Rating: 
Summary: A lesson in History and Political Science
Review: Heinlein is not just a great science fiction/fantasy writer he is simply one of the greatest modern writers. The reason that more of this works are not made into movies is probably due to the fact that part of what makes his books and stories so great is how he presents his take on life, politics and social issues through the characters he writes about and the condition of the societies they live in. That is why the movie made from this book is nothing more than a movie based on the shell of what this book is about and really has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the book itself.While this book may seem to glorify (or perhaps even over simplify) war it really isn't a book about war at all. While a war provides the setting (and Heinlein does get a little technical) the story is really a coming of age story about a boy becoming a man in a future culture that has different standards/rules. It really doesn't matter if Heinlein is presenting this culture as having better or worse standards/rules than America, it is fiction after all, and part of the joy of reading Heinlein is the way he makes readers ponder whether or not an idea has merit or not. Heinlein has a way of presenting arguments in his story that seem to flow effortlessly along with the action so that the reader may be getting a lesson (or a lecture) on history or politics and yet not mind at all, the work stays a work of fiction and the reader is compelled forward as in any good novel. Some important thoughts I got from the book: 1. Women can serve many roles, some even better than men, but a society that puts women in the infantry as a front line solider is a society that has lost its moral compass. It is ironic that in the movie version there were women serving in combat units just the opposite of what happens in the book. 2. Forced "service" isn't service at all, it is slavery. Heinlein never wrote about conscription as being a good thing for a society. Men that don't want to fight for liberty, justice and to protect women and children have no honor. 3. Recruitment into the military should be difficult (at least into the combat branches). Contrast that with today's military recruiters that lie about the military to get young men and women to sign up. In the book Johnny is told how hard it will be, how terrible combat can be, he is given the chance to change his mind. 4. Once in the combat unit training part of the story Heinlein presents a very tough and strenuous boot camp. Also it is as realistic as possible (men can die in training). While I don't want to call my boot camp experience "easy" (Fort Knox 1991) I can say that the policy at the time seemed to be filled with waste and was still geared towards the "dumb conscript" mentality. 5. Voting should be more than just a generic right to everyone 18 and older. Some states currently have restrictions regarding the voting rights of felons, so the basic tenet that Heinlein presents here isn't all that shocking, he just presents a society that has a bigger expectation than "don't be a rapist or a murder". 6. Heinlein foresaw many developments in military science, but more importantly I think, he saw that the countries on this planet were going to become more dependent on each other as time goes by. As we become more "global" in nearly all aspects of life this theme of the book really rings true. While I don't foresee the earth being attacked by alien bugs any time soon, the fact that there can be global "wars" against terrorism, disease or natural and man made disasters that can have effects on many countries simultaneously is not something limited to the realm of science fiction. I give this book a very strong recommendation. My only reservation is that to really enjoy and to fully understand any of Heinlein's books it really helps to have read a few of them already.
Rating: 
Summary: Mix of Entertaining and Compelling
Review: Heinlein, in this age of passivism, provides a controversial pro-military book. Heinlein reminds us that there are great virtues to be had in the military life, that soldiers are indeed different in fundamental ways than civilians (or could be with the right training) and hints that our current fear-of-death is less noble than those who embrace the possibility of death and the virtue that can come with facing the unknown. This is a classic work of science-fiction that can be read as both an entertaining story and a thought provoking look at what we could have if we truly did aspire to become 'citizens.'
Rating:
Summary: Read the book, Don't see the movie
Review: Starship Troopers is a great science fiction novel and a wonderful book of political philosophy at the same time. Heinlein tells the story of a young recruit going through special forces training. It is gritty and suspensful without even needing to depict the actual war in the way that the movie did. Plus Heinlein was an intelligent man who supports the military in a time when it was fashionable to protest the Vietnam War. It is truly refreshing to hear the opinions of such a free thinker. Anyone reading this book will have a new opinion about the military and a more open mind. That is the sign of a great novel.
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.
| 
