the scenario, it's dizzying. Or was that the point? (Incidentally, one of the troopers involved is nicknamed Dizzy.)
After that, the first maybe half of the book focuses on training. It barely even feels like sci-fi; for the most part, I could picture a similar real boot camp. But I'm not complaining. It educated me on some real-world culture ("Danny Deever," anyone?) and makes for a pretty riveting read -- possibly my favorite military fiction. If I had read it before Joe Haldeman's The Forever War, I might have found the latter a comparative letdown.
The sci-fi gets harder to ignore by the time Johnnie describes the Mobile Infantry's power armor, which in some ways ought to make Iron Man envious. Also, when he finally enters battle, it's against buglike aliens on their home turf. They sound more challenging than any army in purely Earth history, what with their vast numbers, rapid readiness, and disregard for individual lives. And until they establish a means of communication, there's no hope of a peace treaty.
Some readers attribute racism to Heinlein's depiction of the so-called Bugs, or at least to Johnnie's reports on them. First, I would hardly apply the term "racism" to treatment of a species as different as theirs, however accomplished. Second, if Johnnie's unfairly biased, that's not a flaw in the writing; that's realism. Third, if Heinlein did devise a species that strikes us as nasty if not inferior, so what? We feel that way about many real species; the only difference with this one is that it's a bigger force to be reckoned with.
A more common accusation is that ST glorifies war. In practice, I see a fine line between pro-war and anti-war stories. Just because Johnnie signs up voluntarily and never takes the many opportunities to quit doesn't mean he's having fun. He almost always has a hard time of it and notes many comrades who fared worse. And let's face it: If aliens destroyed Buenos Aires, not many humans would raise their voices against the war effort. Granted, I'm not sure how the war began -- maybe it was the human military's fault -- but there comes a point when backing out is not a viable option.
Probably the most controversial parts feature in Johnnie's flashbacks to a course in moral philosophy, which is now regarded as a science and requires students to prove points pseudo-mathematically. Guess religions either declined or changed dramatically. Johnnie's brash teacher asserts that a lack of corporal punishment contributed to the downfall of the USA; as evidence to his claim, modern students can scarcely imagine a time when people stayed out of public parks at night for fear of criminals. (I question his analogy of housebreaking a dog: Do people today find physical violence the only way that works?) Furthermore, under the Terran Federation, only veterans have the vote, and the teacher says it works out better than any past system.
For me, those claims are more interesting than offensive. Take a look back a few centuries or even decades. We tend to consider past practices barbaric, and those predecessors in turn would say the same about us if they knew. I don't believe for a moment that culture is always getting better or always getting worse; otherwise the world would be more extremely one or the other by now. Nor do assertions of better results, even with the backing of statistics, necessarily ring true. And I take the teachings of a self-assured, hotheaded veteran -- perhaps especially one in a government-run school -- with a grain of salt.
In other words, I take the disagreeable aspects as a sign of good writing. The future ought to shock us a little. It just so happens that in this case, the shock comes more to liberal minds. And I've already had my fill of Heinlein's liberal side from SiaSL, which calls for far more suspension of disbelief.
Might I add what a relief it is that Johnnie doesn't engage in polyamory, much in contrast to the other two Heinlein books I've read. Of course, he has an excuse: He's too busy even for one girlfriend, much in contrast to the protagonist of TFW. The downside to this is that we don't hear much from female characters, who have a decent presence in the military but not among the ground troops.
Oddly enough, the book made me want slightly to check out the movie. I know it's not made for fans of the book, but I'm curious how it handled the parody.
ST isn't very long, so normally I'd start on a tome next. Instead, due to a library whim, I'm on the previously hard-to-find Haroun and the Sea of Stories by Salman Rushdie.
Nope. Not to me. I found it no more troubling than TMIaHM.
For starters, the most controversial aspects aren't central to the plot. ST follows first-person narrator Juan "Johnnie" Rico (Heinlein must have either dug Spanish names or expected them to become extra common) in an unspecified future period, from shortly before he enlists in the military to...some later point in his career. Yup, in the end, he hasn't retired, gotten wounded or discharged, or reached an especially high rank. He doesn't seem to merit any more attention than most other soldiers. And the war's not over. The only sign of anything like closure is that he just had a hand in a seemingly important victory and has happily received a certain familiar teammate. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
The first chapter details a battle in the middle of the story. I understand the need to draw readers in promptly, but when we haven't previously learned anything about the scenario, it's dizzying. Or was that the point? (Incidentally, one of the troopers involved is nicknamed Dizzy.)
After that, the first maybe half of the book focuses on training. It barely even feels like sci-fi; for the most part, I could picture a similar real boot camp. But I'm not complaining. It educated me on some real-world culture ("Danny Deever," anyone?) and makes for a pretty riveting read -- possibly my favorite military fiction. If I had read it before Joe Haldeman's The Forever War, I might have found the latter a comparative letdown.
The sci-fi gets harder to ignore by the time Johnnie describes the Mobile Infantry's power armor, which in some ways ought to make Iron Man envious. Also, when he finally enters battle, it's against buglike aliens on their home turf. They sound more challenging than any army in purely Earth history, what with their vast numbers, rapid readiness, and disregard for individual lives. And until they establish a means of communication, there's no hope of a peace treaty.
Some readers attribute racism to Heinlein's depiction of the so-called Bugs, or at least to Johnnie's reports on them. First, I would hardly apply the term "racism" to treatment of a species as different as theirs, however accomplished. Second, if Johnnie's unfairly biased, that's not a flaw in the writing; that's realism. Third, if Heinlein did devise a species that strikes us as nasty if not inferior, so what? We feel that way about many real species; the only difference with this one is that it's a bigger force to be reckoned with.
A more common accusation is that ST glorifies war. In practice, I see a fine line between pro-war and anti-war stories. Just because Johnnie signs up voluntarily and never takes the many opportunities to quit doesn't mean he's having fun. He almost always has a hard time of it and notes many comrades who fared worse. And let's face it: If aliens destroyed Buenos Aires, not many humans would raise their voices against the war effort. Granted, I'm not sure how the war began -- maybe it was the human military's fault -- but there comes a point when backing out is not a viable option.
Probably the most controversial parts feature in Johnnie's flashbacks to a course in moral philosophy, which is now regarded as a science and requires students to prove points pseudo-mathematically. Guess religions either declined or changed dramatically. Johnnie's brash teacher asserts that a lack of corporal punishment contributed to the downfall of the USA; as evidence to his claim, modern students can scarcely imagine a time when people stayed out of public parks at night for fear of criminals. (I question his analogy of housebreaking a dog: Do people today find physical violence the only way that works?) Furthermore, under the Terran Federation, only veterans have the vote, and the teacher says it works out better than any past system.
For me, those claims are more interesting than offensive. Take a look back a few centuries or even decades. We tend to consider past practices barbaric, and those predecessors in turn would say the same about us if they knew. I don't believe for a moment that culture is always getting better or always getting worse; otherwise the world would be more extremely one or the other by now. Nor do assertions of better results, even with the backing of statistics, necessarily ring true. And I take the teachings of a self-assured, hotheaded veteran -- perhaps especially one in a government-run school -- with a grain of salt.
In other words, I take the disagreeable aspects as a sign of good writing. The future ought to shock us a little. It just so happens that in this case, the shock comes more to liberal minds. And I've already had my fill of Heinlein's liberal side from SiaSL, which calls for far more suspension of disbelief.
Might I add what a relief it is that Johnnie doesn't engage in polyamory, much in contrast to the other two Heinlein books I've read. Of course, he has an excuse: He's too busy even for one girlfriend, much in contrast to the protagonist of TFW. The downside to this is that we don't hear much from female characters, who have a decent presence in the military but not among the ground troops.
Oddly enough, the book made me want slightly to check out the movie. I know it's not made for fans of the book, but I'm curious how it handled the parody.
ST isn't very long, so normally I'd start on a tome next. Instead, due to a library whim, I'm on the previously hard-to-find Haroun and the Sea of Stories by Salman Rushdie.
no subject
Don't mistake the pornographic elements of these latter works for liberalism. The "Free Love" stuff here remains more about women wanting to please men than wanting pleasure for themselves, and thus remains clearly in the realm of masculine sexual fantasy. This is not necessarily a condemnation of Heinlein, but it is necessary to understand the nature of his later work.
The author of Stranger in a Strange Land was bewildered and somewhat appalled at what that book inspired in certain circles, but then he recognized the market it represented and pursued it.
But at bottom it commits the fundamental error that defines the hippie misogynist: It hears "sexual freedom" and comprehends "free sex."