Heinlein was suuuuper in favor of a colonial/martial culture. The whole reason he wrote Starship Troopers was because he was disappointed that the US suspended nuclear weapons testing which he saw as further evidence of the decline of martial culture. The book clearly advocates for the promotion of civic duty as a moral imperative as well as for things like corporal punishment. He WANTED the “toxic masculinity” culture, that was his own culture as he perceived it.
The movie is basically the complete opposite, satirically portraying colonial/martial values against the backdrop of an imperial state. It’s one of the biggest disparities in intent vs interpretation I have ever seen.
The movie rocks, by the way. Still watch it once a year
Yeah, he’s the hardest to pin down of the 20th century masters of sci fi. LeGuinn wears her heart on her sleeve and while she explores ideas, she has a consistent direction. Herbert demands critical thinking (if the entire book is Paul terrified of the evil of him leading the jihad, what does it mean when he leads the jihad at the end). Asimov is out there exploring ideas, but you can figure him out (it’s been a long time since I’ve read him). And Clarke is pretty consistent in his distrust of those who desire power.
Heinlein was suuuuper in favor of a colonial/martial culture. The whole reason he wrote Starship Troopers was because he was disappointed that the US suspended nuclear weapons testing which he saw as further evidence of the decline of martial culture. The book clearly advocates for the promotion of civic duty as a moral imperative as well as for things like corporal punishment. He WANTED the “toxic masculinity” culture, that was his own culture as he perceived it.
The movie is basically the complete opposite, satirically portraying colonial/martial values against the backdrop of an imperial state. It’s one of the biggest disparities in intent vs interpretation I have ever seen.
The movie rocks, by the way. Still watch it once a year
I vaguely heard that Heinlein engaged with a whole bunch of different ideologies for different books.
I believe it was Clarke that mentioned that Heinlein’s political beliefs depended on who he was having sex with that month.
Yeah, he’s the hardest to pin down of the 20th century masters of sci fi. LeGuinn wears her heart on her sleeve and while she explores ideas, she has a consistent direction. Herbert demands critical thinking (if the entire book is Paul terrified of the evil of him leading the jihad, what does it mean when he leads the jihad at the end). Asimov is out there exploring ideas, but you can figure him out (it’s been a long time since I’ve read him). And Clarke is pretty consistent in his distrust of those who desire power.