Starship Troopers (book)

[Colt]

By the suggestion of some fellow addicts I bought this book and began reading it a few days ago. The highest praise that I can give it so far is that I want to buy a copy of the movie portrayal and melt it down into a puddle of goo.

I have not read the entire book yet, I think I am somewhere around where some guys attempt to kill the main character while coming out of a bar. So far there is a huge difference between the book and the movie, so much so as to call the movie a parody of the original.

I really like the concept of the Powered Armor, something that makes the single soldier more capable than he would normally be. The copyright in the front of the book says 1959, frankly, I find this amazing. It has many advanced concepts which you don't find much even in modern SF when things like the Powered Armor come closer to being reality.

What I think the Powered Armour looks like is something akin to the Marines in the Starcraft series of games.

http://www.battle.net/images/star/bigpix/fight.jpg
http://www.geocities.co.jp/Playtown-Domino/8007/marine.JPG
http://www.monstersinmotion.com/anim/terranmarine.html

To me these look more like what Heinlein is describing than some of the other representations which have large faceplates and look like a mechanized spacesuit. Remember, these things are supposed to be armored and dangerous.

As I read more of the book I intend to post more. Don't worry about spoilers (of course warn anyway) in discussing the book here, they won't stop me from finishing the book or lessening my enjoyment of it. -Colt

[ToSeek]

I really like the concept of the Powered Armor, something that makes the single soldier more capable than he would normally be. The copyright in the front of the book says 1959, frankly, I find this amazing. It has many advanced concepts which you don't find much even in modern SF when things like the Powered Armor come closer to being reality.


Heinlein was amazingly prescient in a number of respects - being trained as an engineer may have been a big factor. His term "waldo" for a remotely operated manipulating arm has become part of the language after originally appearing in one of his sf stories.

[tracer]

I really like the concept of the Powered Armor, something that makes the single soldier more capable than he would normally be. The copyright in the front of the book says 1959, frankly, I find this amazing. It has many advanced concepts which you don't find much even in modern SF when things like the Powered Armor come closer to being reality.
Although E.E. "Doc" Smith gets the credit for the first SF mention of powered armor in Children of the Lens (which first appeared in serialized form in Astounding magazine, 1948), the mention of powered armor in this book is almost a throwaway idea.

It was Heinlein's central use of powered armor in Starship Troopers which really made the idea take hold in the imagination of large numbers of SF readers. The concept was so inspiring that every piece of Japanese Anime featuring guys in robotic suits, and every game that involves powered-armor super soldiers, can trace its roots back to Starship Troopers. It was that influential.

In a way, Starship Troopers didn't predict the existence of technology resembling powered armor suits, it was the cause of that technology!

[David Hall]

Those starcraft suits have *got* to be excruciatingly uncomfortable to wear. Can you imagine what it must be like having your arms contorted out away from your body like that for hours at a time? And, pray tell me, just where are your legs supposed to go?

[daver]

Although E.E. "Doc" Smith gets the credit for the first SF mention of powered armor in Children of the Lens (which first appeared in serialized form in Astounding magazine, 1948), the mention of powered armor in this book is almost a throwaway idea.

As i recall, it was supposed to be a throwaway idea--an illustration of Kinnison's genius. Kinnison conceived of an entirely new weapons system, developed it, used it once, and discarded it.

[Mark Skarr]

Those starcraft suits have *got* to be excruciatingly uncomfortable to wear. Can you imagine what it must be like having your arms contorted out away from your body like that for hours at a time? And, pray tell me, just where are your legs supposed to go?

You want to see REAL pain, take a look at http://us.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.us?game=&database=5&imagesize=b&Cookie=&do=Individual&code=8007A. Be careful, that is the actual store page, I couldn't find a better picture in short order. We could spend days decrying the BA in Warhammer 40,000, but that's not this thread.

One of the biggest problems with Powered Armor is the way our legs attach. The midriff area has a serious problem since it requires a great deal of maneuverability and is fairly tender. Hopefully, someone with a better engineering skill than myself will figure out how to fix that . . . without requiring double-amputations.

[daver]

Women's hips tend to be cantilevered a bit further out then men's, which would leave a bit more room for the armor.

Anybody have any experience wearing one of the underwater hard suits? It seems like they would have similar problems.

[Mark Skarr]

Anybody have any experience wearing one of the underwater hard suits? It seems like they would have similar problems.

I've never worn one of the suits but I know someone who has, and when he responds to my e-mail question, I'll post it here. If he ever does.

However, one of the big differences is that the hard suits aren't designed for maneuverability. Not even a little. They never expected you to be shot at while wearing them. Space suits have a smiliar problem. In order to provide protection, they're heavy and pressurized and VERY difficult to move in. That's not something that a soldier needs. They need to be agile and able to respond to anything that happens.
On an astronomy related side note, if we can ever develop actual powered armor it would greatly help our manned space program since many of the solutions they would have to develop could directly apply to space suit technology. And I'm sure a little bit of laminate armor would make astronauts feel a little safer when they float out in the great beyond.

[Donnie B.]

The thing I remember about my first "read" of Starship Troopers was how utterly furious I got at its politics. A world where citizenship was only extended to military veterans? Outrageous! I thought Heinlein was the worst kind of reactionary.

More recently I've read some reviews and commentary on the book that changed my mind, at least somewhat. I haven't seen the puddle of goo, er, the Verwhatsis movie, but I understand that it makes the book seem moderate.

[Colt]

I know about the arms and legs on the marines in Starcraft being a bit.. Off but it is a game afterall. I was just making the point that "To me these look more like what Heinlein is describing than some of the other representations which have large faceplates and look like a mechanized spacesuit. Remember, these things are supposed to be armored and dangerous."

I was thinking more about Starcraft last night and I realized how much similarity there is between Starcraft and Starship Troopers. There are marines, the grunts of the force. They can beat anything in large enough numbers. They have Powered Armor and the like. There are also other similarities: The Zerg, bug-like creatures with a controlling brain (I haven't gotten to the part that really talks about the bugs yet. I just reached the part after he made his first drop.), there is other similar technology and the like. I haven't played the game in a while (plan on buying it today) but when I do I will see if there are other similarities.

In the game Avp2 there is an exosuit (think of the power loader from Alien but with guns and armor :D ) called "Alice" which is just a step above Powered Armor. It has a gatling gun, rechargable laser, flamethrower, and a rocketlauncher. You basically stomp around in the game and waste anything that comes near you. :D This is something like what we might see in our own lifetimes, the first step in the direction of Powered Armor. The idea of a Powerloader also makes sense, it would be alot more versatile than a forklift and more maneuverable.

http://www.planetavp.com/images/avp2screenshots/avp2exosuit.jpg

-Colt

[Defender]

Colt, if you like Starship Troopers, I'd recommend that you read Joe Haldeman's The Forever War soon afterwards. Haldeman wrote his book in response to Starship Troopers, and they make for very interesting reading, in terms of comparing and contrasting. Haldeman's treatment of powered armour in his book is very different to Heinlein's, and very enlightening. I won't give it away by telling you, though...

[g99]

(side note: I just found out that Haldeman only lives a few miles away from me! Cool!!! :-) )

Speaking of The forever war,

One thing that bugged me alot and did not make mouch sense to me was the way they used their grunts. I won't give away spoilers here, but in their training and combat tactics it seems that they use them like a normal grunt. They seem that a loos of one of them is no real big deal and can just be replaced (barring the personal relationships between the main characters) Yet it is driven into you many times that they are the best and brigtest of their generation.

Why would you throw away such a precious comodity? Why not have a mixed army of unarmoured cheap grunts and their smarter and better commanders who are not replaceable.

[ToSeek]

The thing I remember about my first "read" of Starship Troopers was how utterly furious I got at its politics. A world where citizenship was only extended to military veterans? Outrageous! I thought Heinlein was the worst kind of reactionary.


Heinlein claims he meant that any sort of government service would qualify, though that's not apparent from reading the book.

[tracer]

The thing I remember about my first "read" of Starship Troopers was how utterly furious I got at its politics. A world where citizenship was only extended to military veterans?
And the flogging. Don't forget the flogging!

[Krel]

I haven't read the book since the 70's, but I got the impression from reading the book that the power armor were the tanks of SST. You had the regular infantry, then you had the power armor.

Maybe I am reading more into it than is there.

The Forever War books always struck me as anti-military. But then, all Haldeman books strike me as anti-military. Interesting reading though.

David.

[Colt]

Defender, G99 could you please PM me with the spoilers? I really don't care about reading them. I could read a detailed plot outline of a book and it would not spoil it for me, only reading the original is the same as reading it. :D

Krel, so far the feeling that I am getting is that the Mobile Infantry is special/armored forces of the Terran Federation and there are normal infantry (who are not so mobile because they don't have Powered Armor with jumpjets).

In SST it gives a very good feeling that these are the best of the best in terms of miltary units, for me at least.

I actually thought that the political bit in the book (so far) makes alot of sense compared to our modern system of criminal justice. IMHO it does not make sense to end a murderer's life when the family continues to suffer, make the bastard sit in prison and decay for the rest of his life and suffer. -Colt

[g99]

I'll try and find a good site that will do better justice to a summary to The Forever war than i can colt. :-) If not i will try.

[Defender]

(One thing that bugged me alot and did not make mouch sense to me was the way they used their grunts. I won't give away spoilers here, but in their training and combat tactics it seems that they use them like a normal grunt. They seem that a loos of one of them is no real big deal and can just be replaced (barring the personal relationships between the main characters) Yet it is driven into you many times that they are the best and brigtest of their generation.

Why would you throw away such a precious comodity? Why not have a mixed army of unarmoured cheap grunts and their smarter and better commanders who are not replaceable.

Because "cheap grunts" as you put it would be utterly slaughtered in battle with the Taurans- the wars of the book are so high-tech that an unarmoured human would be totally ineffective. Plus, I don't think the soldiers in TFW are really meant to be grunts; they strike me as being more like an elite unit. Besides, it's not as if the world of TFW is short of manpower; you may as well get the best that you can for the job.

[Donnie B.]

The thing I remember about my first "read" of Starship Troopers was how utterly furious I got at its politics. A world where citizenship was only extended to military veterans?
And the flogging. Don't forget the flogging!
Yeah, the corporal punishment was pretty much over-the-top. Although I admit to finding those parts rather cool, in a greusome way, at the time. Perhaps there's a bit of the sadist in all of us, eh? :wink:

[Avatar28]

Actually, we may not be so far away from power armor now. I can not for the life of me find it, but awhile back, Discover had a bit on how the military is basically trying to develop just that. It's not as advanced as the book (obviously), but it is similar in a lot of ways, though mainly it's just a powered exoskeleton at the moment. The plan calls for having a legs only version by this year and a full body exoskeleton by 2005.

The main problem they're having at the moment is developing more efficient motors for it. Interestingly, another bit in the same issue (Feb '02) talked about this company that has developed a more efficient alternative to some motors that's much more like muscle. I couldn't help but thinking that maybe they should get together. Anyways, here's the articles in their online form.

Powered Exoskeletons (http://www.discover.com/feb_02/feattech.html)

Nanomuscle (http://www.discover.com/feb_02/breakmuscle.html)

[edit: Obviously I managed to find the articles after writing the first part.]

[daver]

I haven't read the book since the 70's, but I got the impression from reading the book that the power armor were the tanks of SST.

David.

I think they mentioned that powered armor could take out a tank. I don't find this too believeable (well, i believe that powered armor could take out a 20th C tank, but that's hardly a fair comparison).

It could be that MI was so capable that the next reasonable step up would be some sort of land dreadnought (think Bolo), and that would be (1) hard to transport and (2) an obvious target for nukes.

I'm not sure that i believe that there was unarmored infantry--they'd just be too vulnerable, except for special operations.

[Avatar28]

I don't think there was a regular infantry, just MI. There only appeared to be three branches to the military, Navy, MI, and Psyops or whatever it was called. Basically the branch that Doogie Howser went to in the movie (sorry, don't remember the character or actor's name).

And considering that MI carries tactical nuclear weapons, I'd be willing to bet that they COULD take out a tank.

[Colt]

Actually, we may not be so far away from power armor now. I can not for the life of me find it, but awhile back, Discover had a bit on how the military is basically trying to develop just that. It's not as advanced as the book (obviously), but it is similar in a lot of ways, though mainly it's just a powered exoskeleton at the moment. The plan calls for having a legs only version by this year and a full body exoskeleton by 2005.

The main problem they're having at the moment is developing more efficient motors for it. Interestingly, another bit in the same issue (Feb '02) talked about this company that has developed a more efficient alternative to some motors that's much more like muscle. I couldn't help but thinking that maybe they should get together. Anyways, here's the articles in their online form.

Powered Exoskeletons (http://www.discover.com/feb_02/feattech.html)

Nanomuscle (http://www.discover.com/feb_02/breakmuscle.html)

[edit: Obviously I managed to find the articles after writing the first part.]

Wow, someone is actually working on a concept I had for a powered armor. I was calling them "Electical Muscles" The thought I had was that they were basically just strands of wire which could be bunched together in groups (just like real muscles work) and when you apply an electical supply to it they contract. One Idea that I had for this was a basically skin-suit which would have a thin layer of these muscles in the same place as those on your arms and legs. You couldn't lift huge amounts like in Powered Armor but you would be able to run faster and jump higher. This could help augment the elderly's failing muscles and other problems.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/exoskeleton.htm For anyone who doesn't know what we are talking about. -Colt

[daver]

I don't think there was a regular infantry, just MI. There only appeared to be three branches to the military, Navy, MI, and Psyops or whatever it was called. Basically the branch that Doogie Howser went to in the movie (sorry, don't remember the character or actor's name).

And considering that MI carries tactical nuclear weapons, I'd be willing to bet that they COULD take out a tank.

Regular infantry can also take out a tank, without resorting to nukes.

If you assume that weapons have progressed to the point where armor doesn't really matter (a direct hit will penetrate any conceivable mobile armor) then tanks become a lot less attractive. What matters is being able to get in, hit, and get out before weapons can be brought to bear. Some protection from environmental hazards (heat, shock waves, shrapnel, gas) is obviously helpful.

[Digital Apprentice]

It has been a while since I read ST last, but what I recall is that the society of the book had been at peace for quite some time, so long in fact that the militaries of the world had atrophied. Whatever fighting existed must of been low intensity stuff that wasn't suitable for Naval bombardment. This role was perfect for the MI. If I recall correctly the actual kit for a MI trooper isn't specified precisely, but what is mentioned (a "hand flamer", a side firing automatic grenade launcher, and a shoulder fired missile tube) were disruption weapons. Even the suits themselves indicated their primary harrasment purpose (they were called "Maurader" suits, I believe.)

This differs greatly from the typical SciFi "space marine" who is always armed with some sort of slug thrower and deployed in a huge disorganized horde, as MI operated widely dispersed and (at least in the operations detailed in the book) were not normally interested in taking or holding ground. They were mobile first, infantry second.

Heinlein was enough of an engineer to realize that anything you can hang off a human (even with power assist) you can stick on a much more stable vehicle, with greater effect. Where it would be less capable would be in mobility and flexibilty. You can't bounce a platoon of uber-tanks up to a boat at retreival quite as easily.

Pulling this back close to topic, does anyone recall why the Terrans put a base on Pluto in the book in the first place? It always struck me as being inefficient. It's cold, it's far away (even for star spanning civializations) and you can't do anything much there that you can't do closer in.

IIRC Haldeman used Pluto as a staging base as well, but that was to more closely simulate the typical collapsar guardian planet. Not that 99% of the training that they undertook was of use in the actual story, at least as far as Mandala's force was concerned, but it has some verisimilitude.

[David Hall]

Don't forget, the SST suits were incredibly fast and agile. They had the ability to jump long distances and turn on a dime. Add some nice weaponry, and they'd probably be able to give a slower tank a pretty good fight, at least.

[daver]

Pulling this back close to topic, does anyone recall why the Terrans put a base on Pluto in the book in the first place? It always struck me as being inefficient. It's cold, it's far away (even for star spanning civializations) and you can't do anything much there that you can't do closer in..

I don't remember. It might have something to do with his star drive--if star drives don't work close to a sun it would be useful to have a base out where they did work.

[Colt]

In Star Trek there is also a base on Pluto. In their unierse it acts as a supply depot and outpost for communications. IIRC the Romulans also captured it during the Terra-Romulan war though at the time I doubt that it was very significant.

I have not read the book much lately so I am still at the point I last reported. The MI not having some sort of Machine Gun built into their armor doesn't make much sense, they only seem to have long-range explosive weapons and close-range flamers. There doesn't seem to be an intermediate like a MG would be. I am really sick right now so please forgive me if I am not making sense. -Colt

[g99]

Hope ya feel beeter colt. :-)


In Forever war, the main weapons for the suits is a laser finger and nukes.
But they say they are trained to use every weapon ever created.

But they do use alot of mechanical computerized turrets for defense in their bases.

(I won't giveaway the major battle in the book)

[Colt]

What is a laser finger?

I would expect that in SST that they would have some sort of Powered Armour portable laser weapon at least. If they have batteries that can power a suit then they should certainly be able to power a laser.

Lasers do have their downside though. There are some types of armor which are more heat (because that is all a laser is, light being converted to heat) resistent than other armors. Sometimes there is just no substitute for a good ole Assault Rifle. -Colt

[g99]

From what i got from the book, it is a part of their arm and shoots a powerful slicing laser


P.S. i forgot to add: there are specialists in The forever war some are grenade launchers and some are rocket launcher specialists and a few others. I just forgot about them. Sorry.

[Ilya]

Pulling this back close to topic, does anyone recall why the Terrans put a base on Pluto in the book in the first place? It always struck me as being inefficient. It's cold, it's far away (even for star spanning civializations) and you can't do anything much there that you can't do closer in.


I don't think it is ever explained. Pluto base is not a big thing in ST, though - the main character never goes there, and it is only mentioned a couple times.


IIRC Haldeman used Pluto as a staging base as well, but that was to more closely simulate the typical collapsar guardian planet. Not that 99% of the training that they undertook was of use in the actual story, at least as far as Mandala's force was concerned, but it has some verisimilitude.

Actually, Stargate Base in FW is not on Pluto but on a made-up planet called Charon twice as far from the Sun as Pluto; FW was written before Charon the moon of Pluto was discovered. Haldeman's Charon supposedly rotates on its side like Uranus, so either north or south hemisphere is in darkness for centuries at a time, and the training base is placed on the dark half. What Haldeman apparently did not know is that Pluto has the same property! Although 1999, where FW takes place, is smack in the middle of Pluto spring, where neither hemisphere is in perpetual darkness.

[captain swoop]

The Outwars game was just ST. Power armour in that was well thought out, there were several varieties depending on the job to be done.

Also check these out

http://home.att.net/~mak3000/hm.html

[RachelW]

The thing I remember about my first "read" of Starship Troopers was how utterly furious I got at its politics. A world where citizenship was only extended to military veterans? Outrageous! I thought Heinlein was the worst kind of reactionary..

You really need to read many of Heinlein's works to understand where he was coming from. In this, I think Starship Troopers was an exercise in showing an extreemly militaristic society. In fact, most of his books are very libertarian and socialy liberal.

Here's some to try out: "Citizen of the Galaxy" not hardcore SF, mostly mental and social but very well thought out.

"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" a treatice on liberty, revoloution, socity norms and alternate forms of marriage.

"Tunnel in the Sky" Senior high school survival final test goes wrong, lots of interresting concepts. About survival and building a government by the people, for the people.

I've got reviews for the above three as well as many others of his on amazon.com

[Donnie B.]

The thing I remember about my first "read" of Starship Troopers was how utterly furious I got at its politics. A world where citizenship was only extended to military veterans? Outrageous! I thought Heinlein was the worst kind of reactionary..

You really need to read many of Heinlein's works to understand where he was coming from. In this, I think Starship Troopers was an exercise in showing an extreemly militaristic society. In fact, most of his books are very libertarian and socialy liberal.

Here's some to try out: "Citizen of the Galaxy" not hardcore SF, mostly mental and social but very well thought out.

"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" a treatice on liberty, revoloution, socity norms and alternate forms of marriage.

"Tunnel in the Sky" Senior high school survival final test goes wrong, lots of interresting concepts. About survival and building a government by the people, for the people.

I've got reviews for the above three as well as many others of his on amazon.com
Thanks for the tips, Rachel, but I've read a lot of Heinlein. But back in the '60s when I first read ST, I hadn't. And I was already leaning toward the left back then. It was the Vietnam era, after all... :wink:

By the way, welcome to the BABB... I haven't seen you around before.

[Colt]

Commie! Yeah, I just felt like screaming that to get a jump out of you. :)

I don't think that SST is very militaristic, the government I mean. The book is about the military though and that is why everything seems that way. And I do get the feeling (like someone said above) that government service was a way to become a citizen also. -Colt

[daver]

[quote="Colt" And I do get the feeling (like someone said above) that government service was a way to become a citizen also. -Colt[/quote]

Not just government service--it has to be a potentially dangerous government service. It is implicitly a short-term activity (normally i think a year or two)--you don't get the rights of a citizen until you leave the activity (soldiers never truly leave--they're always on call, but they can vote when they aren't active). I don't recall which occupations qualified--"policeman" seems dangerous enough, but it's a longer-term job (and it seems that being a policeman in SST isn't nearly as hazardous as being a policeman in LA). Being a clerk in town hall definitely wouldn't qualify. There was a scene in Vancouver involving some merchant marines; i think that Coast Guard might have qualified for citizenship, merchant marine definitely didn't.

The government was required to find something appropriate for anyone who asked, regardless of physical or mental disability.

[ToSeek]

Not just government service--it has to be a potentially dangerous government service.

Heinlein disagrees:

"Veteran" does not mean in English dictionaries or in this novel solely a person who has served in military forces. I concede that in commonest usage today it means a war veteran...but no one hesitates to speak of a veteran fireman or a veteran school teacher. In STARSHIP TROOPERS it is stated flatly and more than once that nineteen out of twenty veterans are not military veterans. Instead, 95% of voters are what we call today "former members of federal civil service." [ellipses and emphasis in the original]


Though I will admit that, despite Heinlein's protests, it's hard to find support for this statement in the book itself.

[Rodina]

The troops in Forever War were very, very expensive to move around. I never had the sense that there were huge numbers of ships moving between the collapsars (the faster-than-light waystations). At the final battle in the book, Aleph-128 (I think), only one or two people are even left with the ship, meaning the crew is a pretty skeleton operation.

And as for the society of Starship Troopers being "outrageous" -- although I think Heinlein certainly believed that people who served their country were to be honored and extended courtesy beyond that of those who did not* -- I don't think Heinlein approved of such a society -- he mere meant it could have made up the backbone of a functional one.

*Note his comment in an early chater of JOB: A Comedy of Justice, where he notes, rather contempteously, that if given the opportunity to break bread with a military unit, non-soldiers always think they should eat with officers, rather than enlisted men -- and even eating with the enlisted should be considered a greatest courtesy).

[David Hall]

This is perhaps the best essay and defense of Starship Troopers the novel I've ever read. I feel it has the most accurate description of what Heinlein was truly trying to portray with his military service government.

It also trashes the movie version thoroughly too.

http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm

[daver]

Not just government service--it has to be a potentially dangerous government service.

Heinlein disagrees:

"Veteran" does not mean in English dictionaries or in this novel solely a person who has served in military forces. I concede that in commonest usage today it means a war veteran...but no one hesitates to speak of a veteran fireman or a veteran school teacher. In STARSHIP TROOPERS it is stated flatly and more than once that nineteen out of twenty veterans are not military veterans. Instead, 95% of voters are what we call today "former members of federal civil service." [ellipses and emphasis in the original]


Though I will admit that, despite Heinlein's protests, it's hard to find support for this statement in the book itself.

Interesting. I'll try to dredge up enough time to reread it and see if i can find those bits.

[Donnie B.]

This is perhaps the best essay and defense of Starship Troopers the novel I've ever read. I feel it has the most accurate description of what Heinlein was truly trying to portray with his military service government.

It also trashes the movie version thoroughly too.

http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm
David, that's the article that changed my thinking about ST (the book). Thanks for the link, I never bookmarked it.

[ToSeek]

Not just government service--it has to be a potentially dangerous government service.

Heinlein disagrees:

"Veteran" does not mean in English dictionaries or in this novel solely a person who has served in military forces. I concede that in commonest usage today it means a war veteran...but no one hesitates to speak of a veteran fireman or a veteran school teacher. In STARSHIP TROOPERS it is stated flatly and more than once that nineteen out of twenty veterans are not military veterans. Instead, 95% of voters are what we call today "former members of federal civil service." [ellipses and emphasis in the original]


Though I will admit that, despite Heinlein's protests, it's hard to find support for this statement in the book itself.

Interesting. I'll try to dredge up enough time to reread it and see if i can find those bits.

Here's an essay (http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/ftp/fedrlsvc.pdf) (warning: PDF) that addresses that specific topic, with numerous quotes from the book. His conclusion is that Heinlein's belief is not supported by the text.

[daver]

Here's an essay (http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/ftp/fedrlsvc.pdf) (warning: PDF) that addresses that specific topic, with numerous quotes from the book. His conclusion is that Heinlein's belief is not supported by the text.

I tend to agree. I'd figure that Juan's dad would urge him, if he had to join, to at least become a supply clerk, or something that would have some business application after he got out. For another, it is stressed that citizenship is something that has to be bought--that you have to demonstrate that you put the survival of the state ahead of your individual survival. Clerical jobs don't seem to provide that sort of a challenge--i suppose you could get a nasty paper cut, or slip into a coma during a departmental meeting, but they just don't seem to be that hazardous.

[Colt]

I finished SST the other night.. A very good book. The ending bit about the bug city was very good. Not much more I can say. -Colt

[wedgebert]

I think the book makes a couple of good points.

First off, the "have to be a citizen to vote" thing makes a lot of sense when you hear the reasoning behind it. The point is that people will take something more seriously if they've earned it rather than if it's just given to them. For example, even *I* could vote and I think my stance would be "which canidate annoyed me less". Not a healthy way to run a govenment.

But, I think the crime and punishment ideas in the book makes even more sense. And many of his arguements still make sense today.

My favorite example is: "If the punishment for speeding was one lash for every mile an hour over you were going, would you risk it?"

I don't consider corporal punishment to be "cruel" as long as it's not excessive or has lasting effects (cutting of hands of thieves is bad). But then again, as Heinlein said in SST, "if it's not cruel and ususual, it won't be work" (bad paraphrase, been a while since I've read the book).

[Colt]

^ Yep.

[Shandar]

I haven't read the book since the 70's, but I got the impression from reading the book that the power armor were the tanks of SST. You had the regular infantry, then you had the power armor.


David.


In SST, the MI is the Regular Infantry (MI Stands for Mobile Infantry). There is no other branch of the service that does the "Dirty Work."

[ToSeek]

I have a lot of admiration for Heinlein for the way he takes a speculative, "science-fictional" attitude toward social issues such as forms of government rather than just confining himself to scientific and technological matters (though he was pretty good with those, too). A lot of future science fictional settings look like America with a few tweaks, but his seldom do.

[tracer]

H.G. Wells also looked at the social ramifications of technology and trends, and fashioned future societies very different from the one he lived in.

(Jules Verne, on the other hand, had atomic-powered submarines and family dirigibles whizzing around in an unchanged Victorian England.)

[informant]

But then again, as Heinlein said in SST, "if it's not cruel and ususual, it won't be work".

Really? I guess our current judicial system must be completely useless, then. (Let's just throw it away and turn our cities over to street gangs. Surely, they'll do a better job - after all, they've got the right philosophy. ;))

The idea - like other political ideas by Heinlein - may seem to make some amount of sense on paper, but practice is a whole different world. In fact, his idea turns out to be incredibly naive.

In the real world - as opposed to Heinlein's stories - things don't always work out perfectly. The guilty aren't always caught. The convicted aren't always guilty. Law enforcers aren't always honest.

[ToSeek]

But then again, as Heinlein said in SST, "if it's not cruel and ususual, it won't be work".

Really? I guess our current judicial system must be completely useless, then.

Well, it's certainly eliminated crime in my area.


The idea - like other political ideas by Heinlein - may seem to make some amount of sense on paper, but practice is a whole different world. In fact, his idea turns out to be incredibly naive.

Tell the folks in Singapore, who by all acounts seem to be putting the theory into practice and as a result have one of the lowest crime rates of any urban area in the world.

In the real world - as opposed to Heinlein's stories - things don't always work out perfectly. The guilty aren't always caught. The convicted aren't always guilty. Law enforcers aren't always honest.

So maybe we shouldn't punish anyone at all, just to be on the safe side?

Sorry, we're getting off of astronomy here.

[informant]

Do they use corporal punishment in Singapore?! I didn't know that, although I did know about Iraq.
All the more reason not to go there.

[Stuart]

Do they use corporal punishment in Singapore?!
Certainly; one American kid (Michael Fay) went there, started vandalizing cars and got sentenced to six lashes. Clinton described the sentence as barbaric and demanded his immediate release so the Singapore Government doubled it to 12. I think they compromised on nine :)

Singapore has a very low crime rate.

[wedgebert]

Posted: Wed May 28, 2003 2:32 am Post subject: Re: I agree with the book

wedgebert wrote:
But then again, as Heinlein said in SST, "if it's not cruel and ususual, it won't be work".

Really? I guess our current judicial system must be completely useless, then. (Let's just throw it away and turn our cities over to street gangs. Surely, they'll do a better job - after all, they've got the right philosophy. )


The point Heinlein was trying to make was, if you don't fear the punishment, it's not going to stop you from committing crimes. Our court system is so farked up that, odds are, you can plea bargin your way down to a lesser crime and then when you get to prison you can sue if you're not comfortable enough.

I say throw them in a cell and leave them there for a few years. No TV, bland food, etc.[/quote]

[informant]

Have you ever been to prison? It can be pretty awful. Unless one's rich, of course - then it can be like a ride in the park.

[TheGalaxyTrio]

The thing I remember about my first "read" of Starship Troopers was how utterly furious I got at its politics. A world where citizenship was only extended to military veterans? Outrageous! I thought Heinlein was the worst kind of reactionary.

Ah, but who is the true reactionary? The author who speculated about a different political system, or the one made "furious" by mere speculation? Hey, just teasing. :D

And if I recall correctly (been a while), it was mainly voting rights, and only some sort of *government* service was required. You could live a happy, productive life without the full citizenship. Wasn't Rico's father an non-voter, yet he was a wealthy businessman?

And when you look at the sea of mindless "Party-line" voters we have today, who don't put an ounce of thought into it even when they bother to vote, well, I'll leave it at that...

More recently I've read some reviews and commentary on the book that changed my mind, at least somewhat. I haven't seen the puddle of goo, er, the Verwhatsis movie, but I understand that it makes the book seem moderate.

Paul Verhoven, who also gave us Total Recall (with bad astronomy aplenty!). Based on interviews with him, it's clear he failed utterly to understand the book, and is not a very high wattage bulb overall.

The whole intellectual level of Hollywood has gone down so badly that it's pathetic. You see interviews with the "old guard", and they seem like pretty bright people in general, but I see interviews with more recent movie creators, and you wonder how they manage to point the camera in the right direction.

[TheGalaxyTrio]

Do they use corporal punishment in Singapore?!
Certainly; one American kid (Michael Fay) went there, started vandalizing cars and got sentenced to six lashes. Clinton described the sentence as barbaric and demanded his immediate release so the Singapore Government doubled it to 12. I think they compromised on nine :)

Singapore has a very low crime rate.

Actually, given the choice between sitting in an overseas jail cell, or taking the pain and going home (probably to sell the story rights), I'd choose the latter. I would have quietly taken my punishment and not even made an issue out of it... other than to request that the punishment be delivered by a Singapore girl (the great way to fly) clad in leather. Oh dear, I've typed too much.

People have no vision or imagination, is what's the problem, yersiree, Bob.

[David Hall]

Paul Verhoven, who also gave us Total Recall (with bad astronomy aplenty!). Based on interviews with him, it's clear he failed utterly to understand the book, and is not a very high wattage bulb overall.

Not only did he fail to understand it, or at least respect Heinlein's opinions, but he deliberately set out to make a mockery of it. He intentionally subverted everything in the book because he didn't agree with it.

Verhoven's image of society worked in Robocop, and to some extent in Total Recall, because the whole focus of those stories was cynicism, government control, and manipulation. But to take a book you are supposed to be faithfully adapting and completely subvert it simply because you don't agree with it's politics is unforgivable.

Still, I suppose Veroven is not completely to blame here. He's just following what he believes. We should also blame the people who gave the project to him and let him get away with the atrocity.

[Defender]

Interestingly, the SF author William Gibson wrote a magazine article about his experiences in Singapore, called "Disneyland with the Death Penalty". It's a fascinating read- Gibson himself said that it reminded him of the kind of futures you saw portrayed in a Robert Heinlein novel, only someone had actually gone and built it.

You can find it here:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson.html?person=laurie_anderson&topic_set=wiredpeople

The article is chiefly interesting when you look at what a profoundly terrifying place to live Singapore must be. An airless, artless grid of perfect streets and perfect citizens, kept in line by corporal punishment and the death penalty. It comes acros as a truly horrible city. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a place that kills people for smuggling drugs.

And Singapore is interesting to look at in the light of books like Starship Troopers. The problem for me with Heinlein's book is not that it espouses rigid authority, but that it fetishises it. It's the solution to everything; if the natives step out of line, give 'em a taste of the cat. If they do it again, let 'em swing. There's no notice paid to any of the possible social causes of crime- in SST, if the symptoms of the problem are dealt with, then the causes will take care of themselves. Which, to me, is a very tempting, attractive, and simplistic way of looking at the problem. It also seems to be deeply, deeply wrong.

[Stuart]

Interestingly, the SF author William Gibson wrote a magazine article about his experiences in Singapore, called "Disneyland with the Death Penalty". It's a fascinating read- Gibson himself said that it reminded him of the kind of futures you saw portrayed in a Robert Heinlein novel, only someone had actually gone and built it.

You can find it here:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson.html?person=laurie_anderson&topic_set=wiredpeople

The article is chiefly interesting when you look at what a profoundly terrifying place to live Singapore must be. An airless, artless grid of perfect streets and perfect citizens, kept in line by corporal punishment and the death penalty. It comes acros as a truly horrible city. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a place that kills people for smuggling drugs.

And Singapore is interesting to look at in the light of books like Starship Troopers. The problem for me with Heinlein's book is not that it espouses rigid authority, but that it fetishises it. It's the solution to everything; if the natives step out of line, give 'em a taste of the cat. If they do it again, let 'em swing. There's no notice paid to any of the possible social causes of crime- in SST, if the symptoms of the problem are dealt with, then the causes will take care of themselves. Which, to me, is a very tempting, attractive, and simplistic way of looking at the problem. It also seems to be deeply, deeply wrong.

Actually I've worked in Singapore and I suspect I've had a more rounded view of things. The picture given is very highly distorted by the author's prejudices and pre-conceptions (its interesting to note his standards of comparison). My own experience of the place (as a well-paid Contractor) is that its a strange mixture of western capitalism and Chinese paternalism. Its ancestry is a mix of British and Chinese and it shows; oh boy does it show. In an odd way it can be considered to have the best of both those parents; the place has the courtesy of the British and the industriousness of the Chinese. On the other hand it has an instinctive conformity built in from both sides of the family tree. Its nice to be saluted by the police when one asks for directions. If I had to summarize Singapore, its a marvellous place to be law-abiding and a visitor really has to work hard to get into trouble. Of course, work hard enough and said visitor gets all the trouble they want.

That brings us to drugs. The death penalty for being involved in drugs is common in SE Asia. Malaysia and Thailand both have the same provision (Colonel Supatra was greatly saddened when the Thai Government decreed that the death penalty would henceforth be carried out by lethal injection rather than a blast from an M60 machinegun.) Singapore simply fits into the regional pattern there (and, frankly, its one I applaud. People who deal drugs deserve to get whacked).

Singapore an example of a perfect Heinlein state? I think not. Bangkok yes; Bangkok and Boondock (Tertius) have a lot in common - including the description that they are not well organized enough to be an real anarchy (PS thats praise - Bangkok is one of my favorite cities). Singapore is much more like the day-dreams of Sir Humphrey Appleby.

[informant]

Bangkok is not a state. It's the capital of Thailand.

[Stuart]

Bangkok is not a state. It's the capital of Thailand.
Of course I know that, I lived there for years. But there are profound cultural differences between Bangkok and the rest of Thailand. Its much more than just western or tourist influence; Bangkok is cosmopolitan in the same way as Singapore but is laid back and insouciant in ways Singapore most certainly is not. The traffic tells you everything you need to know about the differences between the two cities

[informant]

But to take a book you are supposed to be faithfully adapting and completely subvert it simply because you don't agree with it's politics is unforgivable.

Did he say that he was going to adapt the book faithfully? (Don't remember.)

[Krel]

I was in the audience at the 96 World Con where the SST production people said quite clearly that they were going to mug the book. :evil:

"Were're going to do his politics exactly, but subvert them" was one of their quotes. Later in the day authors were making fun of them in other panels I attended. They were however quite pleased with themselves that they kept the most vitriolic screenwriters away, there were some that wanted real bad to do a number on Heinlein.

David.

[informant]

"Were're going to do his politics exactly, but subvert them"
The sentence is a bit contradictory. How can they do it "exactly", if they're going to "subvert" it? But my understanding is that they intended to do a caricature from the beginning. In that case I don't know how David can say that they were supposed to be faithful to the book. They said themselves that they weren't going to be!

[David Hall]

What I mean is that they were doing Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers. To my mind, that means the implicit goal is to recreate the story, in spirit at least, if not in every detail. I have a feeling this movie didn't turn out the way it was originally intended at conception. I think it got shanghaied by overly liberal Hollywood extremists.

[TimH]

...I was thinking more about Starcraft last night and I realized how much similarity there is between Starcraft and Starship Troopers.
-Colt

If you have seen the expansion pack (StarCraft: Brood War) the game maker (Blizzard Entertainment) stops subtlely tipping their hats to SST and just throws the hat at you. The ingame movie that plays when you complete the human missions should look VERY familiar to anyone that has seen the movie.

I have found that there are sci-fi homages through out the game though. The human army's battle ships are similar to the old battle tech cartoons, the science vessels also are quite anime-ish there are several other units in the game that are remarkable similar to varios scifi movies or childrens cartoons.

There is also a regerence to Issac Assamov (sp?) in the manual. There is a solder (essentially a marine with a flame thrower) called a fire bat with the caption (something like) "Guy Montag prepares for the battle of xyz"

Montag was, of course the central character in Farenhite 451.

[Avatar28]

There is also a regerence to Issac Assamov (sp?) in the manual. There is a solder (essentially a marine with a flame thrower) called a fire bat with the caption (something like) "Guy Montag prepares for the battle of xyz"

Montag was, of course the central character in Farenhite 451.

Too bad Farenheit 451 was written by Ray Bradbury, huh?

:P

[TimH]

There is also a regerence to Issac Assamov (sp?) in the manual. There is a solder (essentially a marine with a flame thrower) called a fire bat with the caption (something like) "Guy Montag prepares for the battle of xyz"

Montag was, of course the central character in Farenhite 451.

Too bad Farenheit 451 was written by Ray Bradbury, huh?

:P

D'OH! :oops:

[wedgebert]

If you have seen the expansion pack (StarCraft: Brood War) the game maker (Blizzard Entertainment) stops subtlely tipping their hats to SST and just throws the hat at you. The ingame movie that plays when you complete the human missions should look VERY familiar to anyone that has seen the movie

Ahh, a bad game making references to a bad movie...

[TimH]

If you have seen the expansion pack (StarCraft: Brood War) the game maker (Blizzard Entertainment) stops subtlely tipping their hats to SST and just throws the hat at you. The ingame movie that plays when you complete the human missions should look VERY familiar to anyone that has seen the movie

Ahh, a bad game making references to a bad movie...


Blasphemy! :wink:

Serioulsy though, I can't be too critical since that is a matter of opinion. However, the vast majority of people I have encountered have had very positive feelings about the game. Just curious, what didn't you like about it?

[wedgebert]

Because I like my RTS games to have depth :)

Seriously though. I was eagerly awaitng SC for a while, then I discovered Total Annihilation. A game that was quite revolutionary for its time. Three dimensional terrain that had 256 different heights, not just 2 or 3. The landscape was a rendered picture, not repeated tiles, and for many maps was quite pretty to look at and wasn't overly repetative.

Map sizes ranged from small maps that were only about 2 screens across (using a 640 x 480 res), to ones that were 40 or more screens across.

The units were real-time rendered (i.e. not sprites) and had moving turrets, legs, etc. Units would rock and forth when moving over rough terrain, firing or when hit. Plus there was a large variety of units to build. TA had more aircraft or ships than SC had buildable units total. This leads to a large number of varying strategies and tactics one can use.

Finally TA had a good physics engine. Units and buildings on top of hills had a longer sight range and ballsitic weapons had a longer range. Weapon fire would hurt the first thing it hit, thus allowing for friendly fire and fun tactics like driving fast units between slow enemy units and watching them shoot each other. Aircraft would bank and roll while turning and avoiding enemy fire. Hovercraft had a hard time getting up hills. Shooting trees would start fires which then spread depending on the wind direction (and wind power plants would always turn into the wind). Finally, units could shoot AND move at the same time.

Total Annihilation even supported downloadable content in the form of new units and buildings, and Cavedog would release a new unit each week for free.

Compare that to SC, which came out months later and was inferior in almost everyway. The graphics were bland and repetative. Units behavior was very "blocky" and could only face 8 different directions (compared to TA's anywhich way they want). Units cannot move and shoot at the same time which makes fast units much less effective. Unit fire would track enemy units UNTIL IT HIT, it doesn't matter how far out of range the enemy moves, that weapon will follow until hits. Unit vareity was sorely lacking, limiting what you could do. And many games are either "rush" or "wait until all resources are gone, then attack".

For a game that was in development longer than TA, the only things it had going for it was a better story (not that important for an RTS) and the name Blizzard behind it. Unfortunatly for TA, that was all it took.

To me, SC was just Warcraft 2: Humans in Space. I was sorely disappointed by the complete lack of innovation just irritated me.

[g99]

(thinking this need to be moved to the bad videogames thread :-)) That is a very good defense of a RTS. I never played that game, but i did play Starcraft alot. The storyline in starcraft i felt was in depth and good. sure the graphics were outdated, but the three races with origonal units was new and unique. Warcraft did have that but they were all the same units but different sprites (that i can remember).

Kind of like how everyone absolutely loved age of empires yet they were all the exact same units for all sides.