elwoodblues

Okay, it's been alleged in another thread <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=48&t=000621&p=" target="_blank">Films that were better than the original books</a> that Robert Heinlein is a fascist. The point came up in regards to 'Starship Troopers'. Two quotes here:

And...

Okay, first specifically about Starship Troopers.

The book was published in 1959. What kind of book could have been published then? Especially by the Heinlein of the time, who had basically only written juveniles and lighter sci-fi. ST was something of a turning point. Stranger wasn't published for another 2 years.

Marketability is something any writer has to consider (or at least his editor). Heinlein guised what he was saying because he had to. That restriction made the book a whole lot more interesting than it would have been otherwise, I think. Go back and read the book again, keeping that in mind. You might find something different.

As for the accusation of Heinlein being fascist...

Webster's dictionary defines fascism as "forcible suppression of the opposition, the retention of private ownership of the means of production, belligerent nationalism and racism and glorification of war."

Now go read something by Heinlein. Just about ANYTHING by Heinlein, with the possible exception of 'Sixth Collumn', which he essentially repudiated almost immediately after publication, and has often cited as his worst novel. Every other piece of fiction (and non-fiction) by the man can only be described as very near the _opposite_ of the above definition of fascism.

He was not, and not one of his protagonists are fascist. He's written a large array of protagonists. Anarchists, socialists, libertarians, technocrats, emperors, capitalists. But I can't think of any protagonist that fit the definition of 'fascist' in any sense of the word.

Edited: Note that I agree 'Forever War' is at least dialoguing with Starship Troopers. And, if you read ST at face value, it could be seen as a refutation of sorts. Of course, reading ST at face value would ignore the fact that he bitterly opposed conscription and always portrayed war as a grim necessity, not something to be reveled in. This assumes some contextual knowledge on the part of the reader of Heinlein's other work. If Starship Troopers is all you've read by him, I can understand how it might look different.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: elwoodblues ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Thanks Elwood! In between Not Prince Hamlet's belittling of Americans for "missing" the (non-existent) satire in ST the movie, and his accusations that the original novel is facist, I was having difficulty composing a reply and was considering starting a new thread.

Vorkosigan

dangin

Now wait a minute, the cat that walks through walls is the most fascist cat I've ever read about.

And the grass that grows in the apartment in Stranger, that grass totally exudes fascism. If you read the uncut version, the grass starts plotting to grow to war against the hero of the story while he is standing on it, but he moves to quick.

And the broom in Glory Road. The one they jump over to get married. That broom is not only fascist, it's a down right Nazi.

GunnerJ

elwoodblues: I didn't claim that I thought Heinlein was a fascist in that quote. But the theme I picked up from SST was one that showed the military to be a good institution which "turns boys into men" and teaches civic responsibillity. Of course, his feelings against conscription opose fascism (I didn't miss that reading SST) and of course he's not saying that "war" is a good thing. I never claimed he did. But his outlook on the military in general is more favorable in SST than Hadleman's in The Forever War.

bluefugue

You can say the satire doesn't work, but it's not "non-existent," Vork. You don't think Verhoeven was being humorous when he showed the human soldiers in Leni Riefenstahl geometric parade formations, dressed up Doogie Howser in a Gestapo outfit, or showed clips of little kids stepping on bugs to aid the war effort?

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: IesusDomini ]</p>

GunnerJ

A question about SST the movie: what was the deal with the Mormon colony being destroyed? I can't remember if that was in the book... was that just added in for no reason, or was there a criticism there?

Megatron

Geez, what are you guys TALKING about?!

You all know Mike groks fascism!!

(LMFAO! )

Corwin

I've been in this argument so many times it isn't even funny. Mostly because I take the position that the movie is just downright offensive to fans of the book.

What Heinlein expressed in ST was a society that basically functioned and was one that most people were happy living in. The military/federal service served an important function: Separate out the ignorant or dabblers. The rule is pretty simple: If you want a voice in society you have to be willing to sacrifice for it.

In addition the casual brutality of the movie was totally wrong. Take the scene where Zinn basically challenges anyone from the incoming boot class. In the movie? He takes this recruit, and damned near wrenches his arm off. Intentionally breaking it and looking like he's getting off on it. In the book? The recruit half catches him by surprise and gets thrown a bit harder than intended. His arm is broken in the process. Zinn is somewhat apologetic, and tells him to go get it set. The impression is 'well.... sorry about that but if I kick your ass up between your shoulder blades in boot, you just might come home in a transport instead of in a body bag.' In the whole book Heinlein shows an understanding of 'you runnin with the big dawgs now...' or just how serious the business of warfare, and by extention politics, is.

Not Prince Hamlet

Vorkosigan,

You'll start to pick up on the satire in the movie sometime after you hit puberty, so give it a few years.

Jeff

P.S. You're such a twit. Talk about a gratuitous insult. You couldn't even restrict your slights to a single thread, but had to bring it to a brand new one.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Not Prince Hamlet ]</p>

dangin

NPH, take it down a notch please. Attack and critique people's positions, opinions, and theories, not the people themselves.

Telling someone they will understand it when they grow up and insulting them directly in the next sentence isn't the hallmark of maturity to me.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: dangin ]

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: dangin ]</p>