I agree with you 100%! I vote for a legitimate, accurate remake! 🚀
One issue I thought was something that should be discussed. What about the idea that if you don’t serve you don’t vote? Even handicapped folks can do desk jobs and such in the military. Look at the guy at the intake desk with no legs. That’s one government job that would make sense for the reason behind it. 🤷
The other book is like to see as a good movie is IIRC Joe Haldeman’s “The Forever War.” Does that ring any bells?
If the society called everyone to service, and rewarded those who answered that call with citizenship rights, then the society would naturally tend to find ways to accommodate the largest number of people in work gainful toward the military--in some say.
Or, not: in the sense that it could afford to pick those it needed, physically and mentally, and exclude those it did not. In either case, the well-heeled could probably find means to ensure their sons and daughters are reasonably comfortable and out of significant danger, as least so long as they have no political aspirations. (REMFs not being well-regarded by those exposed to violence, come voting season.)
Depends on whether you think his physical issue was real or feigned. And it also depends on the status of recruiting/conscription at the time he was of age. Unlike Kerry and Gore, is it not clear that he had any political aspirations at the time and who wants to be the last to die in a lost war. For myself, I was unfit for a combat role (20/800 in my good eye) but it did correct so I suppose I could have been a REMF which I don't think is what the advocates are talking about.
With a Woke Pentagon that is very brave of you. The US (and later their allies) have long used the military for civil rights social engineering. The results speak for themselves.
I am vigorously in favour of rethinking the franchise but can't see it happening.
right, if only veterans could vote, there would be a fake military, fraud and corruption. We know that the military has been politicized by the communists. The universities turn out woke marxists by the tens of thousands, some of them go into the military, as we have repeatedly seen. I knew some myself. What's wrong with property owners or a test for the franchise?
At this point in time any reform of the franchise would probably end in farce. Property restrictions (which applied in the UK until the 20th c and which were later applied in Rhodesia) are largely meaningless in an economy with asset inflation from money printing and leveraged asset purchases.
Eventually a points system could be viable. Points awarded for the ownership of assets free of debt or the accrual of significant savings (especially in metallic currency such as silver, gold, platinum), the attainment of STEM degrees, trade certificates, military service (honourable discharge), heterosexual marriage, parentage. Only those who meet the cut-off vote.
The franchise should exclude naturalized citizens and definitely exclude convicted felons. Also assets held overseas should not accrue points at all. Voting-rights should be temporarily suspended for those on welfare.
The most effective idea I have been able to find for the franchise is also the simplest:
If you are a net taxpayer (you paid in more than you got in direct benefits, such as food stamps or housing assistance or whatever) and you are a citizen, you get the vote. If you aren't, you don't.
That's the simplest way to determine "skin in the game", which is what's really required.
are largely meaningless in an economy with asset inflation from money printing and leveraged asset purchases. You’re right but owning a home could be a point or two. The idea is actual owners have more stake in the game.
I'd also second, despite not being a voter in that system. Heinlein successfully convinced me of the system's feasibility after my second read-through.
If violence is the only way to contribute then ... hmmm.
Let's start with the complement to "No Taxation without Representation!", and see how that goes. That being:
"No Representation Without Taxation!"
Net beneficiaries of the system don't get to vote for more bennies at other's expense.
That alone would remove 99.9% of lefties from the political sphere. Human life being worth more than cash, veterans would be included since their pay is not a benefit but a token attempt at repayment.
That was more or less the direction of original voting rights, which were tied to land ownership and heads of households (i.e. men) who were expected by society to defend it when called.
I read "The Forever War" and didn't hate it per se, but it seems like a much more left-wing text, given the ultimate future of humanity is a literal-and-mandatory globohomo scenario, where all racial groups have merged in a uniform pale-brown gestalt and heterosexuality or conventional reproduction is borderline-criminal, a century or two before transhuman technology renders all biological characteristics mutable. It's been years, though, so I might be glossing over some nuance.
It was an intentional response to Starship Troopers and meant as a satire. It was a cynical Vietnam era book, where Starship Troopers is a World War II era book. GI generation versus Boomer generation.
I can't swear I remember, but I have some idea that the novel doesn't endorse the change into humanoid drone society, it just describes it as a consequence of technological development.
Don't the real humans - the time-displaced vets - get a planet of their own to settle down on, that they name "Middle Finger"?
Could be I'm mixing the novel up with some adaption or other work inspired by it.
As I remember, the two main characters end up on a planet where heterosexuality and reproduction is practiced to keep human genetic diversity preserved. So the tacit point is made that the homoclone philosophy has its vulnerabilities.
Haldeman was an interesting guy, very cynical about anything the government did. He was left, certainly, but with a very wide libertarian streak. I used to run into him occasionally at a coffeeshop. We never discussed his books or politics; he seemed past all that. We talked about gardening, diet, and whether the city water was safe to drink. He didn't think so.
Lived in the same town, Gainesville, and had some of the same friends among the political castouts. I was not close to him, just had a few conversations over coffee.
In the book, the recruiter is the same, but later on Rico sees him up and walking around with prosthetics. Although his real job is to scare away the people who can't stomach it, and those who can are the ones that are wanted. However, when it comes to voting, whilst I think service in the military (or law enforcement) is the best, I think a taxpaying man with a wife and kids should also be allowed to vote as he has a stake and he pays into the system.
Only a tiny percentage do their citizenship-tour of duty as military. The majority are on non-combat jobs (testing survial suits on Titan is mentioned, as is working in underground hydroponic facilities in Antarctica), and the recruitment sergeant points out that if you came in blind and deaf-mute and lame but still insisted on serving which is your right and privilege - they'd find you something to do.
His suggestion, counting the fuzz on caterpillars by hand. The point of the service is to make budding citizen value what he/she has gained, because it came with a real cost. Paying taxes isn't the same, because it tells next to nothing about the character of the one doing it, and that spiritual component, that deep instinctive understanding of how to balance the rights and freedoms of the private individual and the needs and demands of the collective, without resorting to oppression and coercion, is one of the main points of the system sketched out by Heinlein.
Nah, keep it open. Plenty of stuff needs doing, that isn't profitable do to, and in a high-tech military, you don't need more than a few percent if that of available material. I'm singularly unsuited to military service, if the conscription officer of my teens is to be believed, to use a real example.
Plus an oft-forgotten feature: it's not just franchise, it's the privilege to run for office that you earn as a veteran.
How many Canadian politicians of today do you think would offer up two years of their life when they come of age, picking garbage and cutting weeds along the railroads (f.e.) to be able to have a political career later in life?
I can't shake the idea that the likes of Trudeau or vond der Leyen here in the EU, would never -ever- do anything like that.
It very much depends on what counts as "service". The problem with widening it beyond the military is that it opens the possibility to cozy postings which an aristocracy could game. Of course that could happen in a purely military system as well...
Much like the British aristocracy purchasing commissions for their younger sons. The key test however, is; are you willing to put yourself in harms way.
Once something is used as a metric and that becomes known, it's usefulness as a metric decreases.
The Chinee noticed this a thousand or so years ago, and changed up their civil service entrance exams every few years because of it. Exactly the same as how our current standardized tests are supposed to select for "X" but instead they all select for whoever is good at pattern recognition.
There are no magic bullets for creating a good system; no magic words on paper.
I could knit something together on the theme of it depending on what kind of service, and if they were up at the front or not, but that'd be specious (or maybe fallacious and Ad Hoc would be more correct), since not all serve at the front even in open war.
Maybe a lottery instead?
But then we get "who watches the watchers who oversees the tombola?" anyway.
Paying taxes comes with a significant cost. Working the job, producing a surplus, sticking at it, and not being a parasite takes a lot of time and money away from family and preferences.
In my (unattainable) universe, people who are not net-taxpayers (excluding the crippled, widowed etc) should and would be shunned.
Luckily for les autres, I am barely in charge of my own destiny, nevermind others' :-)
My nation once had a system where the right to vote was tied to being a tax payer, and where you had votes accordsing to your amount of personal fortune.
It was even worse than the current one: the rich voted in such ways as to limit ways for the poorer masses to work themselves out of poverty (and thereby gaining franchise), and also voted into effect punitive taxes for anyone too poor to not qualifying for deductions, subsidies and so on.
Maybe you’re right, I was just thinking of multiple ways to serve, but you pointed that out well. It’s been a while since I’ve read the book, I should read it again.
The current federal tax system is set in stone only during Congressional recesses. State and local taxes are set in stone only when the state congresses are on a break or there is no feel-good fix-it initiative or referendum on the ballot for the good voters to decide on.
Great essay. I’m with you in originally not liking the movie because I loved the book but being happy that the right eventually ignored the dumb parts and now appreciates the movie for what it is. An accurate movie version of it would be astounding.
Heinlein made clear in the novel that anyone who serves in either civil or military service earns the vote. My personal opinion is that vote should be restricted to one per family as was in Greece and Rome since every family was expected to fight and not sit out.
How did you get hold of my copy of "Starship Troopers"?
Because the one in the photo looks almost identical to it.
I came to ST by way of WH40K, a game and game-world I've inhabited since its inception in 1987, and to me the original description and depiction of the Emperor's Angels of Death will always be how I see the MI:
MkV-MkVI Power Armour, with the classic, nay the real, helmet. The Beakie. Jump-pack, hand flamer, crack* and frag grenades, combat knife, bolt pistol - how can one not fall in love with the idea of a 20mm Gauss/gryojet-weapon firing ammo that explodes inside the target? And...
...the chainsword, taken from the pages of 2000ADs "Nemesis the Warlock"** and made into pure glory incarnate and incarnadine!
Ahem.
Right, ST and The Debate that needn't be, if modern-day "Marxists"*** knew anything but that word when it comes to their ideology. The Federation is not communist, that's for sure, but remember we only have Rico's perspective and knowledge - we do not have an omniscient narrator telling us things. We know there are unions powerful enough to lobby the Federation's upper echelon for being a merchant marine counting as franchise-awarding service - the fight-scene when the cadets are on leave tells us this. We know police, judges et c must be veterans, as must the teachers of a certain subject. A course that is mandatory (on Earth, and in all its nations) and must be taken, but without any grade attached. A course that is virtual political programming, from what we see in the novel.
Point being, if the so-called Marxists had three-digit IQs they'd realise that there's plenty in the description of the Federation that speaks to it being a mixed-economy: an idea now asleep, but alive and well when the novel was written. Some things, the state does best because there's no real way of making them profitable, monetarily speaking, and all others are best handled by people themselves. The scenes at the testing centre are in part about that separation: the state (the Federation's military in this case) hires people as needed, but those are not veterans nor citizens. One of the doctors Rico speaks with makes this very clear.
But the bottom line is, calling the Federation fascist or communist or liberal (classical, not present day "fejk and ghey") or any -ism is missing the main point:
Which is, you do what works because it works and you keep doing it because it is what works. Rasczak says it more or less erbatim, if I recall correctly.
And that's the point: it works, therefore it is right. The people you engaged with online, John, in the referenced bits above, thinks that if it's right, it works.
---
*For younger fellow commenters, back in the 1980s we had this thing called freedom of expression, which meant that only nitwits and scoldblooded neverfucks thought "crack grenade" would have anything to do with drugs. Today, you're not that lucky, so you're stuck with "krak" grenades, because if it'd been spelled the original way, why you might of start doing drugs, you widdle Timmy you.
**Get the collected edition today. Virtually all "grim-dark" (and grim-dork too!) sci-fi in games, music and art owes as much to this comic as does post-apoc to Mad Max or cyberpunk to Bladerunner. Be Pure! Be Vigilant! Behave!
***Lenin would send them all to a kolchoz, for being counter-revolutionary degenarates!
The Federation is deeply pragmatic, rather than ideological. This is also made clear in the justification for limiting the franchise to veterans: everyone capable of violently overthrowing the state is inside the state, which stabilizes the state.
The cover art for that edition is the best I've ever seen for ST. But then, I'm biased.
Political and realist pragmatism has come to be - rightly and wrongly - associated with fascism and fascistoid ideologies and power-structures, within the general greater field of the humanities and social sciences, especially since the neo-liberal mainline theory became the norm in the 1990s:
For Marxists, denigrating pragmatism and realism/realpolitik makes sense, since (as you pointed out) they then don't have to adress real issue, only points based on dogma and otrhodox adherence to scripture. I use those terms deliberately since ignoring reality oer dogma is a common theme among all at-their-core totalist cults.
For neo-liberals, it also makes sense since the can fall back on only measuring reality using units of currency and increases in currency supply/amounts as the measure of progress and function(ality). Thus to them it matters not if migration (f.e.) helps create 15% unemployment, since the economy has grown and the corporations has made eer-increasing prophets, sorry profits.
Possibly, the mutual benefits of making pragmatism and realism villainy, ideas-wise, is one of the ontological (if I'm to use big words) reasons for the seemingly schizoid alliance between neoliberals in office and post-modern "Marxist" street-thugs, with the media acting as a handmaid to help them get it on.
"[T]he Hollywood trick of putting true things you want to discredit in the mouth of the bad guy, in order to refute them, not by arguing against them, but by getting the audience to associate those ideas with villainy ... It’s a neat, emotionally manipulative trick, and they’ve been doing this for decades."
In Dr Strangelove (filmed 1963), opposition to the fluoridation of water supplies was discredited by making it the leading obsession of the paranoid General Ripper. He tells his reluctant listeners that fluoridation is "the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all our precious bodily fluids."
There had been a lively debate during the previous decade, with sober, establishment figures on both sides arguing over toxicity and infringement of rights, but after Strangelove, people tended to associate opposition with the lunatic fringe.
The topic seems at first to be an arbitrary imposition on the film, a kind of (government) product placement, but there's a veiled sexual metaphor running through the film, so it's possible that Kubrick needed Ripper's "bodily fluids" monologues to flag up the metaphor early in the film.
Whatever Kubrick's reasons, though, it's easy even today to find NPC types who think they win the argument on fluoridation simply by citing Dr Strangelove.
Steven Spielberg did the reverse of this in "Third encounters", in the scene where the "experts" are debating wirnesses to events. There's a man, a stereotypical hick, who starts spouting off nonsense to the protests of the other witnesses but his is the testimony shown on camera/on air to the public, and the wink he gives a government suit in the scene makes the set-up and trick clear:
Discredit all witnesses in advance.
The acting and the scene is so subtle, I've missed it every time I've seen it until I rewatched it last year when I was purposefully looking for background details and such. I wonder what else Spielberg hid throughout his earlier stuff.
Superb essay. I’d just like to add to your comment juxtaposing the seemingly opposite philosophies of Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land; the fact is those two novels were written SIMULTANEOUSLY. Heinlein started SIASL in late 1957. Halfway through, in April 1958, he read a pacifist editorial in the local newspaper that engraved him so much, he put the manuscript aside and began Starship Troopers. Completed in three months, he sent it off to his agent and only then returned to Valentine Michael Smith. So clearly he saw no conflict.
This is something a lot of people forget about the Joes. They're the ones who really got the ball running on the transformation of the West into today. They supported FDR's socialist government. They were the first to really do the free love during the war, thanks to new medical methods that fixes the STDs. Many homosexuals met each other in the service and networked that would become the foundation of Globoho world. They pushed for no-fault divorce. And a lot other things. Sure, they would become more conservative as the Cold War got underway, but they still held on to their youthful liberalism even in face of rising crime and social failures. Otherwise, they and the more right-minded Boomers would have revolted during the 1970s, and they were very close to it in Peter Turchin's opinion. They were many good aspects about the Joes to copy. Just be aware that they came with some heavy baggage.
You win the Internet. That's a reference I haven't seen in longer than since I last watched Starship Troopers.
Also, this was educational, because I've apparently been interpreting that movie wrong this entire time. I always saw it as a satire of wartime propaganda and a deeply meta parody of ignorant, sheltered civilian ideas of what the military and war are actually like, a sort of "unreliable narrator" account of the actual story... Which I suppose it kind of is, except that the unreliable narrator in this case turns out to have been the screenwriter rather than just a narrative framing device.
Something similar happened in Brasil with "Elite Squad". The movie depicts a captain of a special ops team of the Rio de Janeiro police whose specialty is to enter favelas and kill drug dealers and their enforcers. The movie was directed by a leftist, and he intended to denounce police brutality including torture. Brazilian people are so fed up with crimes that the captain immediately became a national symbol of integrity and harshness towards corruption and druglords. Needless to say, said director "apologized" in "Elite Squad 2" with a complete change of tone, although this second movie is still good. Despite "Elite Squad" winning best movie at the Berlin festival, it wasn't registered for a shot at the oscars, most likely because the producers and the director wouldn't want hollywood to think they were "fascists"
I loved Elite Squad. Had no idea that it was meant to be satire. Was cheering for the cops the whole time. Even laughed out loud at one of the Ziploc bag torture scenes (the one where the cop promises the girl "I promise, no torture", and then it immediately cuts to him punching a guy with a bag over his head).
Stellar screenplay -- probably better than Verhoeven's original, to be fair.
Still, the cult-classic stands strong, even if he fucked up his inept attempt at satire. "Would you like to know more?" has become immortalized as a phrase. Strong analysis.
Setting aside the fact that a Starship Troopers remake would reduce Disney to near-fatal heart palpitations, they REALLY need something like that after the disastrous trash heap that was Snow White (2024).
John's right: there's no timeline where they do this. Despite them deciding to completely fuck the original, they still blame its bombing on Rachel Zegler. And sure, Rachel was insufferable, but she is just one part of the rotten pie that is the remake.
One assumes Disney will be much further down the financial toilet before they have any inkling that they should change. It'll be too late by then. And good riddance -- they haven't made anything decent for years, perhaps even decades (unsure about this claim).
“John Carter” - the self-defeating Holly-weird propaganda reminded me of a pro-Palestinian game designer’s attempt to propagandize children with a silly game in which “Israelis” got ample points by blowing up kids’ hospitals and packed schools while other players getting meager points playing the Palestinian role shooting Israeli soldiers. Sadly (or gladly perhaps) the game designer’s attempt misunderstood children’s’ mentalities: they like to win. So game players relished taking the Israeli side and, co-incidentally, got to relish the animated scenes of children’s’ clinics and schools getting exploded with kids’ body parts flying around!
Well now you explained why I relished Starship Troopers while never once noticed I was supposed to being “indoctrinated” into Antifa simplicity! 😆
same, man. First time I think I was like 10 ... Maybe a bit younger, even. As you can see from the picture of the copy I still have, I read it many, many more times after. Probably had more impact on my political outlook than anything else I've ever read.
FWIW I recall reading that the Bugs are specifically meant to represent the ChiComs and the Norks. But of course, they in turn are merely the worst of the worst of the Commies.
But I had the same reaction you did when the movie came out. Ironic that it's gotten so thoroughly turned on its head!
Flashback city! Not to the movie, which undoubtedly had Heinlein spinning in his grave at a high RPM. No, my flashback was to the Heinlein original, which I read when it was first published.
I've been reading Heinlein since 1956, when I was only 12 years old. Starship Troopers and The Puppet Masters were excellent. Stranger in a Strange Land was even better.
But the one I've been hoping for decades to see on the big screen (and now the CGI is capable of rendering it as I pictured it in my mind) is The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.
That such a huge variety of science fiction could come out of one brain still astounds me. Heinlein was "da GOAT". I pride myself on reading everything that Heinlein ever published--- including the marvelous juvenile novels of the 1950s...
I'm sure Heinlein was tarred and feathered for obvious reasons. Dick's work didn't deal with such "problematic ideas" (and let's be fair, Dick is brilliant, too). His thinking stretched beyond his age in political terms -- a problem and/or threat for an establishment (Hollywood) that's always held a particular bent. Even if it wasn't so overt back in those days, it was still there.
I can't claim to recommend "best," but I can suggest what I liked. Everybody's already said pretty much all there is to say about Starship Troopers. So I won't mention that again.
Here are some of my other favorites, in no particular order:
- Stranger in a Strange Land
- The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress
- Tunnel in the Sky (written for juveniles, but I still like it)
- Red Planet (same)
- Citizen of the Galaxy
- Glory Road
- Farnham's Freehold
- Time Enough for Love (the Notebooks of Lazarus Long inclusion in this one alone is worth the price of the book)
I know I'm forgetting some other good ones, but these will get you started.
Interesting note: Heinlein was medically retired early from the Navy before WW-II broke out. Once the war started, he went to work at a U.S. government lab (in Philadelphia, I believe). One of his co-workers there was Isaac Asimov. There was at least one other of the "Golden Age of Science Fiction" authors there, too. Can't remember who it was, but it might have been E.E. Smith. (Can you imagine what coffee breaks in the employees' lounge must've been like?! 😲)
My copy looks a lot like that as well. I should say one of my copies, because I also have a nice hardcover copy that's easier on my old eyes.
And my lovely wife gave me for my birthday a signed First Edition, which you may gaze upon but not actually touch.
I like your draft of the opening bit -- it's how I'd envision the movie, if it were made well. Maybe a bit grittier than the movie in my mind, but I think it's a fair interpretation. Totally agree with your comments regarding that abomination of a movie.
Funny thing was that when I started reading this article I was confused, because I never watched the opening of the movie. I was thinking "did I miss this?"
Then I kept reading and returned to "yes, this movie was garbage."
I'm all for a true telling remake of ST. Heinlein was a master story teller.
What we really need is a true telling movie of Lucifer's Hammer. That might wake up some of these zombies. That book is what sent my SIL into nursing as she wanted to not be "for the road".
Verhoeven's film adaptation of Starship Troopers became a cult-classic almost by mistake; I don't think he ever really understood Heinlein's book, and thus, perhaps fueled by drugs and a complete inability to comprehend a society beyond one in which he swam, he made a strangely inept Starship Troopers which was meant to be a satire critique, but was in fact highly vulnerable to subversion.
Perhaps more importantly, despite the film's many flaws -- those which you do a great job of outlining -- it's still a cult-classic loved by many. "Would you like to know more?" has become infamous and ubiquitous among vast swathes of the population, regardless of political alignment. The whole film is littered with hilarious moments. Hell, even the relationships -- the pinnacle of which was Dizzy taking off her top -- are almost compelling. Almost. Trite, but devilishly funny. What teenage boy could resist?
Combine all of that with a kind of bravado and pro-humanism that permeates the narrative -- despite Verhoeven's intentions, perhaps? -- and you've got a film that many (myself included) come back to time and time again.
And the memes, Gods, the memes! The film is the gift that keeps on giving (yes, I grew up watching it and haven't read the book (: ... yet!).
I really do -- especially since I'll be embarking on a massive sci-fi writing project in the coming year.
Right now, I'm reading the Deathworld omnibus by Harry Harrison, a childhood favourite full of hidden gems and fantastic characters (old man bought it for me knowing how much we both love it). I've a bit of a sci-fi reading list for the next 6 months, so I suppose I'll have to add it!
Theft of Fire is on that list, too, but are there any others that you'd recommend? I'd say the project resembles an Event Horizon style backstory set in a Lovecraftian universe. Super excited for it!
Major dick move, no doubt about it, but I can't say I'm surprised. For me it's hard to completely condemn the guy because his arrogance led to him fucking up his own satire completely, resulting in a strange film that is almost universally loved, and serves as a kind of cautionary tale about ideological film making.
The film -- however mangled, plot hole-ridden, and cooky -- is still a lot of fun. I can't hate Verhoeven for it; he's a product of his time above all else.
Verhoeven never read the book. He boasts about it. Says he put it down after several pages because he was repulsed by its "fascist" themes. And there you have it.
Riddle me this. What's more revolting, attempting to interpret an author you vehemently disagree with, or not even bothering to _read_ their work because you have your mind made up. Exactly.
I agree with you 100%! I vote for a legitimate, accurate remake! 🚀
One issue I thought was something that should be discussed. What about the idea that if you don’t serve you don’t vote? Even handicapped folks can do desk jobs and such in the military. Look at the guy at the intake desk with no legs. That’s one government job that would make sense for the reason behind it. 🤷
The other book is like to see as a good movie is IIRC Joe Haldeman’s “The Forever War.” Does that ring any bells?
I'm generally in favor of limiting the franchise to military veterans.
So John Kerry instead of Donald Trump.
Oof.
Though I suspect if we had this system, Trump would have served.
If the society called everyone to service, and rewarded those who answered that call with citizenship rights, then the society would naturally tend to find ways to accommodate the largest number of people in work gainful toward the military--in some say.
Or, not: in the sense that it could afford to pick those it needed, physically and mentally, and exclude those it did not. In either case, the well-heeled could probably find means to ensure their sons and daughters are reasonably comfortable and out of significant danger, as least so long as they have no political aspirations. (REMFs not being well-regarded by those exposed to violence, come voting season.)
Depends on whether you think his physical issue was real or feigned. And it also depends on the status of recruiting/conscription at the time he was of age. Unlike Kerry and Gore, is it not clear that he had any political aspirations at the time and who wants to be the last to die in a lost war. For myself, I was unfit for a combat role (20/800 in my good eye) but it did correct so I suppose I could have been a REMF which I don't think is what the advocates are talking about.
With a Woke Pentagon that is very brave of you. The US (and later their allies) have long used the military for civil rights social engineering. The results speak for themselves.
I am vigorously in favour of rethinking the franchise but can't see it happening.
right, if only veterans could vote, there would be a fake military, fraud and corruption. We know that the military has been politicized by the communists. The universities turn out woke marxists by the tens of thousands, some of them go into the military, as we have repeatedly seen. I knew some myself. What's wrong with property owners or a test for the franchise?
At this point in time any reform of the franchise would probably end in farce. Property restrictions (which applied in the UK until the 20th c and which were later applied in Rhodesia) are largely meaningless in an economy with asset inflation from money printing and leveraged asset purchases.
Eventually a points system could be viable. Points awarded for the ownership of assets free of debt or the accrual of significant savings (especially in metallic currency such as silver, gold, platinum), the attainment of STEM degrees, trade certificates, military service (honourable discharge), heterosexual marriage, parentage. Only those who meet the cut-off vote.
The franchise should exclude naturalized citizens and definitely exclude convicted felons. Also assets held overseas should not accrue points at all. Voting-rights should be temporarily suspended for those on welfare.
The most effective idea I have been able to find for the franchise is also the simplest:
If you are a net taxpayer (you paid in more than you got in direct benefits, such as food stamps or housing assistance or whatever) and you are a citizen, you get the vote. If you aren't, you don't.
That's the simplest way to determine "skin in the game", which is what's really required.
very good points and sound ideas. …..
are largely meaningless in an economy with asset inflation from money printing and leveraged asset purchases. You’re right but owning a home could be a point or two. The idea is actual owners have more stake in the game.
Second the motion ... (Of course, I can say this, since I'd be voting under that mandate.)
I'd also second, despite not being a voter in that system. Heinlein successfully convinced me of the system's feasibility after my second read-through.
If violence is the only way to contribute then ... hmmm.
Let's start with the complement to "No Taxation without Representation!", and see how that goes. That being:
"No Representation Without Taxation!"
Net beneficiaries of the system don't get to vote for more bennies at other's expense.
That alone would remove 99.9% of lefties from the political sphere. Human life being worth more than cash, veterans would be included since their pay is not a benefit but a token attempt at repayment.
That was more or less the direction of original voting rights, which were tied to land ownership and heads of households (i.e. men) who were expected by society to defend it when called.
I read "The Forever War" and didn't hate it per se, but it seems like a much more left-wing text, given the ultimate future of humanity is a literal-and-mandatory globohomo scenario, where all racial groups have merged in a uniform pale-brown gestalt and heterosexuality or conventional reproduction is borderline-criminal, a century or two before transhuman technology renders all biological characteristics mutable. It's been years, though, so I might be glossing over some nuance.
Forever War was a good book, but yes, extremely left in orientation.
It was an intentional response to Starship Troopers and meant as a satire. It was a cynical Vietnam era book, where Starship Troopers is a World War II era book. GI generation versus Boomer generation.
Pretty much.
I didn't read it that way. Yes, humanity evolved into the Khan, but the hero and his lady rejected that outcome and migrated to a human colony planet.
Surviving Vietnam required cynicism and thev eterans' literature necessarily reflects that.
I read the obit and assessment of William Calley a couple of years ago.
My recollection is that Haldeman said as much, but I would have read that decades ago so I can't give you a cite.
The military in Forever War was like Obama's military. It turned everything gay.
I can't swear I remember, but I have some idea that the novel doesn't endorse the change into humanoid drone society, it just describes it as a consequence of technological development.
Don't the real humans - the time-displaced vets - get a planet of their own to settle down on, that they name "Middle Finger"?
Could be I'm mixing the novel up with some adaption or other work inspired by it.
Yeah, but "inevitable outcome of impersonal historical forces" is a very left wing take.
As I remember, the two main characters end up on a planet where heterosexuality and reproduction is practiced to keep human genetic diversity preserved. So the tacit point is made that the homoclone philosophy has its vulnerabilities.
Maybe. Like I said, it's been a while since I picked it up, so I might be glossing over important details.
There was a joke among the Soviets, at about that time, that when they took over the world, they'd keep Switzerland capitalist, to set prices.
Haldeman was an interesting guy, very cynical about anything the government did. He was left, certainly, but with a very wide libertarian streak. I used to run into him occasionally at a coffeeshop. We never discussed his books or politics; he seemed past all that. We talked about gardening, diet, and whether the city water was safe to drink. He didn't think so.
Did you work at the same company/institution, out of curiosity?
Lived in the same town, Gainesville, and had some of the same friends among the political castouts. I was not close to him, just had a few conversations over coffee.
He was a wounded combat veteran of the Vietbam war, which would probably explain his cynicism about the gummint.
Loved the book, liked the Bug Hunt movie version of it. But definitely a true-to-the-book movie re-make should be done.
In the book, the recruiter is the same, but later on Rico sees him up and walking around with prosthetics. Although his real job is to scare away the people who can't stomach it, and those who can are the ones that are wanted. However, when it comes to voting, whilst I think service in the military (or law enforcement) is the best, I think a taxpaying man with a wife and kids should also be allowed to vote as he has a stake and he pays into the system.
Getting my besserwisser on:
Only a tiny percentage do their citizenship-tour of duty as military. The majority are on non-combat jobs (testing survial suits on Titan is mentioned, as is working in underground hydroponic facilities in Antarctica), and the recruitment sergeant points out that if you came in blind and deaf-mute and lame but still insisted on serving which is your right and privilege - they'd find you something to do.
His suggestion, counting the fuzz on caterpillars by hand. The point of the service is to make budding citizen value what he/she has gained, because it came with a real cost. Paying taxes isn't the same, because it tells next to nothing about the character of the one doing it, and that spiritual component, that deep instinctive understanding of how to balance the rights and freedoms of the private individual and the needs and demands of the collective, without resorting to oppression and coercion, is one of the main points of the system sketched out by Heinlein.
Exactly correct.
Although personally I would suggest limiting service to the military, or similarly dangerous occupations.
Nah, keep it open. Plenty of stuff needs doing, that isn't profitable do to, and in a high-tech military, you don't need more than a few percent if that of available material. I'm singularly unsuited to military service, if the conscription officer of my teens is to be believed, to use a real example.
Plus an oft-forgotten feature: it's not just franchise, it's the privilege to run for office that you earn as a veteran.
How many Canadian politicians of today do you think would offer up two years of their life when they come of age, picking garbage and cutting weeds along the railroads (f.e.) to be able to have a political career later in life?
I can't shake the idea that the likes of Trudeau or vond der Leyen here in the EU, would never -ever- do anything like that.
Whereas people like most of your readers would.
It very much depends on what counts as "service". The problem with widening it beyond the military is that it opens the possibility to cozy postings which an aristocracy could game. Of course that could happen in a purely military system as well...
Much like the British aristocracy purchasing commissions for their younger sons. The key test however, is; are you willing to put yourself in harms way.
Don't know about Canada but John Kerry and Al Gore did exactly that. Enlisted to further their future political ambitions.
Once something is used as a metric and that becomes known, it's usefulness as a metric decreases.
The Chinee noticed this a thousand or so years ago, and changed up their civil service entrance exams every few years because of it. Exactly the same as how our current standardized tests are supposed to select for "X" but instead they all select for whoever is good at pattern recognition.
There are no magic bullets for creating a good system; no magic words on paper.
Military service isn't mandatory in the US but it is an unofficial part of the cursus honorum.
Annoyingly good point, I must confess.
I could knit something together on the theme of it depending on what kind of service, and if they were up at the front or not, but that'd be specious (or maybe fallacious and Ad Hoc would be more correct), since not all serve at the front even in open war.
Maybe a lottery instead?
But then we get "who watches the watchers who oversees the tombola?" anyway.
"Show us your wounds!" the Romans would cry to any man standing for election to the consulship.
Paying taxes comes with a significant cost. Working the job, producing a surplus, sticking at it, and not being a parasite takes a lot of time and money away from family and preferences.
In my (unattainable) universe, people who are not net-taxpayers (excluding the crippled, widowed etc) should and would be shunned.
Luckily for les autres, I am barely in charge of my own destiny, nevermind others' :-)
My nation once had a system where the right to vote was tied to being a tax payer, and where you had votes accordsing to your amount of personal fortune.
It was even worse than the current one: the rich voted in such ways as to limit ways for the poorer masses to work themselves out of poverty (and thereby gaining franchise), and also voted into effect punitive taxes for anyone too poor to not qualifying for deductions, subsidies and so on.
And, it almost led to civil war.
"where you had votes accordsing to your amount of personal fortune."
That was the problem, not the first part.
Maybe you’re right, I was just thinking of multiple ways to serve, but you pointed that out well. It’s been a while since I’ve read the book, I should read it again.
Thanks for the reminder! And an excellent reflection on the purpose of citizenship in the context.
Even people on welfare pay taxes. So, Nope.
To be fair, I did say only families who pay taxes. Not welfare leeches, but I stand corrected anyhow.
Who says the current tax system is set in stone?
The current federal tax system is set in stone only during Congressional recesses. State and local taxes are set in stone only when the state congresses are on a break or there is no feel-good fix-it initiative or referendum on the ballot for the good voters to decide on.
Military or an ounce of gold to vote in federal elections.
What does that mean, an ounce of gold? Do you mean one has to have an ounce of gold?
Great essay. I’m with you in originally not liking the movie because I loved the book but being happy that the right eventually ignored the dumb parts and now appreciates the movie for what it is. An accurate movie version of it would be astounding.
Heinlein made clear in the novel that anyone who serves in either civil or military service earns the vote. My personal opinion is that vote should be restricted to one per family as was in Greece and Rome since every family was expected to fight and not sit out.
"One vote per child you raise without assistance" is the suggestion I've made elsewhere. Maybe you get another vote for army service?
The intake guy is a veteran, disabled in action.
How did you get hold of my copy of "Starship Troopers"?
Because the one in the photo looks almost identical to it.
I came to ST by way of WH40K, a game and game-world I've inhabited since its inception in 1987, and to me the original description and depiction of the Emperor's Angels of Death will always be how I see the MI:
MkV-MkVI Power Armour, with the classic, nay the real, helmet. The Beakie. Jump-pack, hand flamer, crack* and frag grenades, combat knife, bolt pistol - how can one not fall in love with the idea of a 20mm Gauss/gryojet-weapon firing ammo that explodes inside the target? And...
...the chainsword, taken from the pages of 2000ADs "Nemesis the Warlock"** and made into pure glory incarnate and incarnadine!
Ahem.
Right, ST and The Debate that needn't be, if modern-day "Marxists"*** knew anything but that word when it comes to their ideology. The Federation is not communist, that's for sure, but remember we only have Rico's perspective and knowledge - we do not have an omniscient narrator telling us things. We know there are unions powerful enough to lobby the Federation's upper echelon for being a merchant marine counting as franchise-awarding service - the fight-scene when the cadets are on leave tells us this. We know police, judges et c must be veterans, as must the teachers of a certain subject. A course that is mandatory (on Earth, and in all its nations) and must be taken, but without any grade attached. A course that is virtual political programming, from what we see in the novel.
Point being, if the so-called Marxists had three-digit IQs they'd realise that there's plenty in the description of the Federation that speaks to it being a mixed-economy: an idea now asleep, but alive and well when the novel was written. Some things, the state does best because there's no real way of making them profitable, monetarily speaking, and all others are best handled by people themselves. The scenes at the testing centre are in part about that separation: the state (the Federation's military in this case) hires people as needed, but those are not veterans nor citizens. One of the doctors Rico speaks with makes this very clear.
But the bottom line is, calling the Federation fascist or communist or liberal (classical, not present day "fejk and ghey") or any -ism is missing the main point:
Which is, you do what works because it works and you keep doing it because it is what works. Rasczak says it more or less erbatim, if I recall correctly.
And that's the point: it works, therefore it is right. The people you engaged with online, John, in the referenced bits above, thinks that if it's right, it works.
---
*For younger fellow commenters, back in the 1980s we had this thing called freedom of expression, which meant that only nitwits and scoldblooded neverfucks thought "crack grenade" would have anything to do with drugs. Today, you're not that lucky, so you're stuck with "krak" grenades, because if it'd been spelled the original way, why you might of start doing drugs, you widdle Timmy you.
**Get the collected edition today. Virtually all "grim-dark" (and grim-dork too!) sci-fi in games, music and art owes as much to this comic as does post-apoc to Mad Max or cyberpunk to Bladerunner. Be Pure! Be Vigilant! Behave!
***Lenin would send them all to a kolchoz, for being counter-revolutionary degenarates!
The Federation is deeply pragmatic, rather than ideological. This is also made clear in the justification for limiting the franchise to veterans: everyone capable of violently overthrowing the state is inside the state, which stabilizes the state.
The cover art for that edition is the best I've ever seen for ST. But then, I'm biased.
Political and realist pragmatism has come to be - rightly and wrongly - associated with fascism and fascistoid ideologies and power-structures, within the general greater field of the humanities and social sciences, especially since the neo-liberal mainline theory became the norm in the 1990s:
For Marxists, denigrating pragmatism and realism/realpolitik makes sense, since (as you pointed out) they then don't have to adress real issue, only points based on dogma and otrhodox adherence to scripture. I use those terms deliberately since ignoring reality oer dogma is a common theme among all at-their-core totalist cults.
For neo-liberals, it also makes sense since the can fall back on only measuring reality using units of currency and increases in currency supply/amounts as the measure of progress and function(ality). Thus to them it matters not if migration (f.e.) helps create 15% unemployment, since the economy has grown and the corporations has made eer-increasing prophets, sorry profits.
Possibly, the mutual benefits of making pragmatism and realism villainy, ideas-wise, is one of the ontological (if I'm to use big words) reasons for the seemingly schizoid alliance between neoliberals in office and post-modern "Marxist" street-thugs, with the media acting as a handmaid to help them get it on.
"[T]he Hollywood trick of putting true things you want to discredit in the mouth of the bad guy, in order to refute them, not by arguing against them, but by getting the audience to associate those ideas with villainy ... It’s a neat, emotionally manipulative trick, and they’ve been doing this for decades."
In Dr Strangelove (filmed 1963), opposition to the fluoridation of water supplies was discredited by making it the leading obsession of the paranoid General Ripper. He tells his reluctant listeners that fluoridation is "the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all our precious bodily fluids."
There had been a lively debate during the previous decade, with sober, establishment figures on both sides arguing over toxicity and infringement of rights, but after Strangelove, people tended to associate opposition with the lunatic fringe.
The topic seems at first to be an arbitrary imposition on the film, a kind of (government) product placement, but there's a veiled sexual metaphor running through the film, so it's possible that Kubrick needed Ripper's "bodily fluids" monologues to flag up the metaphor early in the film.
Whatever Kubrick's reasons, though, it's easy even today to find NPC types who think they win the argument on fluoridation simply by citing Dr Strangelove.
That is one of the best examples of this technique.
Steven Spielberg did the reverse of this in "Third encounters", in the scene where the "experts" are debating wirnesses to events. There's a man, a stereotypical hick, who starts spouting off nonsense to the protests of the other witnesses but his is the testimony shown on camera/on air to the public, and the wink he gives a government suit in the scene makes the set-up and trick clear:
Discredit all witnesses in advance.
The acting and the scene is so subtle, I've missed it every time I've seen it until I rewatched it last year when I was purposefully looking for background details and such. I wonder what else Spielberg hid throughout his earlier stuff.
Superb essay. I’d just like to add to your comment juxtaposing the seemingly opposite philosophies of Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land; the fact is those two novels were written SIMULTANEOUSLY. Heinlein started SIASL in late 1957. Halfway through, in April 1958, he read a pacifist editorial in the local newspaper that engraved him so much, he put the manuscript aside and began Starship Troopers. Completed in three months, he sent it off to his agent and only then returned to Valentine Michael Smith. So clearly he saw no conflict.
He absolutely saw no conflict. Heinlein was a libertarian - he liked fun things. War is fun. Sex is fun. Technology is fun. Exploration is fun. Etc.
This is something a lot of people forget about the Joes. They're the ones who really got the ball running on the transformation of the West into today. They supported FDR's socialist government. They were the first to really do the free love during the war, thanks to new medical methods that fixes the STDs. Many homosexuals met each other in the service and networked that would become the foundation of Globoho world. They pushed for no-fault divorce. And a lot other things. Sure, they would become more conservative as the Cold War got underway, but they still held on to their youthful liberalism even in face of rising crime and social failures. Otherwise, they and the more right-minded Boomers would have revolted during the 1970s, and they were very close to it in Peter Turchin's opinion. They were many good aspects about the Joes to copy. Just be aware that they came with some heavy baggage.
Yes. And the pursuit of safety is the enemy of joy.
"Hoist, petard."
You win the Internet. That's a reference I haven't seen in longer than since I last watched Starship Troopers.
Also, this was educational, because I've apparently been interpreting that movie wrong this entire time. I always saw it as a satire of wartime propaganda and a deeply meta parody of ignorant, sheltered civilian ideas of what the military and war are actually like, a sort of "unreliable narrator" account of the actual story... Which I suppose it kind of is, except that the unreliable narrator in this case turns out to have been the screenwriter rather than just a narrative framing device.
Something similar happened in Brasil with "Elite Squad". The movie depicts a captain of a special ops team of the Rio de Janeiro police whose specialty is to enter favelas and kill drug dealers and their enforcers. The movie was directed by a leftist, and he intended to denounce police brutality including torture. Brazilian people are so fed up with crimes that the captain immediately became a national symbol of integrity and harshness towards corruption and druglords. Needless to say, said director "apologized" in "Elite Squad 2" with a complete change of tone, although this second movie is still good. Despite "Elite Squad" winning best movie at the Berlin festival, it wasn't registered for a shot at the oscars, most likely because the producers and the director wouldn't want hollywood to think they were "fascists"
I loved Elite Squad. Had no idea that it was meant to be satire. Was cheering for the cops the whole time. Even laughed out loud at one of the Ziploc bag torture scenes (the one where the cop promises the girl "I promise, no torture", and then it immediately cuts to him punching a guy with a bag over his head).
Lol that scene is awesome. Nice to know you've watched it.
To the everlasting glory of the infantry!
Shines the name, shines the name...
Stellar screenplay -- probably better than Verhoeven's original, to be fair.
Still, the cult-classic stands strong, even if he fucked up his inept attempt at satire. "Would you like to know more?" has become immortalized as a phrase. Strong analysis.
Thank you. Here's hoping it gets stolen for a $250M adaptation.
Setting aside the fact that a Starship Troopers remake would reduce Disney to near-fatal heart palpitations, they REALLY need something like that after the disastrous trash heap that was Snow White (2024).
There is no timeline where Disney does this.
There is one timeline... remote I admit...
Just after a Disney Scientist™ solves the Three Body Problem....
John's right: there's no timeline where they do this. Despite them deciding to completely fuck the original, they still blame its bombing on Rachel Zegler. And sure, Rachel was insufferable, but she is just one part of the rotten pie that is the remake.
One assumes Disney will be much further down the financial toilet before they have any inkling that they should change. It'll be too late by then. And good riddance -- they haven't made anything decent for years, perhaps even decades (unsure about this claim).
It's going to be really funny when xAI buys Disney for $100M.
Yeah, but what director could do it justice? Ridley Scott?
“John Carter” - the self-defeating Holly-weird propaganda reminded me of a pro-Palestinian game designer’s attempt to propagandize children with a silly game in which “Israelis” got ample points by blowing up kids’ hospitals and packed schools while other players getting meager points playing the Palestinian role shooting Israeli soldiers. Sadly (or gladly perhaps) the game designer’s attempt misunderstood children’s’ mentalities: they like to win. So game players relished taking the Israeli side and, co-incidentally, got to relish the animated scenes of children’s’ clinics and schools getting exploded with kids’ body parts flying around!
Well now you explained why I relished Starship Troopers while never once noticed I was supposed to being “indoctrinated” into Antifa simplicity! 😆
Lmao
What game was this, exactly?
Too long ago to remember exactly - I know it’s okay for you to doubt my word and memory.
Not that I care.
Shalom, ya’all!
I read Starship Troopers in the summer of 1976, when I was 13 years old.
I read it walking down the street coming home from the library and finished before dinner.
No other book had as big an impact on my life.
I probably read it ten times before I graduated from High School.
Great post. The proper film version would be much like what you have written here.
It is overdue.
same, man. First time I think I was like 10 ... Maybe a bit younger, even. As you can see from the picture of the copy I still have, I read it many, many more times after. Probably had more impact on my political outlook than anything else I've ever read.
This is why the fear it!
FWIW I recall reading that the Bugs are specifically meant to represent the ChiComs and the Norks. But of course, they in turn are merely the worst of the worst of the Commies.
But I had the same reaction you did when the movie came out. Ironic that it's gotten so thoroughly turned on its head!
I'd say the Khmer Rouge take that title from a moral standpoint, though I guess Mao and the Kim dynasty did more net damage.
POL POT DID NOTHING WRONG. That should be obvious from this debate about ST.
Flashback city! Not to the movie, which undoubtedly had Heinlein spinning in his grave at a high RPM. No, my flashback was to the Heinlein original, which I read when it was first published.
I've been reading Heinlein since 1956, when I was only 12 years old. Starship Troopers and The Puppet Masters were excellent. Stranger in a Strange Land was even better.
But the one I've been hoping for decades to see on the big screen (and now the CGI is capable of rendering it as I pictured it in my mind) is The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.
That such a huge variety of science fiction could come out of one brain still astounds me. Heinlein was "da GOAT". I pride myself on reading everything that Heinlein ever published--- including the marvelous juvenile novels of the 1950s...
Thanks for the memories, JC of B.
It's incredible that we haven't had one decent film adaptation of Heinlein, but have had innumerable adaptations of Dick.
I'm sure Heinlein was tarred and feathered for obvious reasons. Dick's work didn't deal with such "problematic ideas" (and let's be fair, Dick is brilliant, too). His thinking stretched beyond his age in political terms -- a problem and/or threat for an establishment (Hollywood) that's always held a particular bent. Even if it wasn't so overt back in those days, it was still there.
I honestly think the reason they like Dick so much is just drugs.
But yes, Heinlein's politics render him persona non grata in Hollyweird.
Respect, sir. I should read more Heinlein. What are his best books?
I can't claim to recommend "best," but I can suggest what I liked. Everybody's already said pretty much all there is to say about Starship Troopers. So I won't mention that again.
Here are some of my other favorites, in no particular order:
- Stranger in a Strange Land
- The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress
- Tunnel in the Sky (written for juveniles, but I still like it)
- Red Planet (same)
- Citizen of the Galaxy
- Glory Road
- Farnham's Freehold
- Time Enough for Love (the Notebooks of Lazarus Long inclusion in this one alone is worth the price of the book)
I know I'm forgetting some other good ones, but these will get you started.
Interesting note: Heinlein was medically retired early from the Navy before WW-II broke out. Once the war started, he went to work at a U.S. government lab (in Philadelphia, I believe). One of his co-workers there was Isaac Asimov. There was at least one other of the "Golden Age of Science Fiction" authors there, too. Can't remember who it was, but it might have been E.E. Smith. (Can you imagine what coffee breaks in the employees' lounge must've been like?! 😲)
I think the third guy was L Sprague DeCamp
My copy looks a lot like that as well. I should say one of my copies, because I also have a nice hardcover copy that's easier on my old eyes.
And my lovely wife gave me for my birthday a signed First Edition, which you may gaze upon but not actually touch.
I like your draft of the opening bit -- it's how I'd envision the movie, if it were made well. Maybe a bit grittier than the movie in my mind, but I think it's a fair interpretation. Totally agree with your comments regarding that abomination of a movie.
The training and combat scenes should be maximally gritty. High contrast with civilian life.
Why do I keep remembering a Trooper who had to stay motionless on an anthill? Was that Rico?!
Shades of sleeping in the woods on a designated spot as part of initiation into The Order of the Arrow. Boy Scouts... long gone now I guess. Sigh
Ha yeah that was a great scene.
I don’t disagree.
Funny thing was that when I started reading this article I was confused, because I never watched the opening of the movie. I was thinking "did I miss this?"
Then I kept reading and returned to "yes, this movie was garbage."
I'm all for a true telling remake of ST. Heinlein was a master story teller.
What we really need is a true telling movie of Lucifer's Hammer. That might wake up some of these zombies. That book is what sent my SIL into nursing as she wanted to not be "for the road".
Film adaptations of Niven/Pournelle works would be amazing to see.
Wouldn't it? We'd have to make a priority list! LOL!
Ringworld, Protectors, Kzin, it could be a very meaty franchise.
Yeah, if done right. Current producers would full them with gays, troons, tiny girl-boss warriors beating up men and lots of lectures about pronouns.
Hopefully, in a few years, with help from men like you, we can get past all that shit and back to reality. And good movies.
Verhoeven's film adaptation of Starship Troopers became a cult-classic almost by mistake; I don't think he ever really understood Heinlein's book, and thus, perhaps fueled by drugs and a complete inability to comprehend a society beyond one in which he swam, he made a strangely inept Starship Troopers which was meant to be a satire critique, but was in fact highly vulnerable to subversion.
Perhaps more importantly, despite the film's many flaws -- those which you do a great job of outlining -- it's still a cult-classic loved by many. "Would you like to know more?" has become infamous and ubiquitous among vast swathes of the population, regardless of political alignment. The whole film is littered with hilarious moments. Hell, even the relationships -- the pinnacle of which was Dizzy taking off her top -- are almost compelling. Almost. Trite, but devilishly funny. What teenage boy could resist?
Combine all of that with a kind of bravado and pro-humanism that permeates the narrative -- despite Verhoeven's intentions, perhaps? -- and you've got a film that many (myself included) come back to time and time again.
And the memes, Gods, the memes! The film is the gift that keeps on giving (yes, I grew up watching it and haven't read the book (: ... yet!).
You need to read the book, man.
I really do -- especially since I'll be embarking on a massive sci-fi writing project in the coming year.
Right now, I'm reading the Deathworld omnibus by Harry Harrison, a childhood favourite full of hidden gems and fantastic characters (old man bought it for me knowing how much we both love it). I've a bit of a sci-fi reading list for the next 6 months, so I suppose I'll have to add it!
Theft of Fire is on that list, too, but are there any others that you'd recommend? I'd say the project resembles an Event Horizon style backstory set in a Lovecraftian universe. Super excited for it!
"I don't think he ever really understood Heinlein's book"
He said he didn't read it, he knew enough about it to despise it and make a movie mocking it just from what he was told about it. Typical leftist.
Typical lib arrogance, assuming their political opponents are just stupid and ignorant, and therefore easy to refute.
Major dick move, no doubt about it, but I can't say I'm surprised. For me it's hard to completely condemn the guy because his arrogance led to him fucking up his own satire completely, resulting in a strange film that is almost universally loved, and serves as a kind of cautionary tale about ideological film making.
The film -- however mangled, plot hole-ridden, and cooky -- is still a lot of fun. I can't hate Verhoeven for it; he's a product of his time above all else.
Verhoeven never read the book. He boasts about it. Says he put it down after several pages because he was repulsed by its "fascist" themes. And there you have it.
Riddle me this. What's more revolting, attempting to interpret an author you vehemently disagree with, or not even bothering to _read_ their work because you have your mind made up. Exactly.
I'd have to check my copy, but I don't remember Bitcoin or Sats being mentioned. But that does make it more futuristic.
I'm going to have to read this at work, when I've got more time.
As I said, I took liberties. The book was written in 59 so the tech stack needs updating.