Rating: 
Summary: Patriotism or jingoism? Prescience or word-juggling? YMMV.
Review: One reviewer accused RAH of not "being inspiring, clever or clear". I must disagree on at least one count. I read ST as a young teenager, and (not being a fan of Sci-Fi or militaria) immediately forgot it. I read it again last year, finishing on the very eve of the film release. I recognized nothing in it until I got to Rico's description of someone practicing the bagpipes. ("...as if he had a cat under his arm, its tail in his mouth, and biting it.") Clever enough to be memorable at 30 years distance! Like "A Reader", I prefer Stranger In a Strange Land; though the spanking fetish shines through as much there as in other RAH stories, it posits a different sort of approach to human relations. Many readers compared this work to "The Forever War". I'd like to point out a connection to another fantasy book, Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward". His future Earth comes to the condition he describes by thinking about industry, not by fighting, but there is this similarity: only people who have served honorably and retired can vote or stand for office. The difference is that EB's army comprises *all* workers, not just military workers. After all, a miner is just as dead in a cave-in as a soldier in a fire-fight. And think about the world wars: in both cases the US was caught relatively un-prepared. We geared up and literally _produced_ our way to victory. Every farmer, secretary, weaver, trucker...all contributed to the outcome. Ummagumma pans the whole RAH canon, and says there are "much better authours (sic) of SF available." Maybe, if action space-opera is what you seek. RAH's talent was in putting political and philosophical meditations in future/alien settings, to encourage us to think about them in our own Terran lives. Coppd "see[s] some of Bob's points concerning ...harsher punishment towards criminals." This is the down side of Heinlein. He seems unwilling (and encourages readers not) to consider *other* ways than more and more severe punishment, to do what Capt. Frankel orders Sgt. Zim to do: "make [the crime] not merely expensive _but impossible_!" This gets back to the spanking fetish noted in several reviews. It seems odd that folk in this line will gladly point out that we can develop a tolerance for pleasure and luxury, but don't see that punishment also loses its punch after a while, and the 'dosage' must be increased. Anyway, I find myself re-reading ST, sometimes for the adventure, sometimes looking for flaws in his logic. (E.g., Col. Dubois' letter to Juan, Chapter 6. He forgets that the language itself changes, and does make it "necessary...to reformulate them [truths].") It's an average read, nothing to found a society or career on. Be well.
Rating: 
Summary: A must have for your professional library
Review: I have read and re-read Starship Troopers for years now, and consider it one of the finest fiction books on military leadership. Saw the movie and now have to read it again. I have compared it with "Armor", and found it flowed better. I was a bit dismayed to find the Politically Correct Movie cover on the new release though. On final comment. The quote in the front of the book is creditied to an "unknown" Platoon Sergeant. Althouth it may be in line with the movie and colorful, it is mis-quoted. The Platoon Sergeant who uttered those words is well known to Marines. Gunnery Sergeant Dan Daly, USMC, holder of two Medals of Honor and the Army Distinguished Service Cross. It was during the Battle of Belleau Wood, France, in 1918, that he uttered the statement "Come on you Bastards, do you want to live forever." Credit where credit is due. Keep up the great work. Your service is much appreciated to those of us without a decent bookstore.
Rating:
Summary: A book on personal growth, not politics
Review: Despite what many have said about this book, Starship Troopers was not about politics. Heinlein did not condone the world he created; in fact, he rarely even explored it beyond its most obvious appearances. What he did tell us was that 1) only "veterans" (not necessarily combat soldiers: the MI was Juan Rico's last pick) could be citizens; 2) there was corporal punishment; 3) people were discouraged from joining the service. As far as I can tell, the only other discussion about the society was how it began. There was no discussion on the rights, or lack of rights, of the population. The only trials depicted in the book are military court martials, which have always followed their own procedures. What this book WAS about was personal growth and responsibility. Juan Rico signed up because his friends did, and although he did not expect much from himself, then he learns about what he could do. In the meantime, and with frequent flashbacks, Heinlein explored what the meaning of citizenship, and what responsibilities people have to their state. I do not believe that he beleived everything that he wrote in this book, because some of the stories he later wrote appeared to have views contradicting Starship Troopers. This book was not a political treatice of what should be done, but an exploration of what is means to be a responsible citizen.
Rating:
Summary: This book seperates the "CAN DO" from the "CAN WE TALK"
Review: I view Heinlein's views as thought provoking, not perfect. What view of the future is perfect? This is, however, the best science fiction book I've ever read, and brings up societal questions that everyone should consider. People that take responsibility for their own actions and the good of society are often considered extremists, "liberal activist" or "conservative warmonger", their goals are very similar, the improvemnet of the whole. As a military professional, I am probably stereotyped as the latter, but let me assure you, I do not look forward to the prospect of war. I believe this book should be on everyone's "must read" list, because even if you disagree with it, it might just make you think. It may even pull some of the "middle of the road sheep of society" into one camp or the other, either of which is good, because diversity and conflict is not only what started, but what maintains the greatest country on earth. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it" - Voltaire I have read this book many times over the years, and it has accompanied me through college to boot camp, dive school, demo school, etc... Perhaps it was instrumental in my decision to join the military service (special operations), or maybe it simply reinforced to me the fact that "the best way to succeed, is to do"
Rating:
Summary: Starship Troopers
Review: I feel that this book is one of Heinlein's finest ever. Not only did he explore the realms of science fiction and fact, but he also thoughtfully explored the realms of our society. Through speculating on the future of our technology and our society, he gives us an exciting and fullfilling insight into our future and ourselves.
Rating:
Summary: Science Fiction and Leadership in one package
Review: I read this book orginally because it happened to be on a professional reading list for the U.S. Marine Corps (I am a Marine). I was expecting to read a science fiction novel and got so much more. I read about the journey of a boy turning into a man. On top of all that there are very valuable leadership lessons found throughout the whole book. While RAH's view of society in the future may be a little extreme, he surely has hit the nail on the head about today's society. The interesting part is that the book was written in 1959. It is a must read for all NCOs in the military.
Rating: 
Summary: Classic Heinlein - interesting ideas, bad writing
Review: Okay, after reading every one of the reviews posted here, I'm going to write my own review of this book and try not to repeat what others have said already. I have to start by saying that although I don't particularly like Robert Heinlein's works, I also disagree with the Amazon.com review for "Starship Troopers", which smacks of simplistic knee-jerk liberalism. When I was a teenager, I loved to read science fiction. Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke were my favorite authors, and I read every work of science fiction that the two of them had ever written. Robert Heinlein's works were there on the same bookshelves at the local libraries, and I read about a half a dozen of them, such as "A Moon is a Harsh Mistress", "Orphans in the Sky", and "Stranger in a Strange Land". Once I became familiar with Heinlein's writing style, I skimmed through his other books at the libraries, and then basically avoided them. I chose not to read "Starship Troopers" at the time. Recently, I went and saw the movie "Starship Troopers" and was entertained enough to take another look at the book (I'm not saying that this was a good movie - many other reviews have already addressed the flaws in this movie, and I agree with them). Reading the book immediately brought back to me the memories of why I chose not to read the book some twenty-five years ago. Heinlein's writings all pretty much share this one fatal flaw, in that many of his leading characters fit the mold of this stylized nearly perfect human - selfless, noble, all-wise, and all-knowing. Seeing these characters appear time after time in his works basically ruined the stories for me. One of the underlying premises of science fiction writing is that the author is creating a fantasy world with certain parameters changed, but the people in them (unless they are specified to be a new breed of humans) still behave like real contemporary human beings. Heinlein would try to pass off these perfect Heinlein-beings (a special race of mankind?) as normal people, and of course they would always do just the right thing, for themselves, and for the people around them. They would also get very preachy and launch into these long-winded monologues on various topics such as free love, cannibalism, the meaning of TANSTAAFL, etc., etc. "Starship Trooper" is just packed full of these perfect Heinlein-beings, always doing the right thing, at just the right moment. GGAAAAAGGHH!!! That is basically why a world like that created in "Starship Troopers" could not function as Heinlein intended unless human beings were somehow first genetically engineered to become perfect, like angels in Heaven. The neat and perfect behavior demanded of the ruling class in this world would quickly disintegrate into the usual self-seeking greed which is still one of the strongest forces underlying all human behavior. The ruling elite would inevitably use their power to increase their advantages in society over those not in the ruling elite, thus undermining Heinlein's simplistic assumption that the non-citizens of his future world could maintain all of their rights and privileges in society while constantly lacking the power to vote. The ultimate expression of this class division would be the development of a slave class in such a society. It is worth noting that the quasi-democracies of the Greek city-states, the Roman Republic, and the early United States (in which only land-owning males had the power to vote) all maintained a slave class. I want to also address the various comments on freedom, democracy, fascism, and communism/socialism, which have been brought into this discussion of "Starship Troopers". The terms have been rather carelessly thrown about in these various reviews. I don't believe that ANY of these forms of government are perfect. They exist mainly because of a combination of prevailing economic or social forces at work within a country. All of these forms of government have an inherent tendency to favor certain classes or certain types of people within their societies. Democracy certainly is not the best form of government under all situations. At its very worst, democracies can be highly chaotic, inefficient, and prone to producing either imbalances or compromises in society that could ultimately result in chaos and the destruction of that society. The freedom of a pure democracy works best for those people that have the discipline, talent, and wherewithal to find a place for themselves in society. People without this ability tend to drop into the lower classes and suffer. In times of societal chaos, or the presence of an external threat to society, fascism is far more efficient in terms of its ability to organize and solve immediate problems. Fascism has an inherent appeal to the upper classes, and sometimes the middle classes, in its promise of providing stability and order in times of chaos. Ultimately, however, fascist societies become corrupt, since it is humanly impossible to have total control of the economy without also succumbing to the temptation of extracting a fortune from those that need government to do business. These "control points" of a fascist society can become serious economic bottlenecks, since no government authority can have the wisdom to accurately predict the success or failure of any particular enterprise, and yet, in a fascist society, the government will be called on to make these sort of decisions. Communism/Socialism has its greatest appeal for the downtrodden and the lower classes, since it promises to provide for their most pressing needs. The obvious exchange is that people under these governments have to allow the state to make all the decisions for them and therefore give up much of their freedom. For someone starving to death, freedom might not be the most pressing need, and communism would seem to be an ideal form of government. The ideals of communism have never meshed with the reality, however. Under communism, the worker or peasant classes are supposed to be the ones in charge of society, but in fact what always happens is that only a ruling elite emerges. As a result, communism always devolves into a mirror image of fascism. Socialism is the milder strain of communism, and most democracies have inoculated themselves with a version of socialism in order to take care of the suffering of their lower classes; in this way the democracies are protected against a full-scale attack of communism. As we approach the next Millenium, democracy is breaking out everywhere, and fascism and communism are in serious retreat. Why? The rise of democracy as a superior form of government has basically coincided with the onset of rapid technological changes first started by the Industrial Revolution about two hundred years ago. It has also coincided with the emerging dominance of capitalism and market forces as the main economic engines driving all industrially advanced societies. Technological changes have been so rapid and so unpredictable, that only a free and flexible system, in which bad ideas are allowed to fail quickly, and new ideas are allowed to see the light of day rapidly, could have accommodated such a rapid advance of technology. Joseph Schumpeter, in his classic work "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy" describes this constant cycle of destruction and creation of companies, ideas, and laws. No real-life ruling elite could ever be so wise and all-knowing, as the Heinlein-beings were, to accurately predict the societal changes brought on by any particular technological advance and to anticipate what the appropriate laws and other societal adjustments would be needed. Under a true democracy, the widest possible numbers of people in society have access to their government in order to address these needs. Under a democracy, ideas or laws that fail are exposed as failures, and those in charge either have to make the appropriate adjustment or are ousted.
Rating:
Summary: the best sci-fi space opera book ever
Review: If you're not intelligent enough to get the serious implications of the democracy vs. communism theme in the book them go see the movie. This book has more philisophical ideas than the koran can shake a stick at. the characters are engaging, even the pain in the neck, Sgt. Zim. If you like war novels and strategies this is the book to get it, if you love mindless slaughter of the innocents and the brutality of mindless aliens read something like ARMOR.
Rating:
Summary: A must read...
Review: Although you can say Heinlein was only presenting his view of a utopian society, his continual hammering on certain points comes off as opinions held by the author and thus preaching. Nonetheless, the points he makes are thought provoking and worth debating, whether or not you agree with him. When I originally read it as a liberal teen I disagreed with much of what he said, but as I've become more conservative with age some of his opinions converge with my own. Oh yeah, it has a nice coming of age story in there plus a very excellent putting into words of what being a soldier is all about. My favorite Heinlein book.
Rating:
Summary: Great Book, Spectacular Movie
Review: All right people, name a movie that started as a book and kept everything in the movie? I haven't seen it yet. I read Clear and Present Danger, guess what, nothing like the movie, if you don't believe me, take a weekend, read the book, then watch the movie..Ohhh my...there is a difference! (Sarcastic overtones!) I read the book after listening to everyone cry about the movie being different. The Book was great! The first book I have read that did not make the infantry look like idiots, and made them look like they are treated in todays military, EXPENDABLE! Yes we do waste soldiers lives. Why do you think they invented reactive armor? Not to save the soldies lives inside the tank, APC, or vehicle, but to save the vehicle, people are easily replaced, equipment is not. As for taking a tank platoon against those MI troopers...1 nuke would take out your platoon, and leave the MI unscathed. Hmm...why do I say some of these things, I was ENLISTED Infantry! Long live the INFANTRY, and MI
|
