Talk:Starship Troopers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Starship Troopers is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 1, 2006.
Portal:Literature
 Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Science fiction task force, which deals with science fiction novel articles

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit)

Graded to be of Top importance and already of FA grade. Watch roll needed. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Tasks you can do:
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This LangLit article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Archived Discussions

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/a/Talk%7EStarship_Troopers_a6e5.html"