Rating: 
Summary: Sci Fi with political agenda
Review: "Starship Troopers", starts in the middle of the plot, and then moves to the begining of the story. It tells about a young rich kid named johnny (or juan) Rico and his tales through the "Bug War". In a society that compelles civilians to serve in order to gain citizenship, johnny decides to join up, but not entirely for the right reasons. Through johnny's basic training in the mobile infantry (which is more like a commando unit), the author lays out his agendas in different subjects, like- society, military organization and education. Some of the ideas make you think and some look very old fashioned, but the book is written well, and despite what is said, the book does not glorifies war, actually it glorifies the human spirit. Death is not overlooked, and the hero does not pass his training with much ease. Actually he barely passes his training. The book then moves to johnny's war tales. As time passes, johnny becomes a seasoned veteran, and after a talk with a fellow M.I. he descides to sign for a term of service and become an officer. Through johnny's tales in OCS the author explains his opinion of the military in 20th Century (too big, with too many officers that gain rank without any combat experience). The book ends when johnny is a company commander, but without leaving any definite closure to the book.
Rating: 
Summary: FILM IS SUPERIOR TO BOOK
Review: I cannot understand why people are slamming the Verhoeven film
for not being a wholly literal representation of the 1959
Robert A heinlein novel. The biggest inconsistencies between the Film and Novel is that
the Film contains a more coherent plotline and has deeper
character development. Many of the reviewers here seem to be
angry about the omission from the Film of such elements
contained in the Novel as the trooper's "power suits" and the
subplot about there being another alien race (The Skinnies!!)
involved in the Terran/arachnid war. But these elements are hardly touched on in the Novel anyway.
In his book Heinlein adamantly conveys the ordeal of a young
recruit(Johnny Rico)through boot camp and his assimilation into
a militarisitic society whilst almost completely ignoring the
backstory of the "Bug War" that is supposedly threatening this
society. Heinlein only spends about 15 to 20 pages of his Novel
depicting the whole Arachnid conflict and so does not expand on
details such as the trooper's equipment or about the alien race
known as "Skinnies". And so Verhoeven cannot be blamed for
omitting these contrivances from his Film if they had no true
relevance to Heinlein's original story in the first place. It seems ironic that many reviewers here praise Heinlein for
his Novel's technological insights into the 21st century.
Some even praise his concepts in this novel as being factual
and revelationary as those of HG Wells. But for all his
scientific "vision" it is apparent from reading ST that Heinlein
does not know the text book definition of an arachnid. An
arachnid is technically a spider and so does not belong to a
matriarchal society and is by a nature a solitary creature. But
in his Novel Heinlein confusingly describes arachnids as having
behavioural traits of that of insects and so blatently
contradicts himself while simultaneously undermining the
credibility of his story. His description of Arachnids as being
capable of building ships and using laser guns seems very cheesy
and downright lasy when you compare his Arachnids to those
that appear in the Film. The Arachinds in the film are not
technologically advanced and have to use their strength and
thier natural defences against the humans which I feel is more
interesting and less contrived. These contradictions give the impression that the whole
"Arachnid" concept seemed to have been tacked onto Heinlein's
narrative about "his" perfect militaristic superstate. It is unsuprising that many feel that this book is nothing more
than a Machavellian style fable on the benefits of Fascism.
Heinlein spends most of his Novel just waffling on about the
failures of democracy and his ending is even more anti climatic
than that of the Verhoeven film. And at least Verhoeven added
a satirical tone to his depiction of this militaristic society
whereas Heinlein's tone in the Novel comes across as very sober
and at times even patronising. Starship Troopers feels more like an essay that found itself
straight to print without any reworking by the writer on its
plotline or characters. So if you are a fan of the film you will
find this book very boring and talky.
On the otherhand if you disliked the Film because you felt that
the it was conveying very pro fascist ideals then you may also
want to avoid this Novel as it does appear at first glance to be
nothing more than "Mein Kampf in space!!".
Rating:
Summary: A Dysutopian maybe, but better than the movie.
Review: The two things that stood out for me about the book was that Heinleim was not writing about the future, but about the present. At the same time, though not suprising, Hollywood missed most of the novel's story. The political theories voiced in the novel mostly by Mr. Dubois (Lt-Col., rt) are not that far fetched because as the book suggests, what is the use of a military if one does not plan to use it. The strength of the book is the fact that it is story of growth. Johnnie Rico, the novel's "first person" protagonist, beginning as a rich kid and finding he lacked purpose/direction in life and ending up a career Lt. in the Mobile Infantry. Hollywood though made a mess of the novel's ideas because of course the action was more important and there always had to be a love triangle. Carmen was mentioned only a few times and and Dizzy Flores had a sex change somewhere along the line and was only mention twice, both in reference to his death. In the book the soldiers were men and the Naval pilots were women. The movie was just a little more politcaly correct by having co-ed units. If you have seen the movie and hummed and hawwed about the book do not hesitate but do not expect the same thing.
Rating: 
Summary: How to get a vote...
Review: This book, of all Heinlein's many books, is guaranteed to produce more discussion than any other in a newsgroup or chatroom devoted to him. It is misunderstood, misinterpreted and used, unsuccessfully, to 'prove' that Heinlein was a fascist. It is a book that opens with non stop action but which has many pages of debate, sometimes flashbacks to Rico's schooldays, sometimes as part of his training as he learns not only to fight but _why_ he is fighting.Some people feel uncomfortable with the philosophy and would prefer that the whole book be devoted to Rico fighting the Bugs, with a neat, tidy end as the war is won and Rico is a hero...Life's not like that though. Oh...and it is nothing like the film so don't look for the nude shower scene...trust me, it isn't there!
Rating: 
Summary: Challenges of Democracy Addressed in an Alien Environment
Review: Starship Troopers is an odd combination. At one level, the book explains the way that military training and discipline work, in a science fiction context. This material will seem like it is straight from the recruiting office to people in their teens and twenties. At another level, the book contains endless, preachy arguments in favor of having government be run by those who care enough to sacrifice for it. At a third level, it boils down conflict into a Darwinian struggle reminiscent of Richard Dawkins' writing in The Selfish Gene. At a fourth level, you find an action science fiction novel with interesting speculations about how the current infantry might evolve. The perspectives of all four levels will seem dated and simplistic to most. On the other hand, the book will cause you to think about subjects that you probably don't normally think about, such as when and what kind of discipline is appropriate, how countries can keep their effectiveness when threatened, and how far military might should be taken. The best part of the book to me is explaining what makes military organizations successful, using the science fiction context. In today's world, fewer and fewer people will have that experience. As a result, many important lessons about learning and cooperation will not be understood. Seeing the material in the context of a science fiction story makes it much more interesting. The book basically argues that the lessons of the military can be carried over into every other area of society. That's taking the argument too far. Many people will find the idea of having people publicly lashed or hung for their crimes to be going to far. That's a step backward, not a step forward. On the other hand, holding parents more responsible for what their children do would probably reduce crime. If and how to do that is a question that reasonable people could differ about. The intergalactic relations in this book are pretty disappointing. It is assumed that only strength through violence will be recognized. The Cold War experiences showed that strength through potential violence can also work. Perhaps there are other less violent models that would work as well. Mr. Heinlein could have taken a more optimistic view and advanced our understanding more, even if he showed that the more optimistic approach didn't work. The descriptions of preparing for battle and the gear that the mobile infantry uses were interesting to me. Mr. Heinlein suggests a cross between infantry and armor that is very imaginative. The flaw of this idea is probably that you could not protect people well enough for them to survive. I found the idea of people randomly shooting off nuclear weapons in a "raid" to be pretty frightening. Perhaps we need to be frightened in this way from time to time, to stay in touch with the potential risk of this happening. After you finish thinking through Mr. Heinlein's case for a more virtuous republic, I suggest that you think about what strengths of your country's current political system would be eliminated by such a change. Seek to do the most good as the first question you consider!
Rating:
Summary: Cerebral Soldiers?? Thus the criticism . . .
Review: The story is told through the eyes of a soldier who thinks about his actions, his motives, his environment, his superiors, etc. and most people just don't believe that such a soldier exists. In the Heinlein world he does. John Rico. We followw Rico's life starting in High School, through his evolution to a man and an officer (a moral, intelligent, well trained officer).
I agree that this should be required reading at the various US military acadamies, if only to make them think!!! No new themes here for Heinlein though. Same basic priciples run through all his books, some from the right (militaristic and conservative) like "Starship Troopers" and "Tunnel in the Sky", some from way over on the left (liberal, free love, etc), like "Time Enough for Love" and "Stranger in a Strange Land". A great read, but you should really sample Heinlein in all his flexible/changing attitudes. His central themes are personal responsibility, team work, family, love and knowledge. Nothing there that any intelligent person would find exception with, I think.
Rating:
Summary: wrong book
Review: i wanted a different book i ordered the book without robert a helens signiture because i already have that book i wanted a defferent one. the book was good a bit boring sometimes but i liked the book.
Rating:
Summary: Schlocky plot; simplistic worldview
Review: I was really looking forward to reading this book. I had loved some other Heinlein novels -- mainly Stranger in a Strange Land and the Moon is a Harsh Mistress -- but this one let me down, bigtime. The plot, for starters, is classic SF schlock -- the bug-like invaders vs. us for control of the galaxy, we can't communicate with them, etc. The book follows one main character, a somewhat-dimwitted and self-deprecating soldier, through the war. There is a lot of preaching about the need to teach harsh lessons to children so they don't grow up to be criminals -- some of which is compelling, some appallingly callous and obtuse. Heinlein creates a militaristic utopia where only veterans get to vote, and therefore crime is virtually nonexistent and everything is hunky-dory. Except, of course, for those bugs we have to go wipe out. The society he creates is two-dimensional -- utopias tend to be -- and so are the characters. They don't grow or stretch any more than in your typical G.I. Joe cartoon episode. This is a curiosity only for die-hard Heinlein fans and scholars.
Rating:
Summary: Perhaps Heinlein's most important book- a classic.
Review: Before I go further: this book has the same name as the 1997 Paul Verhoeven movie, but nothing else in common. On its own, the movie is an illogical but reasonably entertaining B-grade combat film; as a cinematization of the book, it's a travesty. Don't judge this book by its movie. Set about half a millenium into the future, Starship Troopers is ostensibly and most visibly a book about war - but really a book about politics, about the ethics and application of force. About five times as much space is given to the purpose of combat, the reasons behind it, the political and moral justifications, as is given to the (two, plus a half-page street fight) combat itself. That's not to say that 'message' displaces plot. Heinlein cut his teeth writing pulp and short-stories, and at the time he wrote Starship Troopers he wasn't yet wealthy enough to afford a failed book. The story is well-written, intelligent, and moves fast; there's not a lot of room for characterization, but I like the job he did on Rico (the first-person main character.) Heinlein's writing, as usual, is beautifully to-the-point; for a writer who was originally paid by the word, he doesn't waste them. The book is short, too. Only about a hundred pages; it took me about eight hours to read, the first time. (In the four years since, I've read it at least half a dozen times.) Alongside Stranger In A Strange Land, this is one of Heinlein's best.
Rating:
Summary: Starship Troopers: Required Reading
Review: Starship Troopers is simply a Brilliant piece of writing. It has been labeled as "controversial" by many--I call it inspiring. Many criticize it for being "fascist" but those critics are missing the point aimed directly at them. It gives a frighteningly realistic prediction of a society that is afraid to punish bad behavior and demand responsibility from its citizens, trading common sense for well-intentioned nonsense. The result is the ultimate in pragmatism--you now have to earn that responsibility (by serving in the military), because society has proven itself unworthy of the unearned gift handed to it. Is it a call for this type of system? No, it is a warning. I call it inspiring because it begs us to look at our own actions and society, and to consider the ramifications of our popular (perhaps misguided) philosophy. It inspires me (and I hope others) to not let our society become what Heinlein describes. In my view, his pragmatic world predicts the failure of our society to fulfill its responsibility. One could argue that we have already gone far down the path that Heinlein predicted in 1959. Heinlein doesn't describe a hostile takeover of our society'he predicts its fall due to the citizens' failure to act responsibly. Legal residents (non-voting members of society) enjoy many rights and freedoms, however no political responsibility or authority. I would highly recommend this book to anyone, and would encourage it as required reading for political science courses--not as an example of a model to follow, but as a portrayal of the consequences of taking what we have for granted. It is often difficult to look at something objectively, and see the problems that one helps to foster or create. This book forces us to look at our own society, and our role in it. This book isn't a manifesto, it is a wake-up call for us to match the authority we are gifted as voting citizens with an equal part of responsibility. I am sorry to hear that this message is being lost or obscured. Read this book, and think about your role and responsibilities as a citizen.
| 
