Amph Has anyone else read starship troopers?

just wondering if any other star wars fans have also read this book.

 

I read Starship Troopers a long time ago, and I remember thinking it was alright. I didn't think it was really great or anything.

 

i read it a long time ago, and thought it was great. i remember thinking that i liked it a good deal more then the movie.. (even though i thought the movie was all right)
i'm not sure, but weren't they in big mech type things in the book? i REALLY need to borrow that book from my friend again, or just buy it myself!

 

I tried reading the book but couldnt finish it. My brother however has read the book like 20 times since the 1970's. He owns like multiple copies of the book, including an original hardcover edition.

 

I read it about 10 years ago and I loved it.

 

I read the book a few years ago. It has some interesting ideas that deserves discussing, but the story itself wasn't that remarkable .

 

I read the book, really enjoyed it, although I thought that the movie was horrible.

 

I was inspired to watch it after seeing the movie, it was alright but its not a book I'd ever feel like reading again.

 

I read it. It's an enjoyable read, if you don't start thinking about the "deep" issues. Seriously. I've known people who thought it was a blueprint for utopia. I just read it for the entertainment value.

 

It was a great book, and some parts - like the gorilla suits - would have been awesome on screen. It is, however, shall we say, a little fascistic.

E_S

 

You know, quite possibly alone among reasonably well-read people, I prefer the movie to the book. It wasn?t that the book was bad, but I found it high on peachiness and low on entertainment. The flash and style of the movie got across the same ?War is bad, but people come to think that it?s good? message with less peachiness and much more entertainment. The book is heavy-handed and dry; the movie is a fun parody of 1940s war films mixed with a modern action film.

To each his own I guess.

 

I read S. troopers and it was some time ago before the movie and it read as a kind of illustration on what it means to be civic minded and its responsibilities and duties as embodied in Johnny Rico, that's what I remember, but it certainly did have descriptions on the battle suits and the bugs and another alien race, however, I remember enough to know that the film took great liberties and changed characters names and roles around and the fascistic, Nazi tone threw me off until later on I found out that this is something from his upbringing, his childhood experience that he felt strongly enough he had to include into it. [shrugs] The book was alright by me, the movie, well, I'll say this, I still have the book.

 

What confused me was Paul Verrhoeven(?) and HIS overt fascistic tone of the movie. I couldn't understand if he was making a referrence to Americans and what was the message he was sending? If, any at all. Which demographical group? The veterans of which war? WWII, the Korean war, the Veitnam war, the Gulf war? What was he getting at? For whom? The news that American people receive from their own news reporters working all over the world and how that information is reported and along with their government current officials and leaders and their intrinsic relationship with each other contribute to how Americans MAY be controlled by how the information is reported and how much and to what degree. It has been shown that within the government there is no real cooperation or honesty, especially in regards to representing in the name of the people and supposedly in protecting the people. Yes, America is a democratic government and it is also capitalistic. The American government, of course,
depending upon which of their presidents and the administration have been known not to be forthcoming, or not candid or forthcoming until it is brought to light what ever it was that that official was attempting to conceal. The Americans fear of communism from Russia and its potential widespread influence, which is perplexing and bewildering to think about, for while they were denunciating this they (Americans) on a whole practiced their own human rights violation against women and minorities. Amazing, isn't it? And it's actually happening even in these times today. Women dislike how they are portrayed in films because it does not reflect the diverse roles they now seem to have in actual real life, yet they still conform to a western male's criteria, whether they are conscious of it or not. And even the western (American) male's self precept is quite, for me, anachronistic if not passe. The non-westernized part of the world does not share the same view bestowed upon them of preferential treatment. America is a young nation but it is already on dangerous grounds with extremely volatile nations such as with Iran, China, Cuba, N. Korea and perhaps many more. I've went from one topic to the next because of Paul Verhoeven's liberty with another's work. Those 'bugs' could easily have been a substitute for the west,e.g., Americans and the non-westernized nation's countereaction to its influence. Dictators and despots will propagandize to control and unify a people but when a nation that seems to be a paragon of freedom, justice, and equality doesn't actually reflect this cherished belief and it is viewed by others outside the good 'ol United States with documentations and other medium, that there is contradictory and hypocritical actions evident along with the fear and hatred of western expansion and perceived domination and oppression by, is it any wonder why 09/11/01 was such a shock? But then, of course, the government and its current administration and overseas practices with other nations (and their regards and perceptions of the west) do not directly affect US citizens, right? Those uniformed soldiers in Starship Troopers could be a reflection of N. Korea, Cuba, Iran, India, Pakistan, Japan, Europe, and so on and so on. And movies are a distorted reflection of American values, bel

 

Does it matter? A general illustration of the social pitfalls of war doesn't need to refer to particular examples. Whether Rico represents a typical non-Nazi German soldier of WWII or a typical American soldier of Vietnam, it's a universal statement.

 

Yes, it does matter. That's an insular way to see it. Your 'general illustration of the social pitfalls of war doesn't need to refer to particular examples' is an erroneous arguement of your own. They ARE referrences from real, actual, historical documented events, not from one's figment of imagination. YOUR regarding it as a general illustration then that's on you. Mr. Heinlein's work and the examination of fascism could not have been, without having obtained it from an actual source, an actual event. But, I appreciate your view on it, but that's just it, YOUR insular view and scope on it, not mine. When I read this I made direct correlations with the Nazi movement, Europe's and asia's embrace of Communism, fascism, America's own internal troubling situations, and so on. Mr. Heinlein's work wasn't alluding to, he was making references from actual events that he experienced or was a recipient of. I can't remember his background, as its been a while now. I don't know who you are and what your life experience is, however, Starship Troopers is no supposition or hyphothesis it's a personal account on what he experienced but transferred in the vein of science fiction.

And to address once more,for you to question the relevance of past actual events, indeed, ongoing events, and its repurcussions and impact in contemporary times and its effect on every nation is an indication of your very real ignorance and if you abide by this, then it must be said, you are misguided by it and you ought to not take false comfort in it. And I say this without being facetious. I don't believe you read this book, carefully and astutely, the pitfalls of war is a universal statement but is an assertion of yours that is meaningless without taking into consideration the influence and impetus of which the statement is derived from.

 

How exactly do you know the incidents in Starship Troopers reference actual events experienced by Heinlen? First of all, he didn't fight in any war. Second of all, authors regularly make things up. That's kind of what their job is. There is sometimes a direct correlation to an actual event but other times there isn't. It is not required. Authors are very imaginative people.

Also, why are you going on calling people ignorant and such! This is a nice forum! We do not need that sort of silliness going on!

 

PICTURETHIS, would you please cut down the condescension?

Yes, it does matter. That's an insular way to see it. Your 'general illustration of the social pitfalls of war doesn't need to refer to particular examples' is an erroneous arguement of your own.

I fail to see why to see something as a general illustration is an insular viewpoint, or why interpreting the novel or the movie as such is inherently erroneous. You yourself express confusion as to the exact message being sent: ?I couldn't understand if he was making a reference to Americans and what was the message he was sending?? Since you yourself are uncertain as to what message is being sent, I would think that you would be more tolerant of alternate viewpoints and interpretations. Finally, the nature of art, even pop art, is such that multiple interpretations are usually possible.

If the exact inspirational conflict in reference is unclear, perhaps that is intentional? While I do not deny the possibility that the stories were intended as commentary directed at specific conflicts ? that may very well have been the intent of the respective creators ? I also believe that the stories can apply as general commentary on the nature of war.

 

Are you HIM? Where you 'there' in his life? Where YOU actually privy to his thoughts? Hunh? Where you? NO. How do YOU know? He did serve in the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland from 1924 to 1929 but a medical condition ended his military career in 1934 but his devotion to the military continued on until his death. With the rise of Hitler and nazism, fascism and commumism spreading throughout Europe and news broadcasting events all over nations and the revelations of the atrocities being commited by the Germans, Japanese(of that era) RAH could have been affected by these and so after these events may have compelled him to work on a story that was an informal treatise on fascism.(Remember, he was devoted to the military until his death, remember that, and if you discount that as unlikely or unthinkable to imagine, then you explained yourself very well)


If I am missing information or am incorrect about this or that, I would accept being referred to as being ignorant because then there is the opportunity to change that condition as opposed to someone (which is frequent) who ultimately reveals him or herself by resorting to clumsy, awkward sounding name calling and slighting which is really a self-tesimonial of that person's loss of self-control even in a 'virtual' setting such as this. My tone was not meant to be mean spirited or vicious I was alarmed by statements I felt were incorrect. If I conveyed that, then I apologize for it, but referring to someone as ignorant is not necessarily a denigrating term. But, how often do people actually look into the many senses of a 'word' or in the tone that it was used?

 

Okay, I apologize to you and I did not mean to attack, if that's what I did, I apologize. I agree, of course, that a work of ark, literature, remarks are open to any interpretation.

 

I read the novel by Robert Heinlein. I was not very impressed by it, although, judging from reviews, I suppose I should be. I actually enjoyed the movie better however loosely based on the novel it was.

 

As I say above, I feel the exact same way. Heinlein is not one of my favorite authors by any means, and I flipped through Starship Troopers the other day wondering why. I think that what it comes down to is that I just don't find his writing fun at all. His writing style feels so stark and grey, and there's never a real sense of honest playfulness in it.

 

I enjoyed the novel. I thought it would have been awesome if they had the powered suits in the film, but they didn't.

 

The noblest fate that a man can endure is to place his own mortal body between his loved home and the war's desolation.

That phrase put me to think for a while.

 

A lot of the discussion in the previous posts seemed to ignore that when Heinlein wrote Starship Troopers he was not aware of the "politics in a bottle" we suffer from now. He promoted expansion. Once the Americans conquered America (as it were) there was really no place to go but up. We had dreams when I was a kid of expanding onto other planets and into other galaxies. No one from any country has made an attempt to do anything but orbit the Earth (Satellite repairmen) since the mid seventies. Our ideals had to do with new frontiers not trying to see how much money we could make with technology that isolates people and makes them lazy. (As I sit here 30 lbs overweight typing in a room by myself to other people in rooms by themselves). Verhoven almost seem to grasp the ideas but he seem to be having too much fun with the movie. I always took the book as inspiration for (if I may steal) "Boldly going where no one has gone before", not as a guideline for future politics.