Jump to content

Talk:Starship Troopers/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Criticisms of fiction

Why are there comments included that criticize this book as if it is a real theoretical society? It is a work of fiction not a theory. If there is criticism of a fictional work it should be on its entertainment value, not some aspect of the fictional world contained.--Omnicog 17:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems odd to me to limit criticism to only the vehicle and not the content. It would be as if to say commentary on Animal Farm should stick solely to discussing what sort of vest a walking pig would look best in, rather than a discussion of creeping tyranny. Just because a novel is fiction doesn't mean it lacks a deeper and more critical significance. Kasreyn 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know no one criticizes Orwell's books. They are always used as a valid cautionary tale - and a work of fiction with some reputed connections to the show trials of USSR. These are attacks on Heinlein's works that border on censorship and book-burning mentality, as if it contains a dangerous idea that must be roundly debunked, even though they are strongly distanced from reality in a fictional society.--Omnicog 17:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, for one thing I agree that it's always seemed to me strange that so many people want to attack a book whose intentions were positive. What I thought you meant by criticism was in the neutral sense of commentary and analysis, rather than strictly negative attacks; I see that I misunderstood you. It may not be particularly rational, but there has been a good deal of argument and criticism of the world imagined by Heinlein; I'd say it's notable enough for inclusion. Kasreyn 20:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Filipino

What is the basis for Rico being Filipino? I don't remember the book talking about his ethnicity only his nationality. One of the interesting reveals in the plot is that you don't find out Johnnie's background until well into the novel. "Johnnie", who the reader probably thinks of as an American kid, is actually Juan, an Argentinian kid from Buenos Aires.

See Talk:Starship Troopers/Archive02#Isn't Juan Rico Filipino? for a detailed discussion of where this comes from. In Starship Troopers, Heinlein frequently tweaks readers' noses with false assumptions and pops surprises on us that he makes possible by careful writing. "Johnnie" turns out to be Juan Rico. Over the course of the story, we discover that he knows Tagalog and thinks of Ramón Magsaysay and someone named "Aguinaldo" as national heroes, suggesting (without ever clearly saying) he's from the Philippines. His unnamed platoon sergeant in the bug-hole adventure turns out to have a very familiar face. RAH's delight in making us re-evaluate our cherished notions of what is commonsense, right, and proper is, IMHO, one of his strongest and most entertaining motifs. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Buenos Aires clearly stated to not be where he's from, as his mother is on a trip far from home when she dies there. --Noren 22:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
And the Book does state, on the last page, that the family is of Philippino heritage. Where they dwelled at the start of the story is left in doubt, but Manila is perfectly possible, or Hawai'i... Just what kind of places do you think the local military would be housed in a "Douglas MacArthur Center" ? --Svartalf 22:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Snarky POV

I noticed there's been some anonymous POVing in the article. Little things:" a facile reading of the book might find echoes of.." and "Ironically, critics rarely stop to consider that their own comparison of "races" to insect-aliens is itself inherently racist. " I'm gonna revert the changes made by this person. I hope that's not a bad idea!

Forgot to sign this. I didn't "technically" revert the page, just deleted some of the changes. The change somebody just made (that I agree with) used the abbrevieation "OR". I wish I knew what that meant.

The Shrike 16:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:OR. But in brief, it means "Original Research", that is, something you thought up or invented yourself rather than something someone with street cred (such as Roger Ebert) has already said. Sometimes, of course, deeming someting "OR" just means that editor didn't like what you had to say ;-).
Atlant 16:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I see! Well, I'm glad I didn't write what was deleted! The OR call was fair, anyway.
The Shrike 16:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Rico's Death

The character profile of Rico claims, refering to sources but not citing them, that Heinlein explicitly states Rico does not survive the last drop depicted in the book. I'm curious how Rico can "write" his memoirs and refer to the war as something in the past (as seen when he debates the name) while dying at the end of them. The final chapter is narrated the same way and therefore not an ST Universe editor tacking an ending to Rico's incomplete one (if he ever had time). And I'm sure that, given RAH's narrative chats with the reader, he would have encouraged this "book within a book" interpretation if that was his agenda. I will attempt to find a source but if nothing turns up, I will follow common sense and delete the appropriate sentences.

Levelistchampion

Allegations of utopianism

The last three paragraphs are about whether the "federal service" was military. What is the connection with utopianism? It seems to be a misplaced tangent from the first paragraph. Specifically the quote from Farmer, "world ruled by veterans would be as mismanaged, graft-ridden, and insane as one ruled by men who had never gotten near the odor of blood and guts."

In my opinion Farmer is incorrect anyway, since it clearly states in the book that service can be completed without being in a combat position, IE the world wouldn't just be run by veterans. The argument on what defines a "veteran" and whether you need to be in the "military" is pointless, misplaced, boring semantics. I suggest the last three paragraphs are (re)moved...?

PS: What is the wiki policy on quoting people's opinions? In the controversy section there is a lot of it. Why does Person-A's opinion about the book matter? I say this because many of the opinions are quite absurd... --Afrotrance 12:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

peace-loving bugs

In the movie, around the time when the war is announced, I believe someone mentions that the bugs are peace-loving, and only want for the humans to stay away from their territory. I thought that fact was really interesting and was hoping to read more about it in this article, but it didn't seems to be mentioned anywhere, so I searched Google and found [[really interesting article about Starship Troopers] that refers to the often refers to the human forces as an evil marauding empire while claiming the bugs only wanted peace. Sorry for the run-on sentence. Is the fact that the bugs were peace-loving either incorrect or too obvious to be mentioned in this article? I'd appreciate any info. Jecowa 09:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That movie takes a few character names and little else from the book. The bugs in the book, which is the subject of this wikipedia page, were not peace-loving by any stretch of the imagination. Discussion of the film belongs in the Starship Troopers (film) page. --Noren 23:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there is a passage in the book where they question the validity of the invasion, saying something around the lines "maybe we provoked them" i believe. i'll look into the page,if it is there at all, and i'll post it here. i could be just confusing something out of the forever war tho. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.141.134.86 (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

The Mobile Infantry is not the USMC

There are happenings in Camp Curry that are very like happenings in USMC boot camp, but many of those very things happen in many "combat corps" training programs (although the chants might be "Ranger!" or "Boat Squad!" or "AirBorne!" or ... instead of "MI!".) Much of what happens there is more typical of a military's advanced infantry training than USMC boot camp. --htom 13:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is the USMC

I bought the book on Liberty Sunday during my Recruit Training on Parris Island, and read it before graduation in moments stolen after Taps. The resemblence is ridiculously close between the two. Some things are identical to what's found in the USMC, but are not unique, like the absence of officers in boot camp, and the gender segregation, and the general treatment while in boot camp. (The Marines are the only gender-segregated branch in the Armed Forces of the United States NOW, but that wasn't the case when Heinlein wrote) However, there are too many examples of specific assocations between the two that couldn't be anything but the Corp. For example:

  • "Everybody drops" is a recurrent statement that Rico repeatedly stresses as the glue that holds the MI together. This is functionally and spiritually identical to the ethos that "Every Marine is a Rifleman" (and every Marine Officer is an infantry officer). From the band to the secretaries to the cooks, everybody goes to combat training. This is the most unmistakable resemblence.
  • Capsules themselves are reminiscent of the amphibious landings that are central to the Marine Corp's identity.
  • Shipboard duty was until recently a common type of posting for Marines, in the same manner that the platoons and companies of the MI remain aboard ship and help in some parts of their operation.
  • Rico repeatedly expresses sentiments identical to the credo that "Once a Marine, always a Marine," and is particularly unnerved by his status as a cadet, rather than an MI, while in OCS.

These four couldn't be anything but the Corp, as Heinlein, being a navy man, would surely know.

Those are the only that pop into my head immediately--I remember a number more that I'll need to look back up.

Note: The 'drop you in the Canadian rockies and see if you get out' actually resembles the modern Crucible in conception, but the book LONG predates the Crucible.

Perhaps this page deserves a link to another page discussing it as a story about the Marine Corp?

Perhaps the Marines have changed to be more like the Mobile Infantry? (Recruits are allowed to read books? We were lucky to get four newspapers for our platoon on Sunday.) My memory is that the MI didn't have cooks and secretaries, they hired civilians to do those things. The allusions you point out are indeed like the USMC, but I suspect that members of other military elites could point at very similar traditions in their beliefs. "Drop you in the Rockies" reminds me more of what was then called Survival Training, now part of SERE. I think that Heinlein looked at a great deal of the world, took the best ideas from every corner of military training he could find, and made the MI. That the Corps is going in the direction of such "bestness" is part of the character of Marines, it doesn't make the MI the USMC. If anything, the USMC is becoming the MI. --htom 13:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


We weren't allowed to read books. We didn't get the newspapers on Sunday. The last sunday of training, we get liberty (the MI gets liberty every sunday throughout training--lucky punks!) for most of the day, and I bought a book and read it. I'm a nerd. But while I'm aware that much is common to all elite military groups, the four points I brough up were those I thought were most telling towards the Marines. (As to cooks and secretaries, Rico comments that "everybody works"--everyone pulls together to do the 1,001 little things that the unit needs, from Chaplain to cook, and then everyone drops) Incidentally, the focus on individual Medal of Honor winners is also big in the Corp, but I don't know how everyone else does it. At USMC boot camp, for instance, every major physical challenge of boot camp is in honor of a MoH winner, complete with his name picture and citation. And all four of the things I noted are long standing Marine Corp traditions, not new things. Single-gendered training, for instance, is something NOW unique to the corp, but at the time of Heinlein's writing was fairly standard.
Physical challanges are now named for MoH winners? How things change. We didn't have liberty on Sunday (well, there was a period of time that was called "liberty", it was mostly used for make & mend and study) and the papers came from a DI who didn't want us to be "even more ignorant than you already are!" There is a lot in common between the MI and the Corps, so much so that some people think that they are the same, or were at the time RAH was writing, which was what I was trying to express above. They also think that it's something new, bad, or both, and you and I know that much of it is very old and very good. "Stranger, passing by: Tell the Commandant, faithful to my vow, here I lie. Semper Fi!" is more than an echo of the Spartan epitaph at Thermopylae. --htom 20:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
We didn't get liberty on Sunday--we get square away time then, which is what you're decribing. We only get liberty on the LAST sunday--the 13th on the Island, which is called Liberty Sunday for that reason. All challenges are all vaguely related to what the award was for. A man named Noonan, for instance, won a MoH for evacuating wounded comrades under enemy fire in spite of his own injuries. So, the recruits have to do a combat patrol with simulated casualties. I am pretty sure they've done stuff like that for a while, but I am not certain, so it wasn't one of the four bullet points I made.


The Draft

I found the following statement in the article: "(there is no draft before the Bug War)". From my reading of the novel, there wasn't ever a draft, period. Can somebody verify this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.29.227.4 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall a draft. In the movie it seemed clear that service is voluntary. Consider all the ads encouraging people to join the service so that their citizenship would be ensured. Jecowa 01:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
What happened in the movie isn't very relevant; Verhoeven, who was actively hostile to Heinlein's purpose in writing the book, changed it in lots of ways. However I think 129.29.227.4 is right. Heinlein was a lifelong and outspoken opponent of conscription. --Trovatore 02:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
IIRC there's a reference to kind of draft or lottery when Rico's father joins; that was to cope with the sudden influx of volunteers that were overwhelming the intake process after the bombing of Earth. "You can't join this week, we're only taking those whose ID number ends with 7, come back, umm, third week of July is your number" kind of thing. Anti-conscription. htom 23:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting; I don't recall that specifically but it rings a tiny bell. More like the draft in a sporting league than what you normally think of as a military draft. But I think if that's to be mentioned then it needs to be carefully explained; most readers will automatically assume draft=conscription in a military context. --Trovatore 23:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I re-read the book quite recently and I don't recall anything like that whatsoever. Can you provide a possible quotation? - Vedexent (talk) - 00:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No. I've re-read the appropriate passages and it's not there. So I am either mis-remembering where it is in the novel, or I'm remembering it from a different novel, or ... whatever. Doesn't seem to be there. htom 06:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Deaths in Character Profiles

I am curious as to where some of the death references come from: (some are justified, like Flores, the LT) Charles Zim - "He dies in a subsequent raid." I don't remember him dieing in the book, last I know he's still Blackstone's sergeant. Lt Col DuBois - "He rejoins active service, and dies." Again I have no such memory. I don't remember DuBois appearing ever again in the book since the letter. A mixture of DuBois and Raczack (Michael Ironside) does die in the movie. But not the book Sergeant Jelal - "Died in his capsule in the early moments of a drop." The book ends with Rico presenting "Capt Jelal's" compliments to the soldiers, implying he's still about. "Ace" - "Died in combat." When Rico went to OCS, Ace would succeed him as Sargaent. I don't think there was another mention of him.

etc. etc. Frankel, Ho, Rico Sr, Reid, Ibanez, Hendrick all have death references that doesn't have any bearing. Do I need to re-read the book, or is this someone's idea of a joke? (Note that _everyone_ in the character profile at the time of writing dies.)

Again some did die (in the book universe, movie and Roughnecks cartoons are another story), Florez, LT, Carl really did die.

I think this extends to the main character. I notice that there have been some questions about Juan Rico's death (to which the contributor apparently makes snarky comments instead of providing referecnes). Heinlein very well may have made such remarks - but I think that they have to be referenced. If they cannot be referenced, then it is likely he didn't make the comments, so take it out - both from this article and the Juan Rico article. - Vedexent (talk) - 13:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: After doing some searching around, I cannot find a reference to the character death which does not use the Wikipedia article as its supporting evidence. Unless someone can provide the print or interview reference - regardless of where it is published - then I think the point should be removed. - Vedexent (talk) - 13:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Divisional Wedge

do a google search for "divisional wedge". Odd... In reality, does anyone know any references on the concept (esp. contemporary with the book)? I haven't seen the term in anything vaguely resembling military literature.

The 'divisional wedge', also called a 'divisional slice', comprises all those who aren't actively involved in the fighting- resupply, command & control, paperwork, etc. Heinlein's use is somewhat misleading as he implies that the MI doesn't need such a train- it does, but they're not MI (like saying, for example, that the Paras don't have a logistics train- because the RLC does it for them.) MartinMcCann 14:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.

Film Section

It might just be me, but I think the section about the film needs heavy editing to restore NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.76.97.169 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It has just been slashed severely, by another editor and I, just before you posted, removing material that should be in the film article, if the material has any merit, which is debatable. Hu 01:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Just doing my job. I am with Joe Haldeman re: the flaws of the novel; but the flaws and foibles of the film are entirely irrelevant to what RAH wrote! Thanks to 161.76 for pointing out what I should have noticed long before.--Orange Mike 02:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


References to Starship Troopers in Video Games

Not that this is particularly important, but the video game StarCraft seems to use both the novel and the book for some of its ideas. The Zerg hive mind in StarCraft is similar to both the movie and the book, and it might be my imagination but I think that the arachnids in the movie have a strong resemblance to Hydralisks and Zerglings. The marines in starcraft seem to wear armor that would be way too big to move around unless it was powered. There's also a scenematic in StarCraft: Brood War (at the end of the terran campaign) that looks exactly like a news report from the Starship Troopers film.

Sure, but so do countless other works of science fiction- novels, games, anime. Starcraft doesn't have a particular special relationship with Starship troopers (the book), though it is no doubt inspired by the movie (a different wikipedia article).
Starcraft was released less than 5 months after ST (the movie). It's possible there was influence but it would have had to have been very late in the production cycle. --Noren 23:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe Starcraft was based a lot more closely on Warhammer 40k and its associated alien species. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.162.140.38 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Actually, I'm pretty sure I heard somewhere that while the Starcraft Marines might have a bit of influence from 40K, the Zerg are based off of the same thing the Tyranids were--Xenomorphs.--72.130.143.25 07:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

31?

There's a section just added claiming that the occurrence of the number 31 is a reoccurring minor theme and lists three examples.

Does this have a citation - i.e. have any literary analysts/reviewer noticed this and commented on it - or is the anon author just jotting down something they've noticed personally that may be coincidental (does 3 mentions make a "theme")? It seems an awfully minor point for inclusion. - Vedexent (talk) - 16:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

First I've ever heard of it. I first read Starship Troopers in the very early 1960s, and have followed the discussions about it ever since. I had never noticed that the number was used three times, and I wonder what other numbers were repeatedly used, but I am not going to do the Original Research to find out! (31 is the reverse of 13, which might be significant, and I always took the "31 ways" as being one for every day of the month.) It's possible that this is some sort of "test" of the accuracy of Wikipedia entries, too. htom 17:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternate history?

"Starship Troopers is a novel set in an unspecified, but not unrecognizably distant, time in the future, or perhaps in an alternate history.[7]"
"[7]^ Certain historical events referred to in the novel with dates in our own relative past have not taken place, hence Starship Troopers can be said to occur in an alternate history."

The above sentence and explanation thereof confuze me. The novel is science fiction, pure and simple. What's important is simply the point at which it was written. Us now being at a timepoint that is described in the novel and that is not what Heinlein made it out to be in his story makes the novel no less a science fiction piece. Is 1984 an alternate history because the year 1984 is long gone, and yet there are still more than three countries in the world? 213.172.246.26 22:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not so much that we've passed dates mentioned in Starship Troopers, as that some of Heinlein's other novels seem to move our history line to being an "alternate" from the one he's writing in. We could end the sentence at future.[7] leaving the broadening to the footnote entirely? htom 22:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hm, I've only read Starship Troopers and Puppet Masters, so I can't really say about the broader scope of Heinlein's work. If what you say is true, then it would probably be better either explained in the article or in the footnote - as it is right now, it basically says "The novel is an alternate history, since we're now already in the 21st century, and clearly there has been no Russo-Anglo-American Alliance or Chinese Hegemony in the 20th century." Or at least, that's how I understood it. 213.172.246.26 00:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. When was the book written? No later than 1959. Science fiction is often written in "the future" where it is either a serious prediction of events in the future, or just for the ability to "shape the past." Regardless of this fact, it can't be said to be alternate history because he did not alter the history of his time. He merely made predictions for the future and shaped his story around that "history." A great example of alternate history is the myriad of stories surrounding the 'Nazi win' in Europe. I think the opening opinion is correct, insofar as it's not an alternate history but an 'incorrect' prediction of the future.
Given this discussion, I've noted the ending of the sentence in question, but left it in if this discussion leads to the decision that it's correct. Imasleepviking 01:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok - as the author of the sentence and footnote in question, I'll throw in my $0.02. My view is that the book was not written as an "Alternate history", but it is an alternate history - due to the passage of time and the author's incorrect projections of future events. As such, the sentence could be included, excluded, or this distinction made in the footnote. Either way, I'm not "ego-wedded" to it being included if consensus is that "alternate history" is a label that attaches only to the author's intent. - Vedexent (talk) - 03:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I see the logic, but I'm inclined to disagree with that view-point. I don't think the relative can be employed here - when Heinlein wrote the book, he quoted stuff that had already happened up until 1959 (well, except the story of the officer from the Napoleonic wars, but he might have simply not known that the guy had been cleared of the alegations), and he conjectured about events that were still to happen between 1959 and the timepoint of the novel. This makes the novel science fiction, and that doesn't change because Heinlein's conjectures turned out to be wrong. 213.172.234.47 09:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
IME, most SF fans restriuct the term "alternate history" to works in which a different version of a past history exists or is created. Works such as Eric Flint's 1632 (novel), Murray Leinster's "Sidewise in Time", H. Beam Piper's "Kalvan" series, or indeed Heinlein's own To Sail beyond the Sunset, which clearly presents an alternate hsitory of the time between roughly 1935 and the book's publications date. SF set in the future as of the time it was written (as most SF is) that does not "come true" (as very few works of works of fiction will) is not usually considered "alternate history". While in an extended discussion such a work can later be called "an alternate history" (particularly in cases where the author continued working on a series after the inital "future setting" has becoem the past, as in the late works in RAH's "Future History" or in say Jerry Pournelle's CoDominiumn series) I think the term is misleading here. DES (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that alternate history implies that history is alternate when the book is written... just as a novel written as fiction doesn't become nonfiction if some element in it later becomes true.--Noren 03:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Major Overhaul

OK, so I see in my absence this article has *sigh* once again grown bloated and unmanageable. It's twice the maximum size for an entry and there are several good chunks of it that are little more than either peacock terms, weasel words and other Do Not's for Wikipedia. Here is what I propose (translation: here is what I intend to do unless someone seriously objects):

  • Move this article to "Starship Troopers (book)" and use the ST page to list all the adaptations, games, etc.
  • Create new articles wherever possible, especially for the characters.
  • Move everything that does not involve the novel to other entries. (Again, trying to get this article down to a manageable size)
  • Cut everything that isn't sourced. There are several paragraphs here that are nothing more than shills for other entries or debates between editors.

Palm_Dogg 09:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

    • The Book is the primary topic, IMO and should stay at the main name. "adaptations, games, etc." should be in a spun-off article, if a spin-off is needed. DES (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I know what you mean; my thinking is that Starship Troopers (film) is at least -- if not more -- widely known than the book and that should be acknowledged. The article on Starship Troopers can focus on both the book and the movie, as well as all the other spin-offs, while the book article can focus on just that. Plus, I think a lot of people are editing this page to get attention for their views on Starship Troopers, not to make it a better page. Moving the book to a new page might help deflect some of this unwanted attention. Palm_Dogg 09:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
        • You could try that, but I think that any page that discusses both the book and the film will ahve the same problem. I also think that the film's noteriety is already fading, while the book continues to sell and be read. I advise splitting all the film content into Starship Troopers (film). DES (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I also think tha tthe list of characters, possibly shortened a bit, should stay with the rest of the book content. IMO it doesn't really make a good article on its own. DES (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The list can stay, but the detailed descriptions shouldn't. Listen, if you can tell me a way to cut this page down to half its size, I'm all ears. I'm just focusing on the more obvious ways. Palm_Dogg 09:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Start by drastically cutting the plot summery, IMO. DES (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The lists of "locations" and "equipment" IMO add nothing at all and could be simply deleted. DES (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Starship Troopers" means primarily the book. If there's another article, besides the film, then make a Starship Troopers (disambiguation) page and put an {{otheruses}} dablink at the top of this article. --Trovatore 09:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've finished my preliminary clean-up. I left the characters here, even though I think just listing them would be sufficient for this article. Is there anything anyone else wants to say, or is my work finished...for now? :) Palm_Dogg 09:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that the the character list is already duplicated in a separate article (List of characters in Starship Troopers), it can probably be struck completely and a {{further}} tag entered at the beginning of the plot summary section linking to the spin-off article, as the character descriptions really are character specific plot summary paragraphs. Lists really should be in separate "List of ________" articles anyways and not in the main body of the article. - Vedexent (talk) - 12:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's "already" duplicated in that article created yesterday, but in any case I agree with splitting off the list. --Noren 20:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the list makes a good separate articel, and it should remain here, possibly edited down. it really offers no value on its own, and even spin-off articels should be complete in themselves. I would delete the spun-off copy. DES (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning the plot summary

Perhaps aside discussion of the plot should be eliminated as well, and the plot summary limited to descriptions of the plot. I'm thinking mostly of sections like the one that start:

Many readers have felt that Dubois serves as a stand-in for Heinlein throughout the novel...
- Vedexent (talk) - 12:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OR issues

Some of the analysis really needs to be better sourced, IMO for exaple the paragraph:

During Operation Royalty, the Mobile Infantry occupy the surface of Planet P and have to blast the Arachnids out of their well-prepared underground bunkers, which is reminiscent of Japanese island fortifications during the Pacific War. Following the losses in the ill-conceived and executed First Battle of Klendathu, the Terran Federation is reduced to making hit-and-run raids on isolated Arachnid and Skinny bases, similar to the U.S. Navy's situation between Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway. The loss of Rico's ship, Valley Forge, during the Klendathu drop may have been inspired by the loss of one of Heinlein's former ships, USS Lexington, which was sunk by the Japanese in 1942.

This needs to cite a source or sources that have made the comparison between ST and the WW@ pacific theatre. I think the statements are quite plausible myself, i m,ight wright soemthign like this if I were doign a signed reveiw/analysis of ST. But this isn't a signed analysis, ist should make statements of opnion (such as "reminiscent of") without sourcing them. Mych the same could be said of "The overall theme of the book is that social responsibility requires individual sacrifice." This is probably true, but is a statement of evaluation, and should IMO be sourced, perhaps to Heinlein in Dimension or a similar source. Other statements, like "The concept of Mobile Infantry, whose basic element is the trooper, highly trained, encased in an armored space-suit, and delivered to the area of operations in a disposable re-entry pod, was unprecedented in literature, both military and otherwise." IMO also need a source citation. DES (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. I think the section on Military themes is generally weak, missing many direct statements about military themes, military theory, and direct references to military history, and instead attempt to draw unproven (and probably unprovable) parallels between the events of the novel, and military history that Heinlein would have experienced, or most likely would have strong views on. Perhaps this should be restricted to actual statement/inferences that can be backed up in the novel, or in publications about the novel. - Vedexent (talk) - 19:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Vedexent, and I think I was the one who put those in originally. With the Lexington, could it be reworded or added to the Heinlein background, like: "his own unit was devastated and its transport ship destroyed (much like Heinlein's old ship, the Lexington, was in 1942)"? Axe the others. Palm_Dogg 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I can buy the "reduced to making hit-and-run raids on isolated Arachnid and Skinny bases, similar to the U.S. Navy's situation [in early 1942]" as a useful analogy, but I don't see any resemblance to the fate of the Lexington — she didn't collide with another Navy ship, and she wasn't a troop transport anyway.
—wwoods 07:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
My point is that while the similarity to WW2 may be accurate (I think it is) and may well have been in RAH's mind (it seems likely to me) this is the kind of analysis that we should not do, only report on where someone else has citably done. DES (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Other authors of Milsf

Of the 11 authors listed at Military science fiction as "defining the genre" at least 6 have sereved in the military, although in most cases only for a few years. these authors are:

Defining authors of the genre include:

Perhaps these form a better basis for comparison. Haldeman wrote only one major MilSF work, snd Card only one book, of which only one plot thread was MilSf, less than half of the books' wordage, IIRC. DES (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think was going for notability here. The Forever War is arguably a close second to Starship Troopers for notability (do the two sequels to The Forever War fall outside of the genre? I haven't read them yet) - and a marked contrast in style and message. If personally asked to list 3 "Military Science fiction" novels I would have named Starship Troopers, The Forever War, and Hammer's Slammers. However, if you think other novels/authors are more notable/appropriate, feel free to change the listed examples :) - Vedexent (talk) - 00:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
For the reader who is not an SF fan you may be right. If you asked an SF fan to list "notable examples of MilSF", you would probaly get the Hammer's Slammers series (which is not a novel, BTW), Honor Harrington, The Mercanary (later incorporated into Falkenberg's Legion) and possibly Downbelow Station or an early work by Lois McMaster Bujold. Any way,my main point is that a significant fraction of the authors know for writing MilSf or who significantly contributed to the development of the sub-genre had military experience, although usually not a life-long "career" in the military. DES (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I would expect Starship Troopers would be mentioned more commonly than any of those examples, as well as (since medium was unspecified) Babylon 5 by J. Michael Straczynski (no military service) which is in my opinion milSF, as well as other less military SF works such as Aliens and Battlestar Galactica. I'd also agree with Vexedent that The Forever War would feature in many lists. Also, where's Gordon R. Dickson (served in Army in WWII) in this list? --

Noren 21:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Gene Roddenberry? Did he have military service? I know he was a cop at one point SGGH speak! 00:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

* http://www.marines.mil/almars/almar2000.nsf/0/91c8a9b3b9a2b59785256a55005e129d?OpenDocument

    • In Starship Troopers on 2007-06-03 14:34:20, Socket Error: (10060, 'Operation timed out')
    • In Starship Troopers on 2007-06-10 16:51:31, Socket Error: (10060, 'Operation timed out')

--Stwalkerbot 16:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've stricken out the one that works for me Imasleepviking 17:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Two other military ideas

In the book there were two military ideas I thought were interesting (i.e. different from any actual military, I think):

  • You can't become an officer except by starting as a normal enlistee, then non-com.
  • You can't become a flag officer (general or admiral) except by serving in both the Army and the Navy - becoming an officer in one, then going back to boot camp and working back up to officer in the other.

With regard to your first point, you are wrong. When Johnny is about to serve his time as a 3rd Lt, it is revealed that Byrd was just a PFC when he went to OCS. The only requirements for being an officer were: A) First be enlisted, B) Made combat drops, C) Pass OCS.

Does anyone else think these are significant enough to add to the article? Sbowers3 04:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It could be a good idea. Not very much articles (especialy the one commissioned officer) deal with the idea that you should a vet before becoming an officer. The only army who's approching that way is the Swiss Army and even we don't have enough information about it nor if any military doctrine encompassed that. And beside, sorry for my poor english; it's not my first language.(­Vealen 16:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

I discovered recently, by reading a book about the history of the SS, that one of the VT-SS regiment (Germanica) used to have its officers have to spend two years as private before officer candidate school. But I don't think that Heinlein knew that at the time he wrote Starship Troopers because documents of the archives of the Third Reich were just beginning to be release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vealen (talk • contribs) 04:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be interesting, and even true; but it's still Original Research. Sorry, gang. (It could make a good fanzine article, though.) --Orange Mike 14:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for their inclusion but they do fit into the section Military innovations. They aren't OR - they are in the book - and the article mentions some other military ideas from the book. Sbowers3 17:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Book Comments

I think it's a great book. (We are allowed to use the discussion page for things non-Wiki related, right?). --Secruss 00:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, in theory Talk pages are supposed to be used for discussions about how to improve the article, not for discussion about the subject itself. But I don't think anyone will mind. :) And yes, it is a great book. The movie, though, was terrible - omitting everything that made the book great. Sbowers3 00:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of fascism section

The reference to Robert Peterson's Space.com article is called after the following phrase: "but [movie director] Verhoeven admits that he never finished reading the actual book.[49]" But, that linked article never mentions whether Verhoeven ever finished the book.

The linked article is a nice critique of the adaptation, but it should not be referenced to imply that Verhoeven never finished the book. If someone has a reference for that factoid, it should be added. Otherwise, the comment about the director should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.16.170 (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Starship Troopers (film) page mentions that this factoid appears on the DVD commentary. I haven't seen that, so I cannot confirm, but I think that would be a reasonable cite. I don't know why the current cite was placed where it was. --Noren (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an important section so I added some extra comment re origins of Terran Federation compared to Nazi Germany. If you think this is unnecessary, please let me know why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.63.8 (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether it is important or not. The question is whether it is sourced or not. Everything in the encyclopedia should be verifiable by reference to reliable sources or can be removed. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Starship Troopers: Terran Ascendancy

Seeing as this ought to be the main hub article for the starship troopers universe, here I ask: where is the article on the first pc game? SGGH speak! 00:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It was mentioned here, but seems to have been deleted. I can't find the removal in the history with all the bickering filling it. Miqademus (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Starship Troopers the anime

Does the 1988 anime warrant a mention in this article's cultural reference section? It is mentioned as the most faithful of media adaptation to the novel.

Jappalang (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Be bold! The article is cited, so your addittion ought to be accepted. SGGH speak! 21:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Godwin's law

There is a mini edit war about including a sentence about Godwin's law [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. This sentence has been there for more than two years and there appears to be consensus to keep it. I am restoring the sentence. Before anyone else removes it I suggest that we have discussion here instead of via short edit summaries. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The source is problematic. It has no mention of Godwin's Law at all. It needs to be correctly sourced or removed. Showers (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I've sourced it instead to an article by some guy named Godwin. What the old reference was talking about is known either as Case's Corollary or Sircar's Corollary; I used Sircar's, since that's what Godwin used in the article. I also quoted the canonical text of the corollary, as stated by Godwin. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
why does this article need a dumb little aside about godwin's "law". it is an outdated usenet meme. what happened to notability guys. clearly sircar's corallary of a usenet meme is not notable enough to be worth mentioning in this (very very awfully written) wiki for a sci fi book christ Cats AND hats —Preceding comment was added at 20:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The source is reliable. It comes from an established national technology magazine from the United States. That's a pretty good indication of notability. As for its inclusion in the article, it references allegations of facism towards Heinlein. Which is what the subsection the Godwin's Law reference is located in is all about. Showers (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
the wiki currently reads: These analogies have become so popular that Sircar's Corollary of Godwin's Law states that once Heinlein is brought up during online debates, "Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days." now let me translate that into english: some people on the internet say this a lot so some guy on the internet modified something some other guy on the internet said when he was arguing with other people on the internet and the second guy on the internet wrote about it in an awful magazine editorial about the internet. this is equivalent to if i found a nazi lolcat photoshopped onto the cover of the novel and included it in the wiki. "some guy on the internet wrote an article about the internet and mentioned some other guy on the internet" doesn't make what the other guy said about the internet notable. Cats AND hats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.136.180 (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If I understand the above anonymous rant correctly, you think that Mike Godwin is non-notable, but some txtmsg abbrv called lolcat is? Are you perhaps younger than 12, and believe that the internet was created when you got your first cellphone? I've been trying to be patient with you here, but your concepts of importance and notability are rather bizarre and off-putting for anyone old enough to remember George Bush Senior. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That's true. However significant coverage and reliable sources do. Godwin's law passes on all counts. Your arguments are ungrounded and disruptive Cats. Showers (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

i am saying they are equally unnotable duh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.136.180 (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, virtually all of 129.65.136.180's edits are vandalism. His edit summaries imply that he is fixing vandalism but in fact he created vandalism which has been reverted and warned. He's currently at a level 4 warning. I think we shouldn't waste any more time arguing with him. (The silver lining is that the sentence is now better referenced.) Sbowers3 (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So why is Sircar's Corollary to Godwin's Law notable? Cats AND hats (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
oh btw that is a shared ip at a school. gj blaming me for the vandalism though. ily Cats AND hats (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if someone else is to blame for the vandalism. I saw that some of your edits were signed with the IP's signature so I leaped to an apparently unwarranted conclusion. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
it's understandable sometimes people in that computer lab go on wikipedia and do stupid stuff i forgot to sign in before posting here D: seriously though plz explain notability of this 'sircar' fellow and his corollary to godwin because i am this close to adding a brain bug lolcat i found to this article Cats AND hats (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Terran Federation

Hi guys, I rewrote this article 9 months ago, before I learnt about things like "Manuals of Style", copyright, notability and categorisation. Would some of you mind taking a look at it for any obvious no-no's, so we can see about making it more inline with Wikpedia's style, cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Popularity with the military

One of the main reasons Starship Troopers is so popular with the US Military is because of the politics in the books. A lot of servicemembers despise politicians (mainly from one party nowadays, but I won't name names), and like the idea that before someone gets the right to vote, they should have to contribute to society in some kind of meaningful way, especially by serving in the military. I know that may sound controversial, but hey, it's a controversial book and I think that this should be included in the article. SpudHawg948 (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur, this should be included in the article. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason why it shouldn't be included, as long as notable sources are provided. Ashmoo (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This section needs cleaning up 58.6.92.69 (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Communism?

Communist state is an oxymoron. There is no government in a Communist socity (no executive, legislative or judicial system). It's an anarchic utopia. The USSR and alike were Socialist states (Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics). I understand the characters in the book maybe ignorant to the fact (like so many people today) but when referencing Communism for the purposes of explaining the books events, please do it correctly. The "hive" of the alien race in the book is closer to Platos Republic.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.148.177 (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How does this relate to this article? The phrase "Communist state" does not appear in it. --Noren (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe the IP is referring to the Politics sub-section. Maybe its aside to this thread, but, frankly, there is original research in there. How can "Many believe Heinlein's fears about communism are embodied in the Arachnids, the 'ultimate dictatorship of the hive.'" be supported by the novel? Who is the many that stated Heinlein's fears are embodied in the Arachnids? Jappalang (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I always took the "hive" to be like bees, a society of "queens" with workers. There are people who see "Heinlein's fears of communism" and have written about it, but I suspect that much of that writing is projection on their part, not fear on his part. htom (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Satires here aren't racist...they're SCI-FI

I believe the racism commment should leave, because it's so ACLU/socalist in nature. You've read that it's the only book across on US Navy, Marines, and Army reading list. Most of these employeed by the armed forces are people of color. The tread isn't clean of Obama attacks. It was made in the 1950s when aliens were still ackhword looking android robots.

I hope those race baiters commit suicide if they ever see a Grey Alien, because they're so insane about alien racism. Those motherfuckers should get a life. Renegadeviking —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


The "racism" section should contain mention of the fact that Starship Troopers was one of the first if not the first major sci-fi work to have a non-white protagonist, and that despite allegations of "anti-bug" racism, it was a revolutionarily and explicitly anti-racist text for the time when it was published. -- Calenth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.151.45 (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the "racist" attitudes are based on anything, they are based on the attitude of America towards the Japanese during WWII, not antisemitism. Whereas propaganda efforts for the European theater were based on the evil of the leaders, (ie, Hitler, Mussolini, etc), the pacific theater was almost exclusively protrayed as the US versus the "Japs". Many authors, including James Bradley have noted that the Japanese government was portrayed as a single organism, a hive mind, and this contributed to the low number of Japanese POWs taken. Sound Familiar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.103.217 (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's still not racism. If you have Japs in a hive mind like alien spiders which is only a basis of this, because nobody have seen a real alien (not like the Pres. Bush has introduced a grey alien at the White House Press Conference lately?) to actually know how they operate or what the public response would be if the "alien's IQ is 200+" as compared to maybe around 60-70 in Starship Troopers. Hollywood started up dumb, because the general pubic couldn't handle intelligent aliens in the 1950s. Now-a-days, all aliens have IQs of over 140 (videogames, movies, recent comic books). So over the past 60 yrs, alien IQ has risen on average 70 pts minimum up to 200 pts . The average human is 115. They use their extra IQ to operate their spaceships silly. Renegadeviking —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC).

Lack of actual killing: shouldn't we put this somewhere?

I think it's relevant to point out that, in spite of the apparent violence, the hero himself never actually kills anyone. (A Brain Bug is perhaps a "person", but the hero meets only one, whom he tries to capture alive. The Skinnies are pseudo-human, but the hero is sent only to damage their property.)

My own view is that Heinlein's use of the Bugs is not racism but is a ploy to make the novel more acceptable to its original juvenile audience - giant spiders are cool - and to avoid engaging with the trickiest moral issue of warfare, that is, what it's like to be made to kill someone. (Compare Haldeman's "Forever War".) But it's not my view that I think we should add: just the bare fact that Rico never kills any other person in the novel, because I think this is highly relevant to the discussions both on racism and militarism.

Do others agree? If so, where should it best be added - in the plot summary, or under criticisms? I suggest only a few words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.168.71 (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's your theory, but it's not really supported by the text of the book. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. From the first chapter, I quote: "So I merely blinked hard--opened my eyes and stared straight at a local citizen...I didn't have time to fool with him...I still had the hand flamer in my left hand; I toasted him and jumped over the building..." He is clearly shown killing a skinny in this instance, never mind the implied deaths when he launches missiles (including a nuke) at buildings and drops bombs out of his Y-rack. The point that Heinlein didn't dwell on the psychological trauma of killing is valid, but IMHO this article is too bloated with original analysis to begin with. Sergeantgiggles (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is supported by the book, all commentaries must be attributed to notable commentators. Ashmoo (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
But it isn't supported by the book. What are you getting at? Or do we agree without knowing it? Sergeantgiggles (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm just saying that debating whether the theory is or isn't supported is irrelevant, because any commentary needs a 3rd party to advocate it for it to be included in a WP article. So I guess we agree that the 'theory' does not belong in the article. Ashmoo (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
You're going to have to find some RS who has this theory, and I doubt you can, because it's not really supported by the text. htom (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dead citation link

Citation number 36 "Brig. Gen. James M. Feigley, Marine Corps Systems Command. Quoted in Brill, Arthur P. Jr.. "The Last Ounce of Combat Readiness". Retrieved on 2006-03-04." links to a password protected page and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.30.191 (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Mistake

Juan Rico is not Filipino. In the final chapters he speaks with another soldier who is, but he goes on to say that Español was spoken in his home. Furthermore, Juan Rico's mother was killed in an attack on Buenos Aires by the Bugs. So the unnamed soldier was Filipino and spoke Tagalog, but Juan Rico was Argentinian and spoke Spanish. I fixed this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: I now have the book in front of me. The other soldier's name is Bennie (Bernardo). It appears my mistake was because Heinlein has Bennie and Rico speaking in the same paragraph, which isn't conventional. So, I mixed up the order of the characters speaking. The article is correct: Juan Rico is Filipino and Bennie is Argentinian. Sorry for the mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
A mistake commonly made, and rarely apologized for. I, at least, am not offended, and hope it's the worst mistake you make today! htom (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Starship_Troopers/Archive_3&oldid=1137203167"