Rating: 
Summary: Most of these reviews are in error
Review: Military service is not required to attain full franchise as a citizen. Federal service of some sort is, and applicants do not get to choose how they serve. They are just as likely to pick up garbage for 2 years as they are to end up in the military. Protagonist Juan Rico's best friend does his public service as a research assistant.If an applicant is blind, deaf, and dumb, he may be assigned to "count the hairs on caterpillars by touch," to paraphrase Heinlein. No one is turned down, even if they have to come up with a new job just to fit someone. That said, this is an amazing book. If you read just one book by R.A. Heinlein, make it this one. Hell, if you only read one scifi novel in your life, this would be a good choice.
Rating:
Summary: Action-packed and thought-provoking reading
Review: For me, Starship Troopers is all the proof you need in order to name Robert Heinlein science fiction's greatest writer. I am getting in the bad habit of naming specific Heinlein books to be his very best, only to find that the next novel I pick up is even better than the last one. This particular novel is fascinating on a number of levels. There is nothing really special about Johnnie Rico; he's a normal lad who decides to join the military, ostensibly at the time in order to gain citizenship. In this future Terran confederation, only those who serve in the military are awarded citizenship and granted the privilege to vote. The government actually discourages volunteers and makes boot camp so difficult that only men with proper soldier qualities get through it. On the broadest level, we see Rico's progression from harrowed recruit to active service in the Mobile Infantry to combat against the Klendathu. I have no military background at all, but I found Heinlein's descriptions of military life and actual combat to be detailed and thrilling. We watch Johnnie Rico become a soldier. Along the way, he figures out why he actually did volunteer, developing a whole new outlook on duty and responsibility. I don't want to delve too deeply into the politics of this novel. Some have pinned a fascist connotation on it, but I try to examine this future society philosophically. Only those who serve in the military can vote, but the vast majority of people choose not to serve and live happy lives as civilians, so I don't see anything fascist about this society. What intrigues me most, and it is this that sets this book apart from the vast majority of science fiction, is Heinlein's thought-provoking ideas about ethics, morality, duty, responsibility, etc. Mr. Dubois, Ricco's high school instructor in History and Moral Philosophy (a required course for all) gets in the ring and dukes it out with Plato, John Locke, and a host of other political thinkers. He argues that man has no natural moral instinct; morality is acquired by the individual and is an elaboration of the instinct to survive. If an individual is not taught the lessons of living in society, he will not learn that the basis of all morality is duty. In this way he criticizes the democracies of the late twentieth century and explains their ultimate failure. The promotion of the idea that certain natural rights are necessarily due each person caused young people to neglect their duties--by concentrating on the rights they think are due them. Liberty and freedom must be earned and paid for, and democracies failed because they did not understand this basic tenet. These kinds of ideas are the source of most of the criticisms directed toward Starship Troopers. I found many cogent arguments in the novel; criticism of democracy is not an endorsement of totalitarianism. Many would agree with some of the ideas Mr. Dubois puts forth (and which find their way into various places elsewhere in the book), but any agreement or disagreement should be purely intellectual. Great fiction is supposed to make us think deeply about important concepts, and Starship Troopers succeeds admirably in that regard. Thus, Starship Troopers provides science fiction fans the best of both worlds. On the one hand, we have the well-told, gripping story of one man's military journey from boot camp to battlefields of war light years away from home, replete with several intense combat scenes. On the other hand, we have ideas of a political and philosophical nature laid out extremely well by the author, which is all but guaranteed to make you seriously think about society, government, and warfare. In the end, duty and responsibility are stressed if not glorified, and I find nothing at all subversive in that. Heinlein tells a fascinating story, and he makes you think, whether you want to or not. Few are the writers who can claim such lofty credentials.
Rating: 
Summary: Outstanding--well-written and makes you think.
Review: This is possibly Heinlein's biggest novel, prolific though he was. The story is heavily influenced by World War II politics, but is not bad for all that. The basic premises of the book are that: 1) the science of governance is an exact science; 2) interstellar travel exists and the colonization of the galaxy by humans has commenced; and 3) Earth is at war with very hostile and very alien Aliens (the "arachnids). The first premise is most important. In the novel only persons who have served a term in the armed forces are permitted to vote (such persons are called "citizens"--everyone else is a "lawful resident"). This has led to a society in which "laws are few and the standard of living is about as high as productivity permits." Many modern-day liberals have called this book "fascist" for advocating this qualification for voting. Untrue. Heinlein makes an interesting case, and his future society features freedom of speech and other basic rights. And no draft. The novel is well-written, although some may not like Heinlein's tendency to preach his political point of view. Remember that this novel won the Hugo Award in 1959 for good reason: the book is a darned good read. This book is almost 5 stars. Read it and keep it.
Rating: 
Summary: You think you know the story...
Review: Yes, yes...everybody knows by now that the movie is in no way similar to the book. In fact, I'm surprised the Heinlein estate (he's dead, right??) allowed the name to be applied to the movie. The movie is an awkward action-adventure gore fest; the book is a (at times) delicate portrait of the transformation of young, spoiled and dull Everyman, Juan Rico, to an exuberant and accomplished warrior. This novel is usually portrayed as an anti-war treatise. However, that's not how I saw it. It is a treatise, for sure, but one that concerns itself with government's purpose in regard to the individual. Heinlein paints a strangely subtle portrait of modern democracy, with fascinating embellishments. By doing so, he spurs thought from his reader concerning the duties inherent in living in a democracy. The most intriguing question he asks is, do modern citizens of democracies have any right to them if they choose not to participate? To what degree is this participation in a democracy necessary? Is it true that "the best things in life are free"? What is moral in a just society? What is most striking about this fictional society is that it is a limited democracy, modeled after Classical society, perhaps. Only those who enroll in and complete a "Term of Federal Service" (and all residents in the world culture may attempt it, though few succeed) are allowed citizenship and the right to decide the future of the society. The rationale of this is that only in the stress of Federal Service can a person learn the community virtue of placing the needs of the society above the needs of onesself. Although this idea may be impossible to speculate on, it is worthy of thought from all members of democratic societies. Although the book reads a bit dated (it was written in 1959), if one reads this not as science fiction, but as political philosophy (as it was most likely intended), the ideas remain current, as all good science fiction should. The book calls into question whether any society can remain standing. Although Heinlein crafts what seems to be an indestructible society, it is hard to determine its strength, as we do not get to see the antisocial element in this society (although counter-culture and political dissension is hinted at), as the focus is on Johnnie's development. We only know that civil unrest (crime) in any form is met with harsh punishment. He alludes to the notion of this as effective deterrence to crime, but how are we to know? Perhaps that's another novel. As I was reading, I thought a comparison of this novel and "Atlas Shrugged" would be interesting, in order to juxtapose two disparate ideas of model citizenship.
Rating:
Summary: Militaristic Adventure is the backdrop for societal study
Review: Having read a number of Heinlein's books, I can't really belive that the author was actually behind the form of government he writes about here. However, he writes it so well, and with such convincing gusto that people get the impression Heinlein is pining for draft days, war, and 'beating up long haired hippies'. I got something else out of it. Like the classic '1884' this book demonstrates the dangers of a society which has become too controlling. It's subtle though.....hints of the hypnosis the soldiers go through, the speeches of rightness of thier powerfull leaders they hear and belive so totally, the teacher in school.....unlike 1984 in which the tyrrany and oppression are obvious, here it has become part of life, and most people are happy because they have such little crime, and it's not so totally controlling that people are unable to live happy lives. I got the impression of an underlying 'wrongness' about things, but that the people were desensitised and conditioned to accept. Writen in an age when communism was the enemy, and the enemy hated, I think this book demonstrates the humanity within the people of a society that has become dehumanised and warlike. This book is yet another classic Heinlein, and so far I haven't found a book by Robert Heinlein that wasn't worth the read.
Rating:
Summary: One of the 10-best Science Fiction novels
Review: This is the kind of book that many readers either love or hate. Generally those who hate it believe the book to advocate a sort of Nazi fascism. On the contrary, the book describes (I wouldn't say advocates) a democratic republic that limits the franchise to those who have completed a term of service, not necessarily a military term of service. Of course, the main character spends almost all of the book in the military, and the military is of course not a democracy. Maybe that confuses some of the reviewers. The worst example of this criticism is the earlier reviewer who described the book as resulting from Heinlein's bitterness over the loss of the Vietnam war. Too bad this guy didn't check his facts, the book was written before 1960! I found the book to be one of the most intelligent and compelling novels (not just science fiction novels) of all time. Heinlein sticks in more original ideas in this book than most others do in three or four. Besides the form of government, there is the description of two alien races, the idea of smart rockets, burrowing nuclear weapons and of course powered armor. Except for the aliens, most of these ideas are beginning to become real. BTW, skip the movie of the same name. It bears almost no relation to the book and manages to get everything it does use wrong. A truly awful conversion of this excellent book.
Rating: 
Summary: I wish this was a satirical novel...
Review: Not really a story, this is really basically the whinings of a man still petulant over Vietnam and the loss of the draft. Going so far as to have the lead characters beat up some "long haired" (hippies?), this book offers no plot, no real characters, and alot of romantic rambling about the military. Though the idea of requiring national service for the ability to vote could be interesting, most of the ideas presented in this book have the sort of naivete', disjointed structure, and lack of underlying thought that they sound more like a childish tantrum than a mature writer. The only idea I have on this is that Heinlein might have been writing to demonstrate how morally and intellectually empty these ideas are by having these characters refer them to the audience. As read as satire, this is might be a far more interesting book. In the end, reading this book straight, I have to say that not only was it a waste my time, but that it left me more stupid than I was before I read the book.
Rating:
Summary: STARSHIP TROOPERS
Review: Less a slam-bang action-fest than a gutsy personal analysis of what makes for a realistic and attainable utopia, Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" fails to achieve great heights not because of the author's political agenda (the reason this book is continually labelled controversial), but simply due to poor pacing and a less than fully developed plot. Told from the perspective of Juan Rico, one of the Terran Federation's armored Mobile Infantrymen, Heinlein's novel follows Rico's journey from listless graduate to raw recruit to battle-hardened warrior. Along the way we are treated to numerous socio-political asides on why the story's right-wing form of government works and why previous ones failed. Rico's military training is explored in convincing detail, and is in fact the backbone of the book. Therein is some of the problem--Heinlein's never-ending seminars tend to get repetitive toward the end of the book, and Rico himself seems to run out of anything new to say. Other characters, including Rico's would-be sweetheart, Carmen, are barely developed and are only rarely shown interracting with the narrator. Moreover, despite its billing as a first-rate adventure yarn, there are only a few battle scenes and what we do get are over quickly and often only vaguely described--except for the opening scene, easily the most exciting part of the book and after which everything else is a slow letdown. None of which makes "Starship Troopers" a bad book. The military and political evaluations are genuinely interesting FOR AWHILE and the whole is leavened with Heinlein's inimitable quirky sense of humor. If only Heinlein had developed the plot and its characters a bit more, this would have been a truly fine novel. As it is, it's still worth a look as long as you know what to expect: this is a political commentary, not sci-fi excitement. At the very least, it's better than the movie.
Rating:
Summary: Misconceptions on a Masterpiece
Review: I've read a number of reviews concerning this book, and it seemes to be pretty polarized. People either love it or think it a militaristic chest-beating piece. I enjoyed it the first time I read it twenty-five years ago and enjoyed it every bit as much when I read it again last Spring. One thing I have seen in reviews however needs to be addressed: the insinuation the Robert A. Heinlein was a racist (even if it is dismissed as being merely a "product of the times"). Personally, I always thought Sergeant Charlie Zim was black (not African-American, as I seem to recall him telling a recruit he didn't speak standard English very well when he went through boot training) and he is one of the most interesting and pivotal of the characters in the story. Fleet Sergeant Ho (the recruiting officer) wasn't a white American, nor were most of the men in Officer Candidate School (most came from the colony worlds). And finally, the central character of the novel, Juan "Johnny" Rico, was a Fillipino...there were hints in places (the Neo-dog on display at the MacArthur Theater, for example), but what nails it down is the point at the end of the novel when he spoke a phrase in a language his companion did not understand. When asked what it was he replied that it was a phrase in Tagalog, "what they speak at home". Folks, that's the native language of the Phillipines. Far from being the bigoted Cold Warrior xenophobe, Heinlein was one of the most progressive (and therefor controverisal) authors of the twentieth century. What Starship Troopers is about more than anything else is coming of age. This theme runs the length of the work; no matter what Juan Rico accomplishes in terms of age, education, or training, he discovers that he still has more to learn and that life is never as simple as it seems. Yes, the technology is great, the battles are exciting...but what matters is that Emillo Rico's son became a man. And Finally, for those readers who have gone to see the travesty perpetrated by Paul Verhoven in the screen adaptation of this book, it is not the story of how Doogie Howser became a Space Nazi.
Rating:
Summary: I've lost track of how many times I've read this masterpiece
Review: STARSHIP TROOPERS is a classic for multiple reasons. It was the first published of Heinlein's 'last period' novels, in which he changed the face of the genre. It was the first novel I know of to really think about what future infantry combat might be like (it was Heinlein who invented the idea of powered combat armor, now standard in many military sf novels, and a goal of contemporarty R&D). And it was and is a novel that shook people up so thoroughly that many couldn't see what it's about. In fact, I know of two seperate sf novels written to 'refute' STARSHIP TROOPERS -- both of which fail because they never address its central concerns. Neither is it a product of the Cold War, or a glorification of violence. Heinlein, an Annapolis graduate, once gave a speech to the midshipmen in which he said that if the human race handled it affairs sensibly, then we'd never fight another war. Unfortunately, he went on to note, we don't act sensibly all the time. This book is about the times when things can't be handled sensibly. It's also about infantry, the people who put their lives on the line in the worst possible conditions, to protect their societies. It's the story of Juan Rico, a boy becoming a man. And it's a philosophical treatise in fictional form, concerned with questions like "What is morality?", "How should a society be organized politically?", "How should we deal with criminals?", "What should the schools teach to preserve a free society?", and other things. The philosophy is what drives so many people over the edge, because Heinlein didn't automatically assume either that we'd reached perfection in the modern world, or that we would. This challenge to the conventional wisdom made lots of people half-crazy (The movie version is a good example. Paul Verhoeven, the director just hated the book, and it shows throughout). Heinlein asked fundamental questions, and some of the answers he came up with were wildly upsetting to many, e.g.: conscription is immoral under all circumstances; women should serve in combat, but not in the same units as men; the right to vote should be earned, not automatically awarded at age 18; corporal punishment is superior to locking people in cages like animals; we won't be able to abolish war in the forseeable future ('and I don't like that prediction any better than you', he wrote in an essay once). But if you can read ideas you may disagree with without flying into a rage, then this book can be a real treat. And it remains a great piece of storytelling.
| 
