Starship Troopers worth reading before movie?
Steven Albert Young
I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read the
novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
appreciate some comments.
Dan Goodman
In article <5ei0t3$q...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
Yes, the book is worth reading.
Now, let me break this to you gently: Some movies based on books are
unfaithful to the books. The percentage for movies in general may be
lower than I think -- only about 85%, for example. But it's higher than
that for movies based on sf.
From what I have heard, the movie allegedly based on Starship Troopers is
less faithful to the original than is usual for sf movies.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Brendan Newport
Steven Albert Young wrote:
>
> I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
> seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
> enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read the
> novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
> appreciate some comments.
Hmm,
I've seen quite a bit about this - we've got to wait 'till August before
it gets released in the UK!
I read Starship Troopers when I was a kid, and it was, at the time, a
terrific "yarn". Blood-thirsty aliens, hero troopers to the rescue,
loads of weapons, armour, fighting-suits...the whole kaboodle, pretty
xenophobic as well. The analogy of communists being the aliens was
raised at the time, and the novel is anything but subtle.
Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" put things in perspective. Same
subject, somewhat different attitude to war in space. I suspect
"The Forever War" had a greater influence in the long run, particularly
when you watch "Aliens".
Nonetheless, if you've not read Starship Troopers, give it a go. The
stills I've seen suggest it'll be more based on visualisations from
"Aliens" and "Above & Beyond" for the technology, rather than the book.
Don't, absolutely do not read Harry Harrisons, "Bill, The Galactic Hero"
beforehand. If you do, that book will definately spoil things for you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Newport
Silicon Graphics, Ltd. Phone: (+44) 161 877 8801
Laser House Fax: (+44) 161 877 8343
Waterfront Quay
Salford Quays
Manchester M5 2XW
England
Rhayader - The (unofficial) Camel Home Page: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/brendann_manchester/Camel1.html
NR-"The Memory of Whiteness" - Kim Stanley Robinson
________________________________________________________________________
PMccutc103
say...@umich.edu (Steven Albert Young) wrote:
>
>I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
"BOGGLE"
Do you not read much science fiction, or am I just getting old? _Starship
Troopers_ won the Hugo award and is one of the most famous or infamous
science fiction novels ever written, depending on your perspective.
People either love it or hate it, and the novel is often (in my view
mistakenly) cited for the view that Heinlein is/was a fascist.
Personally, I would heartily recommend it, with the caveat that many
people are deeply offended by the political views expressed therein, so
deeply offended in fact that it affects their ability to think coherently
or to ascertain what those political views _are_.
I find it hard to imagine that any person posting to rec.arts.sf.written
wouldn't have heard of the novel. Or is this a troll?
>seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
>enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read
the
Uh, you might be the first person that I've heard to have that reaction.
Most of the people who have seen the preview think that the movie will
suck. From what I've heard, you don't have to worry about the book
ruining the movie for you, since only the names of some of the characters
and the fact that the enemy are called "bugs" appears to have been
retained from the book. Reading the book won't "spoil" the movie because
the two are not "the same work" in any meaningful sense of the term.
Reading the book might spoil the movie for you in the sense that you will
be able to see the movie for the pale imitation of the book that it will
be, however.
>novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
>appreciate some comments.
The novel is about ideas.
The movie is about people in floating APC's fighting computer-generated
bugs with machine guns.
If you are the type of person who reads all the "Star Wars" novels, but
put down _Alien v. Predator_ because it was too hard, see the movie.
If you like reading science fiction, read the book. And then see the
movie. Or not.
________________________
Pete McCutchen
John Nichols
On 20 Feb 1997 17:59:08 GMT, dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>In article <5ei0t3$q...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
>Steven Albert Young <say...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
>>seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
>>enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read the
>>novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
>>appreciate some comments.
>
>Yes, the book is worth reading.
>
>Now, let me break this to you gently: Some movies based on books are
>unfaithful to the books. The percentage for movies in general may be
>lower than I think -- only about 85%, for example. But it's higher than
>that for movies based on sf.
>
>From what I have heard, the movie allegedly based on Starship Troopers is
>less faithful to the original than is usual for sf movies.
>--
Definitely read the novel first. Hollywood adaptations of Heinlein
haven't been that great.
Louis Sivo
Steven Albert Young (say...@umich.edu) wrote:
> I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
> seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
> enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read the
> novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
> appreciate some comments.
The novel is great! I highly recommend it.
If you end up loving the book like its fans, then it will probably impact
your enjoyment of the movie. Most likely the movie will be a pale imitation
of it. But then again most movies are, that are based on good books.
--
Louis Sivo
lou...@nafohq.hp.com
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not necessarily represent
those of Hewlett-Packard.
jonathan dale mccall
In <19970220200...@ladder02.news.aol.com> pmccu...@aol.com
(PMccutc103) writes:
> _Starship
>Troopers_ won the Hugo award and is one of the most famous or infamous
>science fiction novels ever written, depending on your perspective.
>People either love it or hate it, and the novel is often (in my view
>mistakenly) cited for the view that Heinlein is/was a fascist.
>Personally, I would heartily recommend it, with the caveat that many
>people are deeply offended by the political views expressed therein,
so
>deeply offended in fact that it affects their ability to think
coherently
>or to ascertain what those political views _are_.
>Most of the people who have seen the preview think that the movie will
>The novel is about ideas.
When I saw the trailer for this movie, my first thought was, "Oh,
yeah!" After the trailer was over, I thought, "Oh, NO!"
As for the book, I still can't understand why people call it "Fascist."
I mean, I have about a billion and one objections to Heinlein's
philosphies, but the charge of fascism ain't one of 'em. Furthermore,
it seems fairly evident that Heinlein himself regarded <ST> as an
incomplete thought experiment, and not a "credo."
I think, sometimes that there is a certain kind of liberal that uses
the word "fascist" the way some conservatives use the label "PC."
Means, "anything I have an unthinking, knee-jerk reaction against."
Cordially,
Jonathan
A. Sharp
In article <5ei0t3$q...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> say...@umich.edu (Steven Albert Young) writes:
>I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
>seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
>enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read the
>novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
>appreciate some comments.
Steve,
The rule of thumb is that WHICHEVER CAME FIRST is invariably better, having
the advantage of freshness, originality.
In this case, the book came first, and if you read the book before seeing the
movie, you'll almost certainly be disappointed in the movie.
(If you write a book based on the movie, the book, having to follow the
screenplay and having little input other than action, is often shallow, trite,
and predictable. On the other hand, if you make a movie based on a book, the
movie usually has to skip characters' thoughts and feelings to focus
exclusively on action, and, consequently, is often shallow, trite, and
predictable. Also, the movie is seen strictly through the camera lens,
so that limits the viewer's imagination -- compared to the book.)
Happy viewing,
A. Sharp
David Levin
Steven Albert Young wrote:
>
> I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
> seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
> enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read the
> novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
> appreciate some comments.
Definately read the book. It's one of Heinlein's best "juveniles", even
though the subject matter is anything but. My understanding of the
movie is that the only similarity to the book will be the title.
The Mighty Davethulhu
"Bugs, sir! Hundreds of them! I'm a burnin' them down!"
Alter S. Reiss
On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, A. Sharp wrote:
> Steve,
>
> The rule of thumb is that WHICHEVER CAME FIRST is invariably better, having
> the advantage of freshness, originality.
>
> (If you write a book based on the movie, the book, having to follow the
> screenplay and having little input other than action, is often shallow, trite,
> and predictable. On the other hand, if you make a movie based on a book, the
> movie usually has to skip characters' thoughts and feelings to focus
> exclusively on action, and, consequently, is often shallow, trite, and
> predictable. Also, the movie is seen strictly through the camera lens,
> so that limits the viewer's imagination -- compared to the book.)
EXCEPTION: When both the book and the screenplay are written by
the same individual, and that person is talented in both areas, and the
movie is true to the origional screenplay, both the novel and the movie
are equaly good, within the limitations of each of their forms. The
examples that I can think of are The Princess Bride, and... Er... Ah...
Well, Okay, perhaps only the Princess Bride.
x-------------------------Alter S. Reiss----------------------------x
I asr...@yu1.yu.edu I "It must be inordinately taxing I
I cu...@geocities.com I to be such a boob." I
I asr...@hotmail.com I "You have no idea." I
x--------- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/2129/index.html ---------x
Terry Austin
dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>From what I have heard, the movie allegedly based on Starship Troopers is
>less faithful to the original than is usual for sf movies.
I've taken a tour of the model shop working of Starship Trouper, and I can
say with some certainty that the resemblance between the movie and the book
will be purely coincidental. It looks like a good movie, if you're into
hardware, but Heinlein it isn't.
---------------------------------
-- Terry Austin, Companion of Loyal Order of Chivalry & Sorcery
Hyperbooks Online Bookstore http://www.hyperbooks.com/
Not that I really care. I'm pretty stupid anyway.
---Marius Scipio Magnus (Keith Godwin)
Apathy is not always the correct path. But at this point it's not a half bad idea.
---Sir Luke Skypath (Dave Cook)
yon lew
say...@umich.edu (Steven Albert Young) writes:
>I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
>seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
>enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read the
>novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
>appreciate some comments.
I would really take a wait-and-see posture with regards to this movie. I
can think of any number of films I thought might be pretty good, and then
got burned on when I got opening night tickets.
James A. Wolf
Brendan Newport <bren...@manchester.sgi.com> wrote:
>I read Starship Troopers when I was a kid, and it was, at the time, a
>terrific "yarn". Blood-thirsty aliens, hero troopers to the rescue,
>loads of weapons, armour, fighting-suits...the whole kaboodle, pretty
>xenophobic as well. The analogy of communists being the aliens was
>raised at the time, and the novel is anything but subtle.
>Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" put things in perspective. Same
>subject, somewhat different attitude to war in space. I suspect
>"The Forever War" had a greater influence in the long run, particularly
>when you watch "Aliens".
Actually, Forever War wass written in reaction to Starship troopers.
Haldeman served in Vietnam- while Heiniel used the WWII era as his
paradigm. (He served in the Navy before the war- and was discharged
for medical reasons. Someone will tell me why no doubt!)
(To email me, please remove the anti-spam asterisks from my e-mail address.)
James A. Wolf *jwolf*@cybercom.net*
<*> <*>
The jawbone of an ass is | Mister | The choice is simple: Remain on
just as dangerous a weapon | Guilty | Earth and someday die. Or count down
today as in Samson's time. | is | and then UP to outrace death and im-
Richard Nixon | liable! | mortalize our being- Ray Bradbury
James A. Wolf
jon...@ix.netcom.com(jonathan dale mccall) wrote:
>I think, sometimes that there is a certain kind of liberal that uses
>the word "fascist" the way some conservatives use the label "PC."
>Means, "anything I have an unthinking, knee-jerk reaction against."
Actually you chould say 'Communist' not PC (though the left is more
reckless in applying its pejorative terms, espcially 'racist. It
rather reminds me of the joke in _Saint Joan when a traitor is defined
by the English nobelman as someone whose aims are not entirely
English, but I digress. I once defined PC as Pinko McCarthyism on
this group (and oh brother, the reaction on both sides of the aisle
from that!), but otherwise you are right on target.
James A. Wolf
dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>In article <5ei0t3$q...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
>Steven Albert Young <say...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
>>seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
>>enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read the
>>novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
>>appreciate some comments.
>Yes, the book is worth reading.
Hear hear. It is a book no-one is neutral on. You either love it and
its philosophy (disclosure time- as I do), or loathe it. But it does
get a reaction out of everyone.
>Now, let me break this to you gently: Some movies based on books are
>unfaithful to the books. The percentage for movies in general may be
>lower than I think -- only about 85%, for example. But it's higher than
>that for movies based on sf.
>From what I have heard, the movie allegedly based on Starship Troopers is
>less faithful to the original than is usual for sf movies.
>--
Let me be ungentle- the stench emminating from the previews indicates
that Verhooven et al have taken one of the most intelectually
provocotive novels and turned it into the usual sub-literate crap
Hollywood thinks is SF!
There have been (IMO only) only two films better than the books they
were based on- The Longest Day and Blade Runner.
(That'll get a reaction!)
Bill Woods
John Nichols wrote:
>
> On 20 Feb 1997 17:59:08 GMT, dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>
> >In article <5ei0t3$q...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
> >Steven Albert Young <say...@umich.edu> wrote:
> >>I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
> >>seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
> >>enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read the
> >>novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
> >>appreciate some comments.
> >
> >Yes, the book is worth reading.
> >
> >unfaithful to the books. The percentage for movies in general may be
> >lower than I think -- only about 85%, for example. But it's higher than
> >that for movies based on sf.
> >
> >From what I have heard, the movie allegedly based on Starship Troopers is
> >less faithful to the original than is usual for sf movies.
> >--
> haven't been that great.
Actually, you might be better off waiting until after you've seen the
movie, and getting whatever enjoyment you can out of that first.
By all accounts the movie is exciting in its own way, but a poor to
horrible translation of the book.
--
Bill Woods
"The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program"
-Larry Niven
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
In article <5ei6ao$euo$5...@lator.cybercom.net>,
James A. Wolf <j*wo...@cybercom.net> wrote:
>
>Hear hear. It is a book no-one is neutral on. You either love it and
>its philosophy (disclosure time- as I do), or loathe it. But it does
>get a reaction out of everyone.
'Taint that simple. I for one quite disagree with (even find myself
disgusted by) most of the philosophy expounded by most of the book's
characters. Yet I quite like the book itself, in part because it made
me think quite a bit when I first read it (and for some time afterwards).
Well, not that I wouldn't have been thinking anyway, but probably not
along those exact same lines. I also like the book because it's well-
written and goes places in a nonexcessive number of pages, and because
it features Neat Toys (it's kind of the granddaddy of all modern military
SF, which I often enjoy reading even though I'm sort of a pacifist. Go
figure.)
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y: Math geek, bibliophile, BAAWA/secular humanist, gamer.
Sworn to protect the Earth (and the Moon) from extraterrestrial lowlifers!
Curtis Gibson
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y wrote:
>
> In article <5ei6ao$euo$5...@lator.cybercom.net>,
> James A. Wolf <j*wo...@cybercom.net> wrote:
> >
> >Hear hear. It is a book no-one is neutral on. You either love it and
> >its philosophy (disclosure time- as I do), or loathe it. But it does
> >get a reaction out of everyone.
>
what?". I've read a number of his adolescents and somewhat enjoyed them.
When I try to read the "important/relevent" novels, they drag, and
genrally just bore me. It never raises enough emotional content to be
classified as loathing. Books of his that I literally could not finish
(because I would rather be doing just about anything else than reading
that book): Troopers, Time Enough for Love, Number of the Beast, Friday,
Stranger, Job, Puppet Masters. I'm not saying these books are BAD, but
there is something about them, and his writing style in general that is
_Exactly_ what I do not like in a book. For referance, the SF writers I
do enjoy: Dan Simmons, Harry Turtledove, Donaldson (this one should have
been obvious), David Brinn, Brust.
I keep trying him because a number of my friends keep telling me how
wonder his writing is. So I keep trying. My only other problem with
Heinlein (sp) is his fan base. To be honest I have never met a group of
fans who so totally believe that their favorite writer is the panacea to
all the worlds problems, which usually means I don't comment on this
particular writer and my feelings for him that often. When I try I've
been shouted down. *shrug*. I do hope for more maturity here.
Back to the topic of the thread however, there is IMO, no real reason to
read the book before you go see the movie.
--
-Mhoram
Why is it a penny for your thoughts, but you have to put your
two cents in. Somebody's makin' a penny somewhere. -Stephen Wright
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Fri, 21 Feb 1997 04:54:19 GMT, j*wo...@cybercom.net (James A. Wolf)
wrote:
>Actually, Forever War wass written in reaction to Starship troopers.
I've heard this asserted over and over, so much so that it's the
conventional wisdom, but Haldeman says it's not so.
>Haldeman served in Vietnam- while Heiniel used the WWII era as his
>paradigm. (He served in the Navy before the war- and was discharged
>for medical reasons. Someone will tell me why no doubt!)
Tuberculosis, wasn't it? I don't remember for sure. Invalided out in
1936 or '37.
TOUCHED BY THE GODS: Hardcover, Tor Books, November 1997
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Updated 2/7/97
Beyond Comics opens 2/27/97 at Lakeforest Mall, Gaithersburg MD
Elisabeth Carey
Steven Albert Young <say...@umich.edu> wrote in article
<5ei0t3$q...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>...
> I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
> seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
> enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read
the
> novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
> appreciate some comments.
>
Heinlein's novel, _Starship Troopers_, is *definitely* worth reading.
At present, we do not know whether or not the movie is worth seeing, but
there do seem to be some grounds for concern, based on casting and what
little additional information is available, and the fact that some parts of
the novel would be difficult to translate to the screen.
Lis Carey
Randal Morris
> Steven Albert Young wrote:
> >
> > I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
> > seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
> > enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read the
> > novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
> > appreciate some comments.
>
I actually did not know much about ST at all before I read it just a few
months ago. I have read other Heinlein, but I became interested enough
in Starship Troopers to read the book from hearing so much about the
upcoming movie, and various discussions on the net. The book is great,
a very tight, exciting story with much political allusion.
Besides, I can't see how a book could ruin the movie it is "based" on,
if anything, you will probably enjoy the book more.
--Ranman
Jeff Walther
: In article <5ei0t3$q...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
: Steven Albert Young <say...@umich.edu> wrote:
: >I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
: >seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
: >enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read the
: >novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
: >appreciate some comments.
The movie will not resemble the story in the book. It's a good
book and definitely worth reading, but you might want to hold
off until after the movie so you won't be too disappointed with
the movie.
Morgoth
Anti-communism is often just and expression of faschism(sp),
which is basically the same master. Just how they get their
logically it maybe different.
The end result is basically total control by a small select
group. Of course you get the same thing in captitalism. Seems no
matter what you call it, or how you get to it, the result is the
same.
Morgoth
The books seems by my dim memory to be a recollection of the
military c.1930. After all it was not that nice, the new military
is not into flogging/barrack counceling/etc.
Also not many people can remember how life was before, during,
and shortly after WW2. One step from fascism, not Hitlers, but
just as dangerous. One where the people also walked into it, but
we did not have death camps. Opps, I forgot about Internment
Camps (Japanese and Aleut).
Many who seem to condemn it, maybe never have been in the
military, or military history.
SPC Mike Adams, AK ARNG
Myself, I have been both, but only after 1986 (The New Army).
Richard Bergstresser
Bill Woods wrote:
>
> John Nichols wrote:
> >
> > On 20 Feb 1997 17:59:08 GMT, dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
> >
> > >Steven Albert Young <say...@umich.edu> wrote:
> > >>I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
> > >>seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
> > >>enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read the
> > >>novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
> > >>appreciate some comments.
> > >
> > >
> > >Now, let me break this to you gently: Some movies based on books are
> > >unfaithful to the books. The percentage for movies in general may be
> > >lower than I think -- only about 85%, for example. But it's higher than
> > >that for movies based on sf.
> > >
> > >From what I have heard, the movie allegedly based on Starship Troopers is
> > >less faithful to the original than is usual for sf movies.
> > >--
> > Definitely read the novel first. Hollywood adaptations of Heinlein
> > haven't been that great.
>
> Actually, you might be better off waiting until after you've seen the
> movie, and getting whatever enjoyment you can out of that first.
> By all accounts the movie is exciting in its own way, but a poor to
> horrible translation of the book.
>
I suspect if you read and liked the book you will hate the movie. If you like the movie
or if you hate the movie the book will still be good. See the movie first. Save the
best for last.
SMShwartz
Lawrence Watt-Evans writes about Robert A. Heinlein's invaliding out of
the Navy:
>>>>>>Tuberculosis, wasn't it? I don't remember for sure. Invalided out
in
1936 or '37.>>>>>>>>
You're right.
It's my understanding that Joe Haldeman either is about to have published
or is working on THE FOREVER PEACE.
Just got back from seeing EMPIRE STRIKES BACK which featured a trailer for
STARSHIP TROOPERS. It looks like it's going to be nonstop action, in any
case.
Susan Shwartz
Abe D. Lockman
> In article <5ei0t3$q...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
> Steven Albert Young <say...@umich.edu> wrote:
> >I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
> >seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
> >enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read the
> >novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
> >appreciate some comments.
If you wish to maximize your pleasure, read the book and don't see the movie.
adl
Joel McAllister
>Will reading the book destroy the movie for me.
From what I can tell from the trailers, the movie and the book
share a title, some characters, and perhaps a plot point or two.
But they will probably not be more than superficialy related.
-Joel
--
Joel McAllister Internet Specialist WebMaster http://www.wes.army.mil
(601) 634 4475 Waterways Exp. Station e-mail jk...@althor.wes.army.mil
Brandon Ray
In note <5ei6og$euo$7...@lator.cybercom.net>, j*wo...@cybercom.net (James A. Wolf)
writes:
>
>>I read Starship Troopers when I was a kid, and it was, at the time, a
>>terrific "yarn". Blood-thirsty aliens, hero troopers to the rescue,
>>loads of weapons, armour, fighting-suits...the whole kaboodle, pretty
>>xenophobic as well. The analogy of communists being the aliens was
>>raised at the time, and the novel is anything but subtle.
>
>>Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" put things in perspective. Same
>>subject, somewhat different attitude to war in space. I suspect
>>"The Forever War" had a greater influence in the long run, particularly
>>when you watch "Aliens".
>
>paradigm. (He served in the Navy before the war- and was discharged
>for medical reasons. Someone will tell me why no doubt!)
>
anyway). Not to name drop or anything, but to misquote Lloyd Bentsen, "Joe
Haldeman is a friend of mine." Joe relates that he was somewhat surprised
after FW was published, because people seemed to want to call it a reaction to
ST, and it was not intended as such. Interestingly, Joe said he got a lengthy
letter from RAH after FW was published, in which RAH acknowledged that FW was
not a reaction, but is in fact a damned fine book which stands on its own.
>(To email me, please remove the anti-spam asterisks from my e-mail address.)
>
> James A. Wolf *jwolf*@cybercom.net*
><*> <*>
>The jawbone of an ass is | Mister | The choice is simple: Remain on
> just as dangerous a weapon | Guilty | Earth and someday die. Or count
>downtoday as in Samson's time. | is | and then UP to outrace death
>and im-Richard Nixon | liable! | mortalize our being- Ray
>Bradbury
---
******************************************************************************
I am Barbie, of Borg. Resistance is so totally bogus. You will be, like,
assimilated...
******************************************************************************
James A. Wolf
Randal Morris <randal...@utmb.edu> wrote:
>> Steven Albert Young wrote:
>> >
>> > I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
>> > seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
>> > enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read the
>> > novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
>> > appreciate some comments.
>>
>I actually did not know much about ST at all before I read it just a few
>months ago. I have read other Heinlein, but I became interested enough
>in Starship Troopers to read the book from hearing so much about the
>upcoming movie, and various discussions on the net. The book is great,
>a very tight, exciting story with much political allusion.
>Besides, I can't see how a book could ruin the movie it is "based" on,
>if anything, you will probably enjoy the book more.
(Deep cleansing breaths)
Let me explain. ST the flick seems to be a popcorn movie- (IE
mindless summer evening fun like ID4) I like popcorn movies... BUT a
steady diet of them tends to get stuck in my gums and become an
irritant and I am especially unappreciatve when a popcorn movie
assumes the guise of a literary banquet!
(To email me, please remove the anti-spam exclaimation point from my e-mail address.)
James A. Wolf !jwolf!@cybercom.net!
John Nichols
>On Fri, 21 Feb 1997 04:54:19 GMT, j*wo...@cybercom.net (James A. Wolf)
>wrote:
>
>>Actually, Forever War wass written in reaction to Starship troopers.
>
>I've heard this asserted over and over, so much so that it's the
>conventional wisdom, but Haldeman says it's not so.
>
>>Haldeman served in Vietnam- while Heiniel used the WWII era as his
>>paradigm. (He served in the Navy before the war- and was discharged
>>for medical reasons. Someone will tell me why no doubt!)
>
>Tuberculosis, wasn't it? I don't remember for sure. Invalided out in
>1936 or '37.
>
>
Lawrence, in one of Heinlein's retrospectives he mentions that it was
tuberculosis that led to his discharge. I don't remember which one,
but I do remember it.
Cheers,
BigJohn from GEnie.
John Nichols
On Fri, 21 Feb 1997 01:12:36 -0800, Bill Woods <wwo...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>John Nichols wrote:
>>
>> On 20 Feb 1997 17:59:08 GMT, dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <5ei0t3$q...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
>> >Steven Albert Young <say...@umich.edu> wrote:
>> >>I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
>> >>seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
>> >>enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read the
>> >>novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
>> >>appreciate some comments.
>> >
>> >Yes, the book is worth reading.
>> >
>> >Now, let me break this to you gently: Some movies based on books are
>> >unfaithful to the books. The percentage for movies in general may be
>> >lower than I think -- only about 85%, for example. But it's higher than
>> >that for movies based on sf.
>> >
>> >From what I have heard, the movie allegedly based on Starship Troopers is
>> >less faithful to the original than is usual for sf movies.
>> >--
>> Definitely read the novel first. Hollywood adaptations of Heinlein
>> haven't been that great.
>
>Actually, you might be better off waiting until after you've seen the
>movie, and getting whatever enjoyment you can out of that first.
>By all accounts the movie is exciting in its own way, but a poor to
>horrible translation of the book.
>
I personally don't think so. Obviously, ymv.
Beth and Richard Treitel
To my surprise and delight, lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans)
wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Feb 1997 04:54:19 GMT, j*wo...@cybercom.net (James A. Wolf)
>wrote:
>
>>Actually, Forever War wass written in reaction to Starship troopers.
>
>I've heard this asserted over and over, so much so that it's the
>conventional wisdom, but Haldeman says it's not so.
Well, in that case, it may qualify as one of the most glaring
instances of unconscious or coincidental parody/retort in the whole
history of ScF. Without even trying, I can think of three ways in
which _TFW_ appears to be thumbing its nose loudly at _ST_:
* the explanation of what the instructors can legally do to the
trainees (and why they do or don't do it)
* the vacation planet and its effects on the troops
* the official attitude to sexual relations among the troops.
Getting back to the original point, I find myself wondering if anyone
who really goes for that sort of film will even enjoy the book. So my
advice would be to see the film first; the book will not be hard to
find, if you want to pick up a copy afterwards.
- Richard
------
A sufficiently incompetent ScF author is indistinguishable from magic.
see also:
What is (and isn't) ScF? ==> http://www.wco.com/~treitel/sf.html
Wolfkin
> In article <5ei0t3$q...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
> Steven Albert Young <say...@umich.edu> wrote:
> >I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
> >seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
> >enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read the
> >novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
> >appreciate some comments.
Yes, it will decrease your enjoyment of the movie. Read it anyway. :)
It's worth it.
Wolfkin.
roger mihalko
wasnt aware they(hollywood)was doing the movie. As, for reading book,
It is one of my top 5 sci-fi novels and deserves a reading if your
heinlein fan or not. As for movie, it looked hi-tech as for visuals,
but the brief glimpse I saw I was reminded of two TV shows. One being
Space above and Beyond, and B5. The creatures in the trailer looked
like green versions of the Shadows in B5. I would read the book to
give you a base of Knowledge fo the movie, as the others above have
said,most Holly(botch)wood incarnations of Scifi from print is usually
weak and un loyal.
my 2cents,
Kazimni
"age is a perspective, Depends which planet your standing on"
Mustafa is Dead ! Long Live SpeedRacer!!
Wolfkin
Morgoth wrote:
>
> Anti-communism is often just and expression of faschism(sp),
> which is basically the same master. Just how they get their
> logically it maybe different.
Yep.
> The end result is basically total control by a small select
> group. Of course you get the same thing in captitalism.
Depends on your definition of capitalism, I guess. It is possible to
have a system without 'control', but AFAIK, it's never been done.
Wolfkin.
Don HARLOW
>On 20 Feb 1997 17:59:08 GMT, dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>
>>Now, let me break this to you gently: Some movies based on books are
>>unfaithful to the books. The percentage for movies in general may be
>>lower than I think -- only about 85%, for example. But it's higher than
>>that for movies based on sf.
>>
>>From what I have heard, the movie allegedly based on Starship Troopers is
>>less faithful to the original than is usual for sf movies.
>>--
>Definitely read the novel first. Hollywood adaptations of Heinlein
>haven't been that great.
Heinlein, like many successful literary figures, was writing first and
foremost not about "hunting bugs" but about ideas (ideas, BTW, with
which I personally do not agree). He did a very good job of this in
many, perhaps most, of his works, and I think this is why he won a
IMHO well-deserved Hugo for "Starship Troopers".
Hollywood is not big on ideas; they don't translate well to the
screen. Audio-visual "literature" tends, with some honorable
exceptions, to be a literature of events, not ideas. It will hardly be
surprising if only the "bug hunt" -- with lots of nice special effects
-- remains. (Also, you're sure to have three or four mediocre screen
writers who will insist that they could have done it better than
Heinlein in the first place, and will make appropriate changes.)
Somebody else wrote here that he was enthusiastic about how closely
_Puppet Masters_ followed the original novel. I myself was surprised
at how bad a movie that followed the book as closely as that one did
could turn out.
Don HARLOW
http://www.webcom.com/~donh/
(English version available at http://www.webcom.com/~donh/dona.html)
Terry Austin
d...@donh.vip.best.com (Don HARLOW) wrote:
>Somebody else wrote here that he was enthusiastic about how closely
>_Puppet Masters_ followed the original novel. I myself was surprised
>at how bad a movie that followed the book as closely as that one did
>could turn out.
Many of the characteristics that make a good book good, make a bad
movie bad. This works both ways. Movies must be, by their nature,
visual. Not necessarily just special effects, but movies convey with
images that a book cannot duplicate. A good book conveys with the
readers own imaginations, something a movie cannot afford to do.
That's why I'm not too concerned that ST won't follow the book too
closely (and it won't). If it did, I'd skip it.
---------------------------------
-- Terry Austin, Companion of Loyal Order of Chivalry & Sorcery
Hyperbooks Online Bookstore http://www.hyperbooks.com/
Not that I really care. I'm pretty stupid anyway.
---Marius Scipio Magnus (Keith Godwin)
Apathy is not always the correct path. But at this point it's not a half bad idea.
---Sir Luke Skypath (Dave Cook)
Dave Roy
>Besides, I can't see how a book could ruin the movie it is "based" on,
>if anything, you will probably enjoy the book more.
It is easy to ruin the movie by reading the book first. If you read
the book, and expect to find certain things in the movie that you
liked in the book, you are bound to be disappointed, and thus,
possibly hate the movie. If you see the movie first, then read the
book, you can enjoy the movie on its own merits without having what's
actually in the book affect what you're seeing.
Of course, you can avoid this if you decide to see the movie anyway
and totally disassociate the book from it, enjoying the movie for what
it is. That's what I plan to do (assuming I like the movie of
course).
Dave Roy
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <5erddh$n...@news1.ni.net>,
Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>d...@donh.vip.best.com (Don HARLOW) wrote:
>
>>Somebody else wrote here that he was enthusiastic about how closely
>>_Puppet Masters_ followed the original novel. I myself was surprised
>>at how bad a movie that followed the book as closely as that one did
>>could turn out.
>
>Many of the characteristics that make a good book good, make a bad
>movie bad. This works both ways. Movies must be, by their nature,
>visual. Not necessarily just special effects, but movies convey with
>images that a book cannot duplicate. A good book conveys with the
>readers own imaginations, something a movie cannot afford to do.
>
--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
October '96 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Jason and Heather
Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
> Many of the characteristics that make a good book good, make a bad
> movie bad. This works both ways. Movies must be, by their nature,
> visual. Not necessarily just special effects, but movies convey with
> images that a book cannot duplicate. A good book conveys with the
> readers own imaginations, something a movie cannot afford to do.
>
> closely (and it won't). If it did, I'd skip it.
And that is exactly why I won't go see ST. Bowdlerizing the political
and ideological content is one thing. I expect that from movies. But
any movie maker who's handed an image as cool as power armor and
throws it away gets none of my money.
jason
--
"The man who marries a modern woman marries a woman who expects to vote
like a man, smoke like a man, have her hair cut like a man, and go without
restrictions and without chaperones and obey nobody."
BOBBED HAIR - John R. Rice, 1941 http://www.primenet.com/~steiners/
John Nichols
On 24 Feb 1997 11:51:03 -0500, nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy
Lebovitz) wrote:
>In article <5erddh$n...@news1.ni.net>,
>Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>>d...@donh.vip.best.com (Don HARLOW) wrote:
>>
>>>Somebody else wrote here that he was enthusiastic about how closely
>>>_Puppet Masters_ followed the original novel. I myself was surprised
>>>at how bad a movie that followed the book as closely as that one did
>>>could turn out.
>>
>>Many of the characteristics that make a good book good, make a bad
>>movie bad. This works both ways. Movies must be, by their nature,
>>visual. Not necessarily just special effects, but movies convey with
>>images that a book cannot duplicate. A good book conveys with the
>>readers own imaginations, something a movie cannot afford to do.
>>
>And Heinlein is a fairly non-visual writer.
>
>--
Huh?
P & H
I must have missed how this thread got started.
When is this movie due for release and who is in it?
Of course I shall read the book, (again I think) before I go see it,
however I most likely will be disapointed.
H
Reality is in our minds. All else is a delusion.
Virtual reality is just a figment of the illusion.
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <331215ca...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Now that I think about it, my comment may not have been relevent,
but I'm going to defend it anyway. :-)
Imho, Heinlein doesn't spend very much time telling you how things
look. (There are a very few exceptions, notably Jupiter in _Farmer
on Ganymede_.) On the one hand, this frees the movie makers to
design their own appearances for things (they'll do it anyway, but
with Heinlein, they're less likely to contradict to the book)--on
the other hand it gives them less to work with. Also, this might
make the movie less true to the book on a more general level--
Heinlein's books show a universe where visual appearance is
generally less important than what people say and how things
work.
Steve Sloan
P & H wrote:
>
> I must have missed how this thread got started.
>
> When is this movie due for release and who is in it?
Doogie Howser. (IIRC)
> Of course I shall read the book, (again I think) before I go see it,
> however I most likely will be disapointed.
>
> H
> Reality is in our minds. All else is a delusion.
> Virtual reality is just a figment of the illusion.
_____________________________________________________________________
Steve Sloan E-mail: sl...@geosim.msfc.nasa.gov
Senior in Computer Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
Check out Kithrup.JPG on MY NEW WEB SITE (I'm so excited):
http://www.cs.uah.edu/cs/students/ssloan/
LAL
In article <3310f669...@nntp.best.com>, d...@donh.vip.best.com reported
that:
> Somebody else wrote here that he was enthusiastic about how closely
> _Puppet Masters_ followed the original novel.
IMO, Heinlein would have loved this anachronistic sense of the time stream . . .
Multidemensional geometries, indeed.
--
Standard disclaimers apply. Nobody here ever agrees with me on anything.
David Harmon
On 25 Feb 1997 05:00:31 -0500, nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy
Lebovitz) wrote:
>Imho, Heinlein doesn't spend very much time telling you how things
>look. (There are a very few exceptions, notably Jupiter in _Farmer
>on Ganymede_.)
Imho, Heinlein strikes the right balance amazingly often, describing
things in ample detail where it makes a real difference to the story,
while supplying just enough to set my imagination spinning most other
places. As a result, I don't have a visual picture of any Heinlein
story all the way through like a movie, but there are a few very clear
key images from every one.
> On the one hand, this frees the movie makers to
>design their own appearances for things (they'll do it anyway, but
>with Heinlein, they're less likely to contradict to the book)--on
>the other hand it gives them less to work with.
This shouldn't be a problem (if the director actually reads the book.)
Maybe the description of the power suits in Starship Troopers wasn't
picture perfect, but it was plenty good enough to work from and not so
explicit as to be impossible to realize. I don't really care what
shape the drop capsules are, as long they have enough heat shield to
keep from burning up on the way down. We may not know what the Bugs'
tunneling machine looks like, but we sure know what it sounds like.
If those things aren't there, it's not Starship Troopers. That still
leaves 98% of the visual styling up to the director.
Heinlein also liked to string the reader along for a while before
revealing some things, in order to jostle the reader's assumptions.
This doesn't quite work the same way in a movie: we'll know that Juan
Rico has brown skin from frame one. Not a problem, just do it.
(Yes, I am aware that Verhoeven botched it.)
Brennen Bearnes
In article <5ei0t3$q...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
say...@umich.edu (Steven Albert Young) wrote:
>
> I had not heard of the novel until trailers for the movie came out. It
> seems like a great novel, but I'm worried that it may decrease my
> enjoyment of the movie, which I'm VERY excited for. If anyone has read the
> novel or knows something about what the movie is going to be like, I'd
> appreciate some comments.
Actually, it's more a matter of watching the movie decreasing your
enjoyment of the book. Definetly read the book first. It's an enjoyable
read, regardless of how you feel about the politics.
Myself, I only hope that the movie doesn't totally ruin the reputation of
the book, as happened with _The Puppet Masters_.
--
Brennen Bearnes
bbea...@worldnet.att.net
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/8994/
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Bill Woods
Bill Kinkaid wrote:
>
> Bill Woods <wwo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> >From what I have heard, the movie allegedly based on Starship Troopers is
> >> >less faithful to the original than is usual for sf movies.
>
>
> >> >--
> >> Definitely read the novel first. Hollywood adaptations of Heinlein
> >> haven't been that great.
> >
> >movie, and getting whatever enjoyment you can out of that first.
> >By all accounts the movie is exciting in its own way, but a poor to
> >horrible translation of the book.
>
> >
Well, one *rumor* was that the soldiers in the movie are draftees!
>
> Bill in Victoria
> (to respond by e-mail,
> delete anti-spamming **)
--
Bill Woods
"The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program"
-Larry Niven
Bill Kinkaid
Bill Woods <wwo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >From what I have heard, the movie allegedly based on Starship Troopers is
>> >less faithful to the original than is usual for sf movies.
Which is usually pretty bad.
>> >--
>> Definitely read the novel first. Hollywood adaptations of Heinlein
>> haven't been that great.
>
>Actually, you might be better off waiting until after you've seen the
>movie, and getting whatever enjoyment you can out of that first.
>By all accounts the movie is exciting in its own way, but a poor to
>horrible translation of the book.
Worse that The Puppet Masters?
>
Michael Kozlowski
In article <8569248...@dejanews.com>,
Brennen Bearnes <bbea...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Actually, it's more a matter of watching the movie decreasing your
>enjoyment of the book. Definetly read the book first. It's an enjoyable
>read, regardless of how you feel about the politics.
I dunno. After reading all the discussion on rasw, I decided to see what
the fuss was about. _ST_ was, at best, okay.
I mean, good job developing the world, great characterization, but ...
isn't there supposed to be a plot in there somewhere? As much as people
rant about overly long books, it seems to me that _Troopers_ could have
benefitted from a few hundred more pages.
Besides which, _Ender's Game_ covered a lot of the same territory more
convincingly.
--
Michael Kozlowski mkoz...@ssc.wisc.edu
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~mlk/index.html
"Weasels, weasels everywhere; Nor any drop to drink!"
Wei-Hwa Huang
sou...@netcom.com (David Harmon) writes:
>Imho, Heinlein strikes the right balance amazingly often, describing
>things in ample detail where it makes a real difference to the story,
>while supplying just enough to set my imagination spinning most other
>places. As a result, I don't have a visual picture of any Heinlein
>story all the way through like a movie, but there are a few very clear
>key images from every one.
Hmm. This is true for me for some books, but for certain others, I
do have a complete visual picture of the entire story, like a movie.
(Running through these "movies" is a good substitute for counting sheep.)
Notably, "The Puppet Masters." Too bad the real movie didn't live
up to expectations...
--
Wei-Hwa Huang, whu...@ugcs.caltech.edu, http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~whuang/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metaphors be with you.
Chris and Elisabeth Zakes
ckin...@pinc.com (Bill Kinkaid) wrote:
>>Actually, you might be better off waiting until after you've seen the
>>movie, and getting whatever enjoyment you can out of that first.
>>By all accounts the movie is exciting in its own way, but a poor to
>>horrible translation of the book.
>Worse that The Puppet Masters?
>
I don't know about "worse"; we won't know that until the movie is
released. All evidence to date suggests "at least as bad", though.
-Chris Zakes
C and E Zakes
Tivar Moondragon (Patience and Persistence)
and Aethelyan of Moondragon (Decadence is its own reward)
moon...@bga.com
dan ritter
In article <5f1jpd$6...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Wei-Hwa Huang <whu...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>sou...@netcom.com (David Harmon) writes:
>>Imho, Heinlein strikes the right balance amazingly often, describing
>>things in ample detail where it makes a real difference to the story,
>
>do have a complete visual picture of the entire story, like a movie.
Well, last night I re-read ST, this time consciously thinking about
what would make a good movie, and how to convey the narration without
using a voiceover. Some parts can be cut, no doubt about it, in order
to make a movie. But what absolutely can't (IMNSHO) be cut, are these
scenes:
Rico in H&MP, two separate flashbacks, one for the last day of high-
school, and one for the "Juvenile Delinquent" exchange.
The entire battle sequence with the Skinnies, including "I am a 30
second bomb", preferably as a subtitle.
A few scenes from boot camp, preferably including Zim vs. Shujumi,
Hendrick's flogging, and Rico's infraction. Whether or not to leave
in Dillinger's escapade is debatable - but the flashback cued from
it in H&MP is vital.
The meeting with his father at Sanctuary - this needs the setup of the
last day of school, so be it.
Scenes from OCS - again, H&MP is important. The Pip ceremony is
important, too.
Another battle sequence - the battle on Klendathu, dragging it out as
long as possible, making parallels with Vietnam, breaking parallels
with Vietnam, culminating in the tunnel battles.
Finally, to cap it all off, rewrite the ending a little. Make Rico's
appointment to Lieutenant on the battlefield, re-arrange the troops,
and have his new unit dropped for the last time out of Carmencita's
ship.
Now, *that* would be a movie.
-dsr-
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 26 Feb 1997 04:56:54 GMT, mkoz...@guy.ssc.wisc.edu (Michael
Kozlowski) wrote:
>Besides which, _Ender's Game_ covered a lot of the same territory more
>convincingly.
ENDER'S GAME was written twenty years later. I don't find it more
convincing, and suspect that you do only because its worldview is more
modern, and therefore more similar to your own.
TOUCHED BY THE GODS: Hardcover, Tor Books, November 1997
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Updated 2/7/97
Beyond Comics opens 3/1/97 at Lakeforest Mall, Gaithersburg MD (we hope!)
Rodney Holmes
mkoz...@guy.ssc.wisc.edu (Michael Kozlowski) writes:
>I mean, good job developing the world, great characterization, but ...
>isn't there supposed to be a plot in there somewhere? As much as people
>rant about overly long books, it seems to me that _Troopers_ could have
>benefitted from a few hundred more pages.
The first time I read it, when I was about 8 or 9 I didn't get much out
of it. I've read it a couple of times since then and have gotten more out
of it each time. I found that the book isn't so much about fighting the
bugs as it about Rico's growth into an adult and Hienliens(sp) polirical
beliefs. It always makes me think about things.
>Besides which, _Ender's Game_ covered a lot of the same territory more
>convincingly.
I disagree. I thought it was a pretty much run of the mill adventure
story. Instead of basing the story around a ordariy person in an
extra-ordinary story; Card based Ender's Game around an extra-ordinary
character. While that can make for entertaining reads, they general don't
make for very thought provoking ones.
ROdney Holmes
Daniel J. Starr
In article <33187cd8...@news.clark.net>,
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>mkoz...@guy.ssc.wisc.edu (Michael Kozlowski) wrote:
>>Besides which, _Ender's Game_ covered a lot of the same territory more
>>convincingly.
>
>convincing, and suspect that you do only because its worldview is more
>modern, and therefore more similar to your own.
_Ender's Game_ does portray the military life as dehumanizing rather than
stimulating; is that what you're identifying as modern? If so, do you
mean "current" rather than "modern"? - for I suspect, though don't know,
that that opinion could be readily found in Europe in 1919.
For the record, I personally didn't find _Ender's Game_ more convincing
than _Starship Troopers_; anyone who thinks that it accurately depicts how
one ought to stimulate genius, or train future commanders, raise your
hands so I know who to shoot. :)
I did find _Ender's Game_ more *readable* than Heinlein. The philosophy
still tends to be specious - but there's much less of it in Card's book.
I only have to grit my teeth every ten pages instead of every ten lines.
:)
--
Daniel Starr | Professional: to be objective despite enthusiasm,
dst...@math.mit.edu | and energetic despite its lack.
Tom Galloway
In article <19970221234...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
SMShwartz <smsh...@aol.com> wrote:
>It's my understanding that Joe Haldeman either is about to have published
>or is working on THE FOREVER PEACE.
I believe Joe's said that it'll be out around Labor Day, and he's hoping
copies will be available at Worldcon.
tyg t...@netcom.com
Steven A Urbush
I agree completely! Too bad that you aren't in Hollywood :) I (personally)
would include the line in which 3dLT Rico comments that he was glad to
have combat engineers on his flank because "They were almost as good as
MI".
Regards,
Steve Urbush
TSgt, USAF (Ret)
341 CE Squadron Primary Base Engineer Emergency Force (Prime BEEF)
John DeLaughter
My appologies if someone brighter than I has already made this connection,
but on the way to school today, I was suddenly struck by a thought. Given
that the movie Verhoven is filming has:
NO Personal armoured suits
NO Individual drop capsules
Conscription
A fascist government
and
An interminable war
the movie he's filming isn't _Starship Troopers_ - it's _The Forever War_ !
So - am I nuts, or is he?
John DeLaughter
Nyrath the nearly wise
Brendan Newport (bren...@manchester.sgi.com) wrote:
: Don't, absolutely do not read Harry Harrisons, "Bill, The Galactic Hero"
: beforehand. If you do, that book will definately spoil things for you.
As I recall, somebody reading an early draft of THE FOREVER WAR
told Joe Haldeman that it was sort of a rebuttal to STARSHIP
TROOPERS. Haldeman said that idea didn't occur to him, and
in any event, the politics in STARSHIP TROOPERS were adequately
answered by Gordon Dickson's NAKED TO THE STARS, and
Harry Harrison's BILL, THE GALACTIC HERO.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| WINCHELL CHUNG http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/home.html |
| Nyrath the nearly wise nyr...@clark.net |
+---_---+---------------------[ SURREAL SAGE SEZ: ]--------------------------+
| /_\ | Everything depends |
| <(*)> | |
|/_/|\_\| |
| //|\\ | |
+///|\\\+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Michael Kube-McDowell
On Fri, 21 Feb 1997 05:12:19 -0700, Curtis Gibson
<Mho...@mail.kdcol.com> wrote:
>Books of his that I literally could not finish
>(because I would rather be doing just about anything else than reading
>that book): Troopers, Time Enough for Love, Number of the Beast, Friday,
>Stranger, Job, Puppet Masters. I'm not saying these books are BAD, but
>there is something about them, and his writing style in general that is
>_Exactly_ what I do not like in a book
You have two of my favorites there--TIME and PUPPET MASTERS--two that
I consider just one cut below the top--STARSHIP TROOPERS and
STRANGER--two that I enjoyed but have felt no urge to reread--FRIDAY
and JOB--and the one Heinlein I found unreadable--NUMBER. In other
words, that list is, by my lights, all over the map.
_De gustibus_, and so forth...
K-Mac
---] Michael Paul McDowell, writing as Michael P. Kube-McDowell [---
---] Author of THE QUIET POOLS and STAR WARS: BEFORE THE STORM [---
---] For more info: http://www.sff.net/people/K-Mac [---
---] *** NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS: K-...@sff.net *** [---
Michael Kube-McDowell
On 20 Feb 1997 20:05:59 GMT, pmccu...@aol.com (PMccutc103) wrote:
>If you are the type of person who reads all the "Star Wars" novels, but
>put down _Alien v. Predator_ because it was too hard, see the movie.
Oooh, low blow. Ref, give that man a reprimand card--
Joseph Askew
Morgoth (mor...@nome.net) wrote:
: Anti-communism is often just and expression of faschism(sp),
: which is basically the same master. Just how they get their
: logically it maybe different.
: The end result is basically total control by a small select
: group. Of course you get the same thing in captitalism. Seems no
: matter what you call it, or how you get to it, the result is the
: same.
As so well demonstrated by the Pope, the Church of Latter Day Saints
and General Motors. All organisations led by a small select group.
Do go on about how the Pope is a crypto-fascist (or is that pinko?).
Joseph
--
"Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall inherit the Earth"
- President Bill Clinton
Justin D. Lester
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>
> On 26 Feb 1997 04:56:54 GMT, mkoz...@guy.ssc.wisc.edu (Michael
> Kozlowski) wrote:
>
> >Besides which, _Ender's Game_ covered a lot of the same territory more
> >convincingly.
>
> ENDER'S GAME was written twenty years later. I don't find it more
> convincing, and suspect that you do only because its worldview is more
> modern, and therefore more similar to your own.
>
Justin
Curtis Gibson
Joseph Askew wrote:
>
> Morgoth (mor...@nome.net) wrote:
>
> : Anti-communism is often just and expression of faschism(sp),
> : which is basically the same master. Just how they get their
> : logically it maybe different.
>
> : The end result is basically total control by a small select
> : group. Of course you get the same thing in captitalism. Seems no
> : matter what you call it, or how you get to it, the result is the
> : same.
>
> As so well demonstrated by the Pope, the Church of Latter Day Saints
> and General Motors. All organisations led by a small select group.
> Do go on about how the Pope is a crypto-fascist (or is that pinko?).
>
> Joseph
>
where one CHOOSES to belong. In a governmental situations (ie Communisim
or Fascism) there is usually no choice. Just had to point that out.
--
-Mhoram
Why is it a penny for your thoughts, but you have to put your
two cents in. Somebody's makin' a penny somewhere. -Stephen Wright
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 27 Feb 1997 01:50:36 -0500, dst...@math.mit.edu (Daniel J. Starr)
wrote:
>In article <33187cd8...@news.clark.net>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>>mkoz...@guy.ssc.wisc.edu (Michael Kozlowski) wrote:
>>>Besides which, _Ender's Game_ covered a lot of the same territory more
>>>convincingly.
>>
>>ENDER'S GAME was written twenty years later. I don't find it more
>>convincing, and suspect that you do only because its worldview is more
>>modern, and therefore more similar to your own.
>
>_Ender's Game_ does portray the military life as dehumanizing rather than
>stimulating; is that what you're identifying as modern?
No. I mean the entire worldview of the novel -- how people think, how
they communicate, how they interact with their environment.
> If so, do you mean "current" rather than "modern"?
Depends how you're defining your terms; I meant post-1968, not
specifically 1997.
> - for I suspect, though don't know,
>that that opinion could be readily found in Europe in 1919.
Sure, or in Germany after the Thirty Years War, or in various other
times and places. There is no new thing under the sun, saith the
preacher.
>For the record, I personally didn't find _Ender's Game_ more convincing
>than _Starship Troopers_;
Neither did I -- but then, I'm not sure I found either of them exactly
"convincing." Both were good enough that I could manage the
suspension of disbelief, but in both cases the disbelief whacked back
down good and hard the minute I closed the book.
>I did find _Ender's Game_ more *readable* than Heinlein.
Can't say the same -- I didn't find the philosophy that intrusive.
Tim Menzies
nicely put.
now let us spend a moments grim appreciation for "the forever war" and
its eloquent reply to the more fascist elements of "starship trooper".
--
Dr. Tim Menzies rm EE339 | "30 years ago, I made
ti...@cse.unsw.edu.au | some outrageous promises
,-_|\ www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~timm | about AI. I didn't deliver.
/ \ AI Dept, School of Computer | Neither did you. This is
\_,-._* Science &Engineering, Uni NSW | all your fault."
v Sydney, Australia, 2052 | -- Marvin Minsky, IJCAI'91
+61-2-93854034(p)93855995(f) | (summary)
Matt Hickman
In <33188D97...@cse.unsw.edu.au>, Tim Menzies <ti...@cse.unsw.edu.au> writes:
>
>now let us spend a moments grim appreciation for "the forever war" and
>its eloquent reply to the more fascist elements of "starship trooper".
Sorry, but there are no fascist elements in _Starship Troopers_ (or are
you talking about the movie? The movie is reputed to wallow in
fascism).
Matt Hickman bh...@chevron.com TANSTAAFL!
OS/2 Systems Specialist, Chevron Information Technologies Co.
I believe that a man has an obligation to be merciful to the weak...
patient with the stupid...generous to the poor. I think he is obligated
to lay down his life for his brothers, should it be required of him. But
I don't propose to prove any of these things; they are beyond proof. And
I don't demand that you believe as I do.
Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
"If This Goes On--" ASF c.1940
Kevin Martin
In article <33188D97...@cse.unsw.edu.au>,
Tim Menzies <ti...@cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
>John DeLaughter wrote:
[,,,]
>> Conscription
>> A fascist government
[...]
>
As others have observed, even FW had powered suits. Nasty ones, IIRC,
but it had them. But I'll agree with John on the points highlighted.
>now let us spend a moments grim appreciation for "the forever war" and
>its eloquent reply to the more fascist elements of "starship trooper".
Since ST had NO conscription, and in fact denied that any just
government should be allowed to use it, just what would those
elements be?
The actor Clancy Brown was quoted as making the same mistake, much to the
disappointment of 'most everyone in a.f.h., so I'd be fascinated to hear
your, uh, reasoning.
Steve Brinich
Unless _everything_ that has become commonly known about the movie
is wrong, a better heading would be:
"Starship Troopers worth reading INSTEAD OF movie?"
(Answer: yes)
--
Steve Brinich ste...@access.digex.net If the government wants us
PGP:89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E to respect the law
http://www.access.digex.net/~steve-b it should set a better example
Brandon Ray
In note <5fal41$21lg$1...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, rrs...@ibm.net (Matt Hickman)
writes:
>In <33188D97...@cse.unsw.edu.au>, Tim Menzies <ti...@cse.unsw.edu.au>
>>writes:
>>now let us spend a moments grim appreciation for "the forever war" and
>>its eloquent reply to the more fascist elements of "starship trooper".
>
>you talking about the movie? The movie is reputed to wallow in
>fascism).
>
excellent book, and anyone who hasn't read it should do so. But it was not a
response to ST. It was intended to stand on its own.
>Matt Hickman bh...@chevron.com TANSTAAFL!
>OS/2 Systems Specialist, Chevron Information Technologies Co.
> I believe that a man has an obligation to be merciful to the weak...
> patient with the stupid...generous to the poor. I think he is obligated
> to lay down his life for his brothers, should it be required of him. But
> I don't propose to prove any of these things; they are beyond proof. And
> I don't demand that you believe as I do.
> Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
> "If This Goes On--" ASF c.1940
>
>
---
******************************************************************************
I am Barbie, of Borg. Resistance is so totally bogus. You will be, like,
assimilated...
******************************************************************************
Chris and Elisabeth Zakes
Brandon Ray <Pub...@panda.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>In note <5fal41$21lg$1...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, rrs...@ibm.net (Matt Hickman)
>writes:
>>In <33188D97...@cse.unsw.edu.au>, Tim Menzies <ti...@cse.unsw.edu.au>
>>>writes:
>>>now let us spend a moments grim appreciation for "the forever war" and
>>>its eloquent reply to the more fascist elements of "starship trooper".
>>
>>Sorry, but there are no fascist elements in _Starship Troopers_ (or are
>>you talking about the movie? The movie is reputed to wallow in
>>fascism).
>>
>Also, FW was not a response to ST. This is not to knock FW -- it is an
>excellent book, and anyone who hasn't read it should do so. But it was not a
>response to ST. It was intended to stand on its own.
Gee, the way I heard it, Heinlein was so upset about Haldeman
"stealing" the power armor idea from "Starship Troopers", that he
publicly congratulated him for an excellent book, the next time they
met.
Zev Sero
j...@juand.earth.nwu.edu (John DeLaughter) wrote:
>Given that the movie Verhoven is filming has:
> NO Personal armoured suits
> NO Individual drop capsules
> Conscription
It has CONSCRIPTION? The other two are merely technical details. If
RAH had left them out of the novel it would still be the same story.
But CONSCRIPTION? How can this piece of filth possibly justify that
and still attribute any of it to RAH? Does Mrs Heinlein have any
control at all over it? At least to the point of not letting them
use RAH's name? I'm sorry for shouting, but this is a travesty of
everything RAH ever stood for. If viewers are going to come out with
the impression that he supported conscription, perhaps there's a case
for a defamation action by the estate (on the theory that any damage
to RAH's reputation as a person will lead to financial damage to the
estate).
--
Zev Sero Don't blame me, I voted for Harry Browne
zs...@mail.idt.net
zs...@technimetrics.com
PoppaDoc
>
> Gee, the way I heard it, Heinlein was so upset about Haldeman
> "stealing" the power armor idea from "Starship Troopers", that he
> publicly congratulated him for an excellent book, the next time they
> met.
>
> -Chris Zakes
>
E.E. 'Doc' Smith. Read the Lensman series.
Nyrath the nearly wise
PoppaDoc (popp...@cyber1.servtech.com) wrote:
: Indeed! Besides, the concept of powered armor goes back to
: E.E. 'Doc' Smith. Read the Lensman series.
Sir, I beg to differ <grin>
Are you sure? My admittedly feeble memory recalls many
kinds of Galactic Patrol armor, but as far as I can recall,
all the power they used went to weapons, not man-amplification.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| WINCHELL CHUNG http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/home.html |
| Nyrath the nearly wise nyr...@clark.net |
+---_---+---------------------[ SURREAL SAGE SEZ: ]--------------------------+
| /_\ | Avoid cliches like the plague - they're a dime a dozen. |
PETER SCHORN
Chris and Elisabeth Zakes <moon...@bga.com> wrote in article
<5fddn2$1f...@news3.realtime.net>...
> Gee, the way I heard it, Heinlein was so upset about Haldeman
> "stealing" the power armor idea from "Starship Troopers", that he
> publicly congratulated him for an excellent book, the next time they
> met.
I heard this too. I think it's probably true. My $0.02(US):
The biggest similarity beyween ST and FW is a focus on, and
respect for the common soldier. This is the explicit
theme of ST, and if Heinlein saw it in FW as well, I could well
imagine him praising Haldeman for it.
The biggest difference that I see between the two books is that--
ST is *pre*scriptive--it uses the speculative aspect of SF to posit
an ideal military.
FW is *de*scriptive--it uses SF metaphors to describe the author's
experience in Vietnam (with a less-than-ideal
military)
IMHO: both books handle vital and complicated topics thoughtfully
while being very entertaining--so entertaining, it seems, that even
the people who enjoy them sometimes miss their points (as I did
on first reading for both).
Graydon
PETER SCHORN (peter.a...@jsc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: The biggest difference that I see between the two books is that--
:
: ST is *pre*scriptive--it uses the speculative aspect of SF to posit
: an ideal military.
: FW is *de*scriptive--it uses SF metaphors to describe the author's
: experience in Vietnam (with a less-than-ideal
: military)
I don't think :Starship Troopers: is about an ideal military; pretty
clearly, it's _not_ an ideal military, it's an extremely traditional and
very peculiar military, a bizarre cross between traditional US Marines and
traditional British Regiments.
What 'Stroopers _is_ is a fix for how you have a volunteer military and
don't end up with the self serving bastards in power at home by pure
selection pressure - you only let people who _have_ volunteered at
political power, and you have History and Moral Philosophy classes to
catch the people who might volunteer young and give them reasons, to keep
the pool of possible volunteers large.
Considering where Heinlein was from and the really lasting political
consequences of the American Civil War using up a disproportionate number
of the principled people on both sides, I don't find this interpretation
all that far fetched; it's about the ethics of volunteering and a system
in which you don't critically disadvantage your family by doing so.
--
Uton we hycgan hwaer we ham agen, | saun...@qlink.queensu.ca
ond thonne gethencan hu we thider cumen.
Robert Sneddon (SEE .SIG TO RE
In article <5fh42p$8...@clarknet.clark.net>
nyr...@clark.net "Nyrath the nearly wise" writes:
>
> PoppaDoc (popp...@cyber1.servtech.com) wrote:
> : Indeed! Besides, the concept of powered armor goes back to
> : E.E. 'Doc' Smith. Read the Lensman series.
>
> Sir, I beg to differ <grin>
> Are you sure? My admittedly feeble memory recalls many
> kinds of Galactic Patrol armor, but as far as I can recall,
> all the power they used went to weapons, not man-amplification.
Kinnison had a suit of super-powered armour made for his meeting
with Helmuth - I faintly remember thousand-horsepower motors being
mentioned. Regular Patrol armour had amplification as well, though -
see the scene where Kinnison, van Buskirk and Worsel are recharging
their batteries from the Delgonian power station.
--
*** SPAM BLOCKED ADDRESS *** To reply, remove the string "_nospam_" from
the address above. If you don't, mail will bounce and I'll never see it.
This is done to prevent spammers from junk-emailing me.
Robert (nojay) Sneddon
John 8^]
Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
>
> PoppaDoc (popp...@cyber1.servtech.com) wrote:
> : Indeed! Besides, the concept of powered armor goes back to
> : E.E. 'Doc' Smith. Read the Lensman series.
>
> Sir, I beg to differ <grin>
> Are you sure? My admittedly feeble memory recalls many
> kinds of Galactic Patrol armor, but as far as I can recall,
> all the power they used went to weapons, not man-amplification.
>
> | WINCHELL CHUNG http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/home.html |
> | Nyrath the nearly wise nyr...@clark.net |
> +---_---+---------------------[ SURREAL SAGE SEZ: ]--------------------------+
> | /_\ | Avoid cliches like the plague - they're a dime a dozen. |
> | <(*)> | |
> |/_/|\_\| |
> | //|\\ | |
> +///|\\\+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
With all due respect.....
Was it not that, in the final days of Helmuth (who spoke for Boskone) then
did Kimball Kinnisson don his ponderous armor of solid dureum, which armor
could not have been moved by any, no matter how mighty, but for the thousand
horsepower engine enclosed within? Which did not have even such a weak link
as a view-port, but relied on his Sense of Perception, without which he could
not see through the solid dureum helmet?
....and did not, then, he commence to wrestle with Helmuth, like unto Beowulf
with Grendel, until both were thrown before the stream of mighty, steel-jacketed
fifty caliber slugs from the desk-gun of Boskone, thus making of Helmuth a messy
snuffit? But from which the mighty Kinnisson rose, un-marked but for the lead
smudges upon his escutcheon, to finally sire the children that would defeat
the dregs and zwilniks and horrors of Eddore?
Sorry I cannot quote the proper book from the series, but they all run together
in mine addled brainpan.
--
John P. Caplinger, Arrogant Snob, Self-Styled Scientist and Aging Geek
<capl...@fs.cei.net>
Martial Arts Demonstrations Free (Just show up without an appointment!)
Physics unfizzed, software hardened, we also walk cats.
Robert G Kennedy III
In article <5fid2u$f...@knot.queensu.ca>, saun...@qlink.queensu.ca
(Graydon) wrote:
[snip]
> There's a special suit that's powered because it's made of pure unobtanium
[snip]
I always thought it was an amalgam of unobtainium, balonium, and wishalloy.
Old business: Regrets to the readers of this ng regarding the puzzle I
posed. I've been offline for a week whilst ISDN box took a trip back to
the factory. I will post the answer to the riddle tomorrow.
Graydon
Nyrath the nearly wise (nyr...@clark.net) wrote:
: PoppaDoc (popp...@cyber1.servtech.com) wrote:
: : Indeed! Besides, the concept of powered armor goes back to
: : E.E. 'Doc' Smith. Read the Lensman series.
:
: Sir, I beg to differ <grin>
: Are you sure? My admittedly feeble memory recalls many
: kinds of Galactic Patrol armor, but as far as I can recall,
: all the power they used went to weapons, not man-amplification.
There's a special suit that's powered because it's made of pure unobtanium
and is thus too heavy for muscles to move it in one of the books, Kimball
Kinnison wears it. It's not at all clear that the issue armor is in any
way powered, though.
Nyrath the nearly wise
John 8^] (capl...@fs.cei.net) wrote:
: With all due respect.....
:
: Was it not that, in the final days of Helmuth (who spoke for Boskone) then
: did Kimball Kinnisson don his ponderous armor of solid dureum, which armor
: could not have been moved by any, no matter how mighty, but for the thousand
: horsepower engine enclosed within? Which did not have even such a weak link
: as a view-port, but relied on his Sense of Perception, without which he could
: not see through the solid dureum helmet?
Well, sir, I *partially* concede. <grin>
[a] The armor is not explicitly describled as being motorized.
Thus my memory serves me truly. However, my memory serves
me falsely by forgetting that the blasted thing weighed a ton.
Even the prodigious muscles of Kimball Kinnison would not
be up to the awesome task of moving that sheer mass of inert matter.
[b] Dureum had not been discovered at the point in time when
Helmuth was killed. It was discovered as a material useful
with hyper-spacial tubes. Kinnison's armor was described as
being composed of "inches thick laminated alloy".
And even when dureum had been discovered, it was applied
to armor only in striplike bands, as armor totally composed
of dureum would be far too massive.
(Where's Gharlane of Eddore when you need him?)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| WINCHELL CHUNG http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/home.html |
| Nyrath the nearly wise nyr...@clark.net |
+---_---+---------------------[ SURREAL SAGE SEZ: ]--------------------------+
| /_\ | The chessboard is the world, the pieces are the phenomena of the |
| <(*)> | universe, the rules of the game are what we call the laws of |
|/_/|\_\| nature. The player on the other side is hidden from us. |
| //|\\ | |
+///|\\\+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Francis A. Ney, Jr.
In article <5fh42p$8...@clarknet.clark.net> nyr...@clark.net writes:
> PoppaDoc (popp...@cyber1.servtech.com) wrote:
> : Indeed! Besides, the concept of powered armor goes back to
> : E.E. 'Doc' Smith. Read the Lensman series.
>
> Sir, I beg to differ <grin>
> Are you sure? My admittedly feeble memory recalls many
> kinds of Galactic Patrol armor, but as far as I can recall,
> all the power they used went to weapons, not man-amplification.
The armor used towards the end of _Galactic Patrol_ in the destruction of
Boskone's base.
---
Frank Ney WV/EMT-B VA/EMT-A N4ZHG LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
Sponsor, BATF Abuse page http://www.access.digex.net/~croaker/batfabus.html
West Virginia Coordinator, Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
NOTICE: Flaming email received will be posted to the appropriate newsgroups
- --
"Some people just enjoy finding fault with our leaders. They're anarchists.
They're troublemakers. Or they're just unpatriotic."
- Julie Musante, "Political Officer"
_Babylon 5_, _Voices Of Authority_, Third Season
Roy Gardiner
Tim Menzies wrote:
> John DeLaughter wrote:
(snips)
> > the movie Verhoven's filming isn't _Starship Troopers_ - it's _The Forever War_ !
(snips)
> > John DeLaughter
>
> now let us spend a moments grim appreciation for "the forever war" and
> its eloquent reply to the more fascist elements of "starship trooper".
>
> Dr. Tim Menzies rm EE339
(sig snip)
definition of 'fascist' according to my Oxford Illustrated:
principles and organisation of Italian nationalist anti-communist
dictatorship (1922-43); system of extreme right-wing or authoritarian
views.
some relevant views expounded by ST, according to me:
1) no-one should under any circumstances be subject to conscription
2) governments should be elected;the franchise should be earned by
service;
servicepeople should not be allowed to vote whilst serving.
3) servicepeople are virtuous to the extent that they elect to defend
their country personally, at risk to their lives.
4) females are superior to males in some key areas of human endeavour
5) moral philosophy should be taught as an exact science, by someone
qualified to do so.
6) spare the rod and spoil the child; spare the whip and spoil the adult
7) capital punishment for some crimes (murder, kidnap and others) is
justifiable as deterrent, punishment and prevention of re-offence.
The first 5 are not fascist. The last two are certainly right wing, and
can be associated with religious fundamentalism (Christian and Islamic
at least) as well as with fascism
I cannot see where Haldeman attempts to refute any of these; it indeed
seems to me that both he and RAH deplore conscription.Perhaps Dr Menzies
could explain?
Haldeman certainly tries to show the horror of war, where Heinlein does
not, but I believe he was much more concerned about condemning the US
Vietnam involvement than in refuting ST.
Regards, Roy Gardiner
Oh, I missed one.
8) Staring at girls walking about is nice, especially if you have not
seen
any for a while.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>5) moral philosophy should be taught as an exact science, by someone
>qualified to do so.
>The first 5 are not fascist. The last two are certainly right wing, and
>can be associated with religious fundamentalism (Christian and Islamic
>at least) as well as with fascism
I agree on all your other points, but I find #5 arguably a right-wing
stance, so I wouldn't say flatly that it's not fascist.
Add a mild qualifier and I'm with you.
TOUCHED BY THE GODS: Hardcover, Tor Books, November 1997
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Updated 2/7/97
Beyond Comics at Lakeforest Mall, Gaithersburg MD is now open!
John 8^]
Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
>
> : With all due respect.....
...snipping my sickeningly flowery description of Kim Kinnison's armor
>
> Well, sir, I *partially* concede. <grin>
>
> [a] The armor is not explicitly describled as being motorized.
> Thus my memory serves me truly. However, my memory serves
> me falsely by forgetting that the blasted thing weighed a ton.
> Even the prodigious muscles of Kimball Kinnison would not
> be up to the awesome task of moving that sheer mass of inert matter.
>
> [b] Dureum had not been discovered at the point in time when
> Helmuth was killed. It was discovered as a material useful
> with hyper-spacial tubes. Kinnison's armor was described as
> being composed of "inches thick laminated alloy".
> And even when dureum had been discovered, it was applied
> to armor only in striplike bands, as armor totally composed
> of dureum would be far too massive.
>
> (Where's Gharlane of Eddore when you need him?)
> ...and snip your sig, with regrets, for sacred bandwidth
(ok, so its a good excuse)
Agreed. Dureum was first touched by Civilization when
the big Valerian grabbed a wand of it (even his mighty Dutch mining
muscles, reared in multiples of G, could not pick up a bar of the
stuff) in the Hyperspatial tube. Would you believe.....I was not
certain if it even was Helmuth, or Gray Roger, or some other, but
I knew if I got a shot off _fast_.... and someone corrected me....
that would verify the basic concept that the Gray Lensman used
powered armor, which I was after......(sigh) do I make a fool of
myself by misquoting from memory stuff that I haven't read for
a couple of decades or wait until I get home, dig the right book
out of the right box, look it up? Especially a series that left
such a vivid impression that I can almost (but not quite) quote
long strings of it even now?
And the answer is....go for it! With a crew like this, I
can always count on being corrected, and that can be a lot of fun,
too.
John P. Caplinger, Arrogant Snob, Self-Styled Scientist and Aging Geek
<capl...@fs.cei.net>
Physics unfizzed, software hardened, we also walk cats.
When cigarettes are outlawed, only outlaws will have cigarettes.
Brett O'Callaghan
My attitude to the ST movie is that anyone who expected
*Hollywood* to produce an even vaguely faithful adaption of *that* book
must be delusional. Me, I'm going to see it in the hope that I'll see a
kick-ass Sci-Fi action movie.
.eeeeeyB
--
TBT: Look at this - "9 out of 10 doctors agree that when you don't eat
Sunblest natural bread, you'll get squashed by elephants!"
GG: That's right. Mind you, it did take us a while to find the right
9 doctors. And the elephants.
Fluffy Central, Frontline Guide at http://www.cbl.com.au/~boc/
Matt Hickman
In <331dcade...@news.clark.net>, lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans) writes:
>On Wed, 05 Mar 1997 13:31:49 -0800, Roy Gardiner
><gard...@dcslambert.agw.bt.co.uk> wrote:
>>5) moral philosophy should be taught as an exact science, by someone
>>qualified to do so.
>
>stance, so I wouldn't say flatly that it's not fascist.
By this logic, wouldn't anything that is arguably a left wing stance
be communist? I don't think so. 'Left wing' and 'right wing' are
so imprecise and so variable between cultures that the terms are
apt to cause confusion.
BTW, I would think a Stalinist -- or anyone whose political philosophy
serves the same emotional function as religion -- might be attracted to
point number 5. I don't think 'left' ot 'right' have anything to do with it.
Matt Hickman bh...@chevron.com TANSTAAFL!
OS/2 Systems Specialist, Chevron Information Technologies Co.
The most wildly impossible philosophy of all is
materialism. (Donald "Doc" MacRae)
- Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)
_Red Planet_ (C. 1949)
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <5fi18g$5...@knot.queensu.ca>,
Graydon <saun...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>
>I don't think :Starship Troopers: is about an ideal military; pretty
>clearly, it's _not_ an ideal military, it's an extremely traditional and
>very peculiar military, a bizarre cross between traditional US Marines and
>traditional British Regiments.
>
to imagine a military which has a lot more respect and care for its
soldiers than real ones have. For contrast, compare it to the army
in _Glory Road_.
--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
October '96 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Larry M Headlund
In article <5flhpt$9vk$1...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>,
Matt Hickman <rrs...@ibm.net> wrote:
>In <331dcade...@news.clark.net>, lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans) writes:
>>On Wed, 05 Mar 1997 13:31:49 -0800, Roy Gardiner
>><gard...@dcslambert.agw.bt.co.uk> wrote:
>>>5) moral philosophy should be taught as an exact science, by someone
>>>qualified to do so.
>>
>>I agree on all your other points, but I find #5 arguably a right-wing
>>stance, so I wouldn't say flatly that it's not fascist.
>
>By this logic, wouldn't anything that is arguably a left wing stance
>be communist? I don't think so. 'Left wing' and 'right wing' are
>so imprecise and so variable between cultures that the terms are
>apt to cause confusion.
>
>BTW, I would think a Stalinist -- or anyone whose political philosophy
>serves the same emotional function as religion -- might be attracted to
>point number 5. I don't think 'left' ot 'right' have anything to do with it.
I think we're shading a crucial point here. In ST Moral Philosophy
was not "taught as an exact science", it WAS "an exact science". Marx
is explicitly mentioned, but criticized for having an incorrect theory
of value. Inside ST moral philosophy is, by author's fiat, an
exact science. Actually, I find that fiat a disturbing part of the
book. Without the offstage proof of correctness, how much of
the conclusions of the book would we accept?
On the communist/fascist/right wing/left wing nature of
such a moral philosophy, it would signal a triumph of the rationalists.
From this we could say that a Marxist would approve, indeed would say
that dialectical materialism fills the bill. A classic conservative
(Burkean) would deny the possibility. A Libertarian, as a rationalist,
might be sympathetic.
The fascists would divide by taste. If you understand fascism
to be socialism without the brotherhood, a tool of the inevitable
forces of history, you would signal an aye. If you were a Romantic
fascist, moved by Blood and Iron, the wisdom and power of the
Folk, the nostalgia for the comraderie of the trenches, such
a course would seem irrelevant to Truth.
In ST the restricted franchise and all it implied were
established by groups of disaffected veterans imposing order
on a chaotic society following a war with an ambivalent conclusion.
The twentieth century analogue to this scenario did not play
out to a happy result.
--
Larry Headlund l...@world.std.com Mathematical Engineering, Inc.
l...@hk.super.net (617) 242 7741
Unix, X and Motif Consulting
Dorothy J Heydt
[Lots of posting on left wing, right wing, fascist, communist,
snipped.]
I think there's a basic confusion here. Several posters seem to
equate right wing = fascist, left wing = communist, as if they
were universals, and then try to argue from there.
This is rather like equating apples = cooked, oranges = raw.
The original use of "the left" and "the right" as political
positions, if my memory serves me correctly, was in meetings of
the Estates-General in pre-revolutionary France. The presiding
official asked the quarreling politicians on the floor to sort
themselves out: the King's party on the right, the opposition on
the left. (I imagine it took a certain degree of courage to make
that walk to the left-hand wall.) And then of course those who
didn't want to commit themselves, or who saw valid points on both
sides, stood in the center.
So the original meanings of "right" and "left" in politics could
be expressed as "Establishment" and "Anti-Establishment."
The general usage of "right" and "left" in the twentieth century
frequently translates simply as "conservative" and "liberal,
or progressive." The guys on the right want things to stay as
they are (or even to go back to an earlier state); the guys on
the left want lots of changes.
During the twentieth century, we have been accustomed to calling
the Communists of the Soviet Union, China, and elsewhere "the
left" because they wanted to make lots of changes and put a new system
into effect.
Similarly, we can describe Mussolini's Fascists and Hitler's Nazis
as conservatives, and call them "the right", because they wanted
to return to an earlier state (Mussolini made it no secret that
he wanted to restore the Roman Empire; Hitler apparently wanted
to go back to the Migration Period),
But what we tend to get in practice is the use of "fascist" for
"anybody further to the right than me--which is practically
everyone--whom I don't like," and "communist"for "anybody further
to the left than me--which is practically everyone--whom I don't
like."
The point I'm trying to make, in any case, is that who are "the
right" and who are "the left" depends on the context of what
century you are in. In the eighteenth century, people who
believed in democracy were flaming, dangerous liberals. The
conservatives were monarchists and served a royalist Establishment.
On the other hand, a guy I used to work for had made a trip to China
about ten years ago and said that the people he talked to there,
who were working hard to set up capitalist enterprises under the
auspices of the late Mr. Deng, would say "conservatives" and mean
"communists."
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@uclink
(still here for the moment....)
jonathan dale mccall
In article <3318b46d...@news.clark.net>,
lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans) wrote:
>(SNIP)
>>For the record, I personally didn't find _Ender's Game_ more convincing
>>than _Starship Troopers_;
>
>Neither did I -- but then, I'm not sure I found either of them exactly
>"convincing." Both were good enough that I could manage the
>suspension of disbelief, but in both cases the disbelief whacked back
>down good and hard the minute I closed the book.
>
>>I did find _Ender's Game_ more *readable* than Heinlein.
>
>Can't say the same -- I didn't find the philosophy that intrusive.
(SNIP)
You know, the thing that bothered me about ST (although I liked it very much) was that it was something of a cop-out, even in terms of Heinlein's stated intentions for the book. IIRC, he called it a "serious...but incomplete...inquiry into why men fight."
Only problem is, it's nothing of the sort. The scenario he sets up - an utterly implacable foe without any common ground for communication or empathy - is not one that has arisen in any human conflict. The bugs might as well have been anacondas for all moral ambiguity that arises. The war is a case of pure self-defense, not the complex thing that wars usually are.
Although Ender's Game has its flaws, I think that it addesses the moral dimension of war much more seriously than does ST, even though it uses some of the same premises (an insectile race,technologically superior in some regards, apparently incapable of communicating with humans).
Although I am #1 Heinlein fan, he was way too breezy and dismissive of complex issues in ST for my taste (I mean, more breezy and dismissive than usual : )
Cordially,
Jonathan
____________________________________________________________________________ "You make trouble here again, I beat you up each time!"
-J. Chan
____________________________________________________________________________
Simon Slavin
> [about powered-suits]
>
> There's a special suit that's powered because it's made of
> pure unobtanium and is thus too heavy [snip]
^^^^^^^^^^
I would like to nominate this word to join the list of classic
SF short-hand descriptions like 'z-ray' and 'hyperspace'. Well
coined, Graydon.
Simon.
--
Simon Slavin -- Computer Contractor. | "Turn up your soundcard ...
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | and let's dance."
Check email address for spam-guard. | Sassy, in http://
Junk email not welcome at this site. | bbs.annex.com/relayer/pink.htm
Bruce "B-chan" Lewis
Simon Slavin wrote:
> I would like to nominate this word [unobtanium] to join the list of classic
> SF short-hand descriptions like 'z-ray' and 'hyperspace'. Well
> coined, Graydon.
Sorry, Simon, but that's a golden oldie from 1940s fandom...
Fly Me To The Moon,
Bruce "B-chan" Lewis
(No longer working for Disney!)
Anime lover since 1969
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you reading the coolest comic book in America?
You should be! STAR BLAZERS MAGAZINE from Argo Press.
Ask for it at your local comics shop or call 800-704-4040.
Now running in STAR BLAZERS: "Be Forever Yamato"
Script/layouts by Bruce Lewis Pencils/Finishes by Tim Eldred
Color/Effects by John Ott Produced by Studio Go!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nyrath the nearly wise
Bruce \"B-chan\" Lewis (bch...@idt.net) wrote:
: Simon Slavin wrote:
:
: > I would like to nominate this word [unobtanium] to join...
:
: Sorry, Simon, but that's a golden oldie from 1940s fandom...
And I saw it used in print as recently as David Brin's
STARTIDE RISING. (one of the alien races seizes a moon
because it's core is almost 0.0001% unobtanium, just
the thing for doing nasty things on the 15th probability band)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| WINCHELL CHUNG http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/home.html |
| Nyrath the nearly wise nyr...@clark.net |
+---_---+---------------------[ SURREAL SAGE SEZ: ]--------------------------+
| /_\ | Say it with flowers - Give her a triffid. |
Graydon
Simon Slavin (sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk.NOJUNK) wrote:
: In article <5fid2u$f...@knot.queensu.ca>,
: saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
: > [about powered-suits]
: > There's a special suit that's powered because it's made of
: > pure unobtanium and is thus too heavy [snip]
: ^^^^^^^^^^
: SF short-hand descriptions like 'z-ray' and 'hyperspace'. Well
: coined, Graydon.
I would say thank you, but it's far from original to me, that usage has
been current on sci.space.* since I started reading it needed the
asterisk.
t...@eng.cam.ac.uk
In article <01bc28cd$3eec1fc0$f654...@SCHORN-PETER.jsc.nasa.gov>,
"PETER SCHORN" <peter.a...@jsc.nasa.gov> wrote:
..
>
>The biggest difference that I see between the two books is that--
>
>ST is *pre*scriptive--it uses the speculative aspect of SF to posit
> an ideal military.
>FW is *de*scriptive--it uses SF metaphors to describe the author's
> experience in Vietnam (with a less-than-ideal
> military)
>
I've just downloaded the preview that's available...
One thing that is certainly true is that in ST the military tactics were
thought out and matched the weaponry and capabilities of the soldiers. It was
quite clear that a single platoon would occupy a piece of real estate that,
nowadays, you could probably throw a brigade into without too much trouble (I
can't remember the exact dimensions as described). Given that the powered
armour is not being used such dispositions would not be realistic, however
soldiers haven't fought shoulder to shoulder like the preview shows since we
stopped forming squares! - Its a quick way for everyone to be killed!
Perhaps what happened is that after Showgirls, which Verhoeven and others
insisted showed things like they really were (and came a massive cropper
thereby), they have decided to bin any attempt at realism.
On the other hand he's just repeating one of the more common movie mistakes.
This has just occurred to me: if Robocop worked so well, and after all robocop
is just the logical extension to powered armour (you only put the soldier's
brain inside the armour, of course he won't be able to take it off
afterwards), how come its a bad thing for ST?
Answer - they wanted to remake Aliens, not Starship Troopers.
I bet you any critic who criticises the film will say that its all been done
before in Aliens!
Harry Jay Knowles
t...@eng.cam.ac.uk wrote:
> I bet you any critic who criticises the film will say that its all been done
> before in Aliens!
And if any critic says that, they are horrendous critics. Starship
Troopers (the film) and Aliens are VERY DIFFERENT.
Secondly, oh yeah the lack of realism involved in the space vehicles in
Star Wars really hurt that film. First off we are dealing with a work
of fiction. Grab a dictionary. Just about everyone reading this post
knows that Sony shut my Starship Troopers site down. Well if anyone
should be yelling at the top of their lungs about what a load of crap
this film is going to be, it would be me. However, I choose not to.
You know why? Because, I have read the script. And that script is IMHO
incredible. Have I read the novel? Yes. Is it different from the
novel? Yes. Do I really give a crap? NO. Why? This is a movie, and
as a result is not the work of a single human being. Whenever you are
working with a group of people, comprimises have to be made. Silence of
the Lambs left out all of Clarice's thoughts, and some wonderful back
history on Lecter. IT WAS A FANTASTIC MOVIE. If you haven't read the
script, then you sure as hell should put a muzzle on knee-jerk reactions
to rumours floating about. I have talked with the executive producer of
Starship Troopers several times, his name is Jon Davison, he worked
previously with Verhoeven on ROBOCOP. They wanted to go with Power
Armor, they knew fans would get upset, but a couple of factors
intervened. First- it looked stupid. When they did tests, it just
plane looked horrible, and SECOND, to make it not look stupid would have
cost a large fortune ($50 million) in additional expense. Given they
already were budgeted at $100 million not counting advertising and
promotion it was out of line. And THIRD - visually it didn't work
dramaticly. If you had these guys in super duper ORKIN-Man (pesticide
commercial outfits) laying waste to hundreds of bugs single handedly vs
the battle in which the troopers are under supplied and fight on to stay
alive, well it just works better with audiences. Personally after
talking with Davison about the film, I got the idea that they were
really working their asses off on this project and everyone was giving
it that extra effort. Remember when Starship Troopers hits theaters you
will still have your prized copy of the novel and if you hate it and
refuse to see it because you have your novel, then fine. As for me, I
have my novel, and I sure as hell plan to line up early to catch the
first showing I can find of it, because quite frankly it's gonna rock.
Harry Knowles
Head Geek
t...@eng.cam.ac.uk
In article <5fmuci$3...@universe.digex.net>,
nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>In article <5fi18g$5...@knot.queensu.ca>,
>Graydon <saun...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>
>>I don't think :Starship Troopers: is about an ideal military; pretty
>>clearly, it's _not_ an ideal military, it's an extremely traditional and
>>very peculiar military, a bizarre cross between traditional US Marines and
>>traditional British Regiments.
>>
>ST may not be about *your* ideal military, but I think it's an effort
>to imagine a military which has a lot more respect and care for its
>soldiers than real ones have. For contrast, compare it to the army
>in _Glory Road_.
>
>
Hmmm, I'm not sure I see a necessary link between the military of ST and the
British Regimental model...
Its certainly true that the Mobile Infantry are Marines, but that is
inevitable; any spacefaring army will in fact be marines almost by definition.
This is most clearly described in Pournelles Falkenberg stories.
Whilst we are on that subject, the nearest thing to an ideal military that
I've read is the Falkenbergs Legion, despite them being mercenaries (possibly
because they were mercenaries).