Robert a Heinlein the greatest American science fiction author has been spurned by the media. I think it is because of his libertarian politics.

[Hamish Howl]

Asimov we can debate. Aldiss and Silverberg are minor leaguers. Herbert has a limited, much of it sequels to Dune.

More to the point, Aldiss was the world's biggest downer and Silverberg was fantasy masquerading as science fiction.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Science fiction and fantasy writers aren't taken seriously by anyone other than their readers.

Heck a lot of people don't take fiction seriously and stick to non fiction books. Even books like "To Kill a Mocking Bird."


.

The first science fiction writer is taken very seriously indeed.

Mary Shelley.

 

[Hamish Howl]

How in hell is nobody talking about Jerry Pournelle?

 

[BitterPill]

Why else is "A Stranger in a Strange Land" not a Netflix series.

I'm not sure what you mean by Heinlein being spurned by media since Netflix is hardly the media, rather a portion of the whole.

 

[craig]

I'm not sure what you mean by Heinlein being spurned by media.

Can you provide an example, perhaps?

Sure. The Starship Troopers movie was a Nazi newsreel. The director didn't even read the book.

 

[craig]

I'm not sure what you mean by Heinlein being spurned by media since Netflix is hardly the media, rather a portion of the whole.

Should I enumerate each media company?

 

[BitterPill]

Sure. The Starship Troopers movie was a Nazi newsreel. The director didn't even read the book.

More fascist than Nazi in my opinion - both in the book and the movie. In the movie, the absence of powered armor was a huge disappointment for me, and the whole skinnies narrative being omitted I found inexplicable though, on the whole, the depiction of the bugs was good.

In the end, I'd recommend reading the book long before recommending watching the movie.

 

[BitterPill]

Should I enumerate each media company?

I edited my post mid-replies from you.

Shall I go back to the original, or is the edit acceptable?

If you prefer I go back to the original, I would encourage you to use Netflix in the title as opposed to the media, but you haven't, so I won't.

 

[swing_voter]

More fascist than Nazi in my opinion - both in the book and the movie. In the movie, the absence of powered armor was a huge disappointment for me, and the whole skinnies narrative being omitted I found inexplicable though, on the whole, the depiction of the bugs was good.

In the end, I'd recommend reading the book long before recommending watching the movie.

The only thing that made the movie seem fascist was the uniforms. Looks like they even have a eagle emblem there.



.

 

[Hamish Howl]

More fascist than Nazi in my opinion - both in the book and the movie. In the movie, the absence of powered armor was a huge disappointment for me, and the whole skinnies narrative being omitted I found inexplicable though, on the whole, the depiction of the bugs was good.

In the end, I'd recommend reading the book long before recommending watching the movie.

Other way around. If you watch the movie first, you'll enjoy it.

And then you read the book and you enjoy it more.

 

[Hamish Howl]

But of course Starship Troopers runs a poor second to Armor by John Steakley.

 

[craig]

More fascist than Nazi in my opinion - both in the book and the movie. In the movie, the absence of powered armor was a huge disappointment for me, and the whole skinnies narrative being omitted I found inexplicable though, on the whole, the depiction of the bugs was good.

In the end, I'd recommend reading the book long before recommending watching the movie.

I think the final scenes (adverts for the military and war) were pure German National Socialist inspired camera work. There is no fascism in the book.

 

[BitterPill]

The only thing that made the movie seem fascist was the uniforms. Looks like they even have a eagle emblem there.



.

That actually looks a bit Nazi, but there did not appear to be an overtly racial angle to the world's government in either the movie or the book. That would make the government seem more fascist than Nazi to me, and the reason is this: A person had no vote unless they had served in the military - race doesn't appear to be an issue, and serving in the military was limited to some degree, either to those physically fit, those who could fly a starship or pilot some other military vehicle, or a mind-reader like the Colonel Carl Jenkins in the screenshot you provided. About the mind reader, I imagine a mind-reader would be a plus in any fascist or, indeed, totalitarian government, and that is reflected by his rank.

Mind you, it's been a long time since I've seen the movie and even longer, much longer, since I've read the book.

 

[BitterPill]

Other way around. If you watch the movie first, you'll enjoy it.

And then you read the book and you enjoy it more.

Fair enough.

 

[BitterPill]

I think the final scenes (adverts for the military and war) were pure German National Socialist inspired camera work. There is no fascism in the book.

Aping Leni Riefenstahl you say?

In any case, I am not the only one to find fascism in Heinlein's book:

However, the book presents in much more detail the fascist society of the future created by Heinlein and the foundations on which it is based — something that became only an ironic joke in Verhoeven’s film. Heinlein’s society is ruled by the military and only Army veterans have the right to vote, so you only become effectively a citizen after you enlist in military service.​

“Starship Troopers”: from militaristic fable to anti-fascist fantasy

On April 5, 1958, a pacifist group called National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy published full-page ads in several newspapers…

medium.com

 

[Loulit01]

Let's not attack the mods.



.

A mod was kind enough to write to me:


"You cannot comment on moderator actions, attack moderation or attack a moderator (in the capacity of being a mod) "upstairs". There is one place and one place only where you are free to comment on moderation - https://debatepolitics.com/threads/forum-rules.28594/

Your account's access may be limited based on these actions. Please keep this in mind when posting or using our site. "

---------------
My reply:

I can and will comment on anything I like. ToS is your problem not mine. Ban me if like but stop sending me annoying emails.

 

[OpportunityCost]

To quote Robert Heinlein, "Cassandra didn't get half the kicking around she deserved."

There's nothing prescient about libertarianism. It's just doing "human" wrong.

So, this is a libertarian criticism and not a literary one. Makes sense because you are being so petty about it.

 

[craig]

Aping Leni Riefenstahl you say?

In any case, I am not the only one to find fascism in Heinlein's book:

However, the book presents in much more detail the fascist society of the future created by Heinlein and the foundations on which it is based — something that became only an ironic joke in Verhoeven’s film. Heinlein’s society is ruled by the military and only Army veterans have the right to vote, so you only become effectively a citizen after you enlist in military service.​

“Starship Troopers”: from militaristic fable to anti-fascist fantasy

On April 5, 1958, a pacifist group called National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy published full-page ads in several newspapers…

medium.com

Not in the book.
Only after retiring from federal service could you vote or hold public office. ... The book focuses mostly on the soldiers, so both fans and critics tend to look on the rule as “only combat veterans get to vote,” even though the book made it clear there were non-military paths.

 

[The Mark]

It's more that he was a shitty writer. He wrote one half decent novel (Starship Troopers) and 30 years of crap.

I wonder if anyone ever wrote a novel like Starship Troopers but with the political system being a communist utopia.

 

[Loulit01]

No, free love - or words to that effect - has a much longer pedigree in the West. See Free love - Wikipedia for a brief, footnoted summary, if you want to read about the antecedents. In the US, free love was tied to voting rights for women, & a general opening of professions & work outside the home for women. There were also attempts to recreate primitive Christianity in actual communities, with varying results. But see the Wikipedia article.

Wiki
While the phrase free love is often associated with promiscuity in the popular imagination, especially in reference to the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s, historically the free-love movement has not advocated multiple sexual partners or short-term sexual relationships. Rather, it has argued that sexual relations that are freely entered into should not be regulated by law.

So according to Wiki the free love moments you're describing are not analogous to the free love and counter-culture movements of the 60s I was discussing.

 

[BitterPill]

Not in the book.
Only after retiring from federal service could you vote or hold public office. ... The book focuses mostly on the soldiers, so both fans and critics tend to look on the rule as “only combat veterans get to vote,” even though the book made it clear there were non-military paths.

View attachment 67327339

Furthermore:

At school, kids have a class called History and Philosophy of Morals, briefly and only partially adapted in the film. Professor Dubois (played by Michael Ironside in the screen) openly defends the use of violence and physical torture by the State. When a student tries to argue the contrary by saying that violence doesn’t solve anything, Dubois replies: “I’m sure that the founders of Carthage [an African city destroyed in the Punic Wars] would be glad to know that, since violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms” (in the film, this speech was adapted and uses the destruction of Hiroshima as an example). Dubois also has a priceless speech in which communism and Marx’s theories were carved out: “The Marxian definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero”.​

which seems more like blatant indoctrination than philosophy or anything else.

For me, it's a done deal, and it doesn't bother me you disagree.

After all, Ignorance is Virtue is my personal Trumpian motto, so I don't mind being wrong.

 

[Loulit01]

After all, Ignorance is Virtue is my personal motto, so I don't mind being wrong.

Note to self: Never employ reason, facts or logic in a discussion with someone who extols the virtue of ignorance.

 

[BitterPill]

I wonder if anyone ever wrote a novel like Starship Troopers but with the political system being a communist utopia.

Star Trek, perhaps, but it was a TV series to start.

 

[craig]

View attachment 67327339

Furthermore:

At school, kids have a class called History and Philosophy of Morals, briefly and only partially adapted in the film. Professor Dubois (played by Michael Ironside in the screen) openly defends the use of violence and physical torture by the State. When a student tries to argue the contrary by saying that violence doesn’t solve anything, Dubois replies: “I’m sure that the founders of Carthage [an African city destroyed in the Punic Wars] would be glad to know that, since violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms” (in the film, this speech was adapted and uses the destruction of Hiroshima as an example). Dubois also has a priceless speech in which communism and Marx’s theories were carved out: “The Marxian definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero”.​

which seems more like blatant indoctrination than philosophy or anything else.

For me, it's a done deal, and it doesn't bother me you disagree.

After all, Ignorance is Virtue is my personal motto, so I don't mind being wrong.

That is not fascism that is history. You need to read the book again. I don't care if you don't agree with it just don't mischaracterize it.

 

[BitterPill]

Note to self: Never employ reason, facts or logic in a discussion with someone who extols the virtue of ignorance.

Words to live by, indeed, and maybe even fodder for a new, personal motto of your own.