I think he captured Heinlein's fascist streak quite well, albeit while poking fun at it.

Starship Troopers is a very well made movie, quite cleverly constructed. For people without a sense of humour, it appeals to their own militaristic tendencies; it hits two audiences at once.

It's an even better book - especially if you have any familiarity with the genre of soldier's memoirs, which often follow a very similar trajectory, from pre-military life to boot camp to the first brush with combat, to the climactic battle.

The philosophy is somewhat different, but the spiritual and thematic successor to Starship Troopers, Armor by John Steakley[1], which I think is an underappreciated classic.

[1] http://amzn.to/2bNDHMB

I'd also recommend you read Joe Haldeman's The Forever War, which is very much a response to Starship Troopers: while Heinlein was writing from the perspective of WW2, Haldeman was writing from the perspective of Vietnam, and it shows.

I haven't read Armor. I should check it out.

Haldeman has said on many occasions (like nearly every interview with him) that The Forever War was absolutely not a response to Starship Troopers. He oughtta know, right?

I strongly support the recommendation to read both of them, though.

I think this goes for many Verhoeven's movies - lot of them contain a non-negligible amount of parody. But as the common wisdom says, working parody must be a good example of the genre it parodies and Verhoeven's movies are excellent examples of their genres.

At least, I think it works with Starship Troopers, Total Recall and Robocop. I'm not sure what to make of Basic Instinct and Playgirls.

Isn't it Showgirls, or is this a regional title variation? Anyway, it's clearly an attempt at parodying the exploitation movie genre by delivering all the required elements but not actually being enjoyable.

> I think he captured Heinlein's fascist streak quite well, albeit while poking fun at it.

read spider-robinson's essay : 'rah rah R.A.H !'. imho, anyone trying to pigeonhole robert-heinlein into any of pejoratives e.g. fascist, racist, militarist etc. etc. has either an axe to grind, or has serious reading comprehension problems.

Uh no. I have recently written an article about this very subject. Heinlein seems militaristic in the "starship troopers" but he effectively kills two of the concepts militarists love: the chosen one myth - that the soldiers, best ones at least, are chosen ones and they should be smart and brilliant and be a Nietzschean superman, and discipline myth - that because the soldiers are disciplined, they are better than civilians. You can read it in the chapters where Rico is inducted into Officer Training School, where Major Reed is giving the Moral Philosophy lesson again.

Actually, if you take a look at the man's literary career I think he is just experimenting with the "what is best ruling regime?" "Starship troopers" is a possible answer, so is the "moon is a harsh mistress" and I even see the "Stranger in a Strange Land" in this light.

My two cents.

Heinlein moved substantially politically over the years, from being a firm Democrat in his younger years (campaigning for the Democrats and attempting to win a seat to the California State Assembly as a Democrat in 1938, to becoming conservative in the early 50's, and right-libertarian and eventually describing himself as anarchist or autarchist (economically right wing anarchism, basically) by the 60's, and a lot of his works reflects pretty directly his political position at the time of writing.

Starship Troopers is sometimes viewed as his "parting shot" to the left wing, though it was written several years after he ceased to consider himself a Democrat.

While it probably wasn't as militaristic as it appears at a casual glance (he's elaborated on the ideas elsewhere in ways that further "softens" it), it did come at a time where his political views were evolving towards a more conservative and more authoritarian ideal (though that soon changed again).

I'm not pigeonholing Heinlein, thanks. There's a few recurring themes in some of his books; one is an enthusiastic embrace of militarism (and it's far from universal, it's mostly in his earlier books for younger readers). When something comes up, it's good to see it reproduced in a screen adaptation.

Militarism is intrinsically fascist. It's all about banding together, being stronger when pulling in a single direction, under the leadership of the state, and not brooking any dissent. It's intrinsically a dangerous social setup only suited to extremes of survival. I'm not a fan of fans of military qua military.

>nyone trying to pigeonhole robert-heinlein into any of pejoratives e.g. fascist, racist, militarist etc. etc. has either an axe to grind, or has serious reading comprehension problems.

Pigeonhole as in "he was just/only a militarist" no.

But he was clearly a militarist.

I think it's a real stretch to say Heinlein had a fascist streak.

You'd be surprised.

http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/26352/did-heinlein-...

Perhaps, but to be so would require a line of argument, and a source, much more capably supporting the "Heinlein was a fascist" thesis than those. It would help for said source to be new, and it would help more for it to have some stronger claim to make than "he said a couple times that war probably isn't going away any time soon, therefore Mussolini".

I mean, don't get me wrong! I agree that you can see fascism in some of Heinlein's work. But you have to want to see it there. If that's the way in which you choose to appreciate his work, I don't suppose it's my place to tell you you're wrong, but I do think it's apropos that the place where we find ourselves discussing the matter is a thread originating in an article that explores a different sf author's perennial difficulty maintaining the distinction between perception and reality.

I thought he did pretty well with the film considering it was one of Heinlein's poorest books.

The movie shares little but the name with the book. I don't think of it as an adaptation.