Re: Starship Troopers

In message <Pine.OSF.3.91.961108112413.21153C@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> "
writes:

>	Just what is this "political context."	I have not read ST yet 
> (I've got a copy, I just need to set aside the time to read it.)  The 
> blurb on the	backcover says that it's considered Heinlien's most 
> "contraversial" novel.  Why, is that?

I have recently read ST, for no better reason than the film was
being discussed on the 'net.

It isn't very good, although I do realise that I'm above the age
group that it is aimed at. I thoroughly recommend not reading it.

Man, you'd have to be pretty young to swallow the political
bullshit Heinlein peddles. He portrays a sort of utopia where the 
young are indocrinated with right-thinking "moral philosophy". At
one point the main character is required to demonstrate
*mathematically* some point of morality. Perhaps the irony just
went over my head?

So we have an account of a young man's military career written
specifically to illuminate points of "moral philosophy" and just
basically ram it down your throat. 

Other than that there is no point to the book, no real plot. A
faithful film of it could not be done, although a crafty writer
could have satirised it nicely (leaving Mr. Rico as a slavering
brainwashed xenophobic psycopath at the film's end).

Mr. Verhoeven, being, I think, a Dutchman, may a have a somewhat
different viewpoint to Mr. Heinlein. Heinlein had a jolly good
WWII, being an American invalided out of Annapolis. Holland had
a pretty poor WWII, what with all those enemy soldiers swanning
about with all their character-building martial values.

-- 
David Brewer