Having just suffered through the CG movie "Starship Troopers: Invasion," I found myself asking, What would a good movie of ST contain? How would you describe a successful rendition?

Let's stay away from mundane physical artifacts, please. People commented on the first movie that they were disappointed that it didn't have power suits. Invasion was made by a Japanese director who was obsessed with power suits. If that's all that ST means to you, then that movie should be perfect. Start from how the movie should make you feel.

I don't think ST is filmable as is. Period. It would have to begin with a storyboarding session in which the genuine, core story is ferreted out of the matrix of gadgets (suits), BEMs and 1957 political outrage. The novel has to be be recognized as an unfinished work whose core story sits at a tangent to all the superficial elements.

Rebuild the framework, then hang the clever window dressing over it. Yes, that's all very sweeping and general, but I think any other approach, trying to take the as-is material too seriously and respectfully, is doomed from the first step.

Well that's what I'm getting at. What is the "genuine, core story?"

I want to know, too, what the core story is. Other than the chapter epigraphs, all we have to go on when reading ST is Johnnie the narrator, and he himself is paper-thin by comparison to (for example) Kip Russell, the narrator of Heinlein's previous novel. The story he tells boils down to: "Here are the reasons I learned for wanting to defend humanity in case of alien attack, rebelling against Dad in the process. Whoops, they attacked Earth. Hi, Dad! Oh, and by the way, we have a scientifically verifiable theory of morals!" Is there indeed an unspoken story behind the narration?

Yes, I think the core story of ST is actually missing from the novel. It's the sandcast form that shapes the rest of the tale, but it's not there.

I read it as a paen to military service. Not glorifying war, but the people who put themselves in harm's way for the rest of us. Heinlein was smitten with tales of heroism. Add in the best shot at giving a proof of why that service is the highest form of sacrifice and consciousness and you've got a start.

But not enough, because - absent the scientific argument - numerous movies have trod the same path of lauding heroism. There's more there; I think it's a frosting of Stevenson's "Gladly do I live and gladly do I die, and I lay me down with a will," which was another favorite trope of Heinlein's. And it saved him the trouble of quoting John 15:13.

Jim, I have no idea what sort of Zen argument you're making. A story has a story. It's like you're arguing that the nutrition content of some dish is defined by what ingredients were left out.

That's not far from what I mean, Peter. ST is a story where the Christmas tree existed only in Heinlein's mind, and what was published was all the ornaments and trimming. You'd need to reconstruct the tree before anything meaningful could be done with all the shiny parts.

So, in the spirit of enlightening discussion, what is the Christmas tree?

I don't know, off hand. I think there's an entire missing element - maybe in real terms it's Heinlein himself; he's standing at the center of all the parts but then rendered himself invisible. It's possible you'd have to create the real protagonist, about whom the government and political issues, and Johnny Rico's family and personal issues, and the military issues, and the war issues all coalesce.

Maybe that's it: Heinlein wrote so hastily that he failed to distance himself from any of those elements, so his imprint is on all of them and his deliberate erasure leaves the void that makes the novel both enduring (it's a mirror of the reader's thoughts) and frustratingly elusive.

The movie would have to position Rico as the buddy to a protagonist who has deeper ties into the major elements. The protagonist would not necessarily be a very likeable figure; it's Johnny who would give us the audience viewpoint of naivete and honesty, as he does in the book.

Yes, I quite agree that ST is "both enduring (it's a mirror of the reader's thoughts) and frustratingly elusive" to the extent that because Johnnie is such a void, it's easier for the reader to imagine himself (herself? maybe not so much) living that kind of life.

But against that aspect of the book is the instructional content - actual classroom lecture & discussion plus "laboratory," all of which our narrator relates to us - as well as the chapter epigraphs. An earlier Heinlein, or one less in a hurry, might have more subtly integrated such lessons into the narrative, I suppose; at least he had done so in earlier novels. But as it stands, none of this material can be considered story.

And yet the book wouldn't be worth reading without it - we learn what Johnnie considers to be important; he goes on and on about it. Of course, his beliefs are indistinguishable, virtually by definition, from those of everyone else in his unit, or so we're given to understand. But this is just enough, I guess, to prevent Johnnie from being a total stick figure of a narrator.

All of this I construe as ST being unfilmable as written, but I'd be interested in other opinions.

The standard line is that Troopers glorifies war, but that's too superficial an analysis. As besotted with the virtues of the serviceman as Heinlein was, ST carries a more subtle message of what it's like to be on the receiving end of military indoctrination. For a soldier to be effective he must not have the luxury of critical thinking. He can't afford to question his orders, wonder about the deeper meaning of his actions, or feel concern for the enemy. Indoctrination warps his mind so that these things don't happen (or weeds him out first), not merely to create a predictable and efficient soldier but to save his own life in the clinch.

Heinlein simply depicts a society where this indoctrination is carried out everywhere; at least through high school, and in the laws of society. The people who don't go for it appear few and their arguments weak, because we see them through Johnny's eyes and he can't afford to see them any other way.

So I see this as Heinlein's story about, what is it like behind the eyeballs of someone who has swallowed that pill, and his answer is: Pretty good. There are compensating emotional rewards that can uplift a man and sustain him for a lifetime. As long as he keeps that pill swallowed, which is why Johnny's story ends the only way it can: in media res.

More than half the story is pure didactic or Socratic dialogue, though. Heinlein could make that incredibly readable, just as he could do with exposition. (Tom Clancy inherited that gift.) And that's what engenders the glorification charge. There are numerous strawman arguments stood up and only faintly swatted at. How the same author could write this and SIASL would be beyond belief if you thought he was only doing it to glorify war. So I choose to believe that he had a deeper agenda of showing military life from the inside out, and that he didn't challenge the strawman arguments in the story not because he couldn't but because Johnny simply wouldn't have been able to hear them. Or if he had, and understood them, he'd have quit, and then the story would have picked a different protagonist. This is one reason for starting the book with the drop. Aside from the main purpose of dumping us into action, the adrenalin rush ensures that when we get to Johnny's parents' arguments against his serving, they appear utterly risible. We already know how exciting Johnny's life is going to turn out when he decides to sign up.

Detail quibble while I'm here: Right at the beginning it says that the surgeon isn't making the drop. A few sentences later it says that everyone drops, including the chaplain, and only the invalided are left behind. It makes sense for the surgeon to drop so why does it claim he doesn't?

So is it filmable? If you concede that the nugget is the viewpoint of the guy born to soldier and turned into a great one, then you can certainly show that through more deeds than words.

regarding your quibble about the surgeon not dropping (when all except the invalid did drop), simply, he that can save lives isn't exposed to possibly being a casualty himself ! common sense and military procedure places him out of harm's way- medics would initially evaluate and treat the wounded- after triage and being stabilized, the casualties would be transported back to the surgeon and facilities better suited to saving lives- you would have doctors in a MASH type ground unit but the "boss" would stay upstairs either supervising or treating the most desperate cases in an environment which would offer them greater hope

just a veteran's perspective !

Your reasoning makes sense (although I could argue that the surgeon should drop in order to provide battlefield medical support), but the story is self-inconsistent - at one point he says "everyone drops but the surgeon" and another he says "everyone drops but the sick," after making a big deal about the chaplain dropping.

peter if you put the 3 inconsistencies you broached, together in one sentence, they could be a part of a single shipwide announcement, from the commander to his troops, which would've made snese and nuanced the entire story of their combat drop. here's my take on these 3 inconsistent statements- RAH says "everyone drops but the sick"<interpetated by me as "we need every body possible- only the invalid stay behind-this one is gonna be tough boys">, then add "everyone drops but the surgeon" <in other words "it's too dangerous down there- we'll need him shipboard and alive to save the lives of you that make it back> plus add "after making a big deal about the 'chaplain dropping' " <interpeted as "many of you are going to die- rest assured the chaplain will be there to pray you on your way"> or their religion may even allow for a 'fighting' chaplain/holyman- something not unheard of in human history>

essentially the CO was forewarning his troops they'd be engaging in a dire fight-am i making sense or am i contriving here ? LOL !! could RAH have made it simpler by combining these 3 thoughts into one sentence ? perhaps by speaking of them 3 times, the CO was simply repeating his warning (and RAH further nuancing the upcoming battle) of "hang tough boys and show em what we're made of" - he was rallying his troops



again as interpeted by a "non-combat" vet

Before we get thoroughly sidetracked by two tangential sentences of mine, I'd welcome reactions to my broader analysis above.

I agree that the novel could only begin and end in medias res - and it's even arguable that the existing, one-day-to-be-superseded ST movie does likewise, with its "service guarantees citizenship" bookend segments. I'm not sure that any hypothetical "proper" ST movie could get away with it, however.

Like Mr. Gifford, I am fascinated by what isn't in the novel. While the plot is a straightforward story of enlistment, training, and fighting, it isn't only the Bug War that is left unfinished at the end. Rico's journey to citizenship is also left off in its middle. Heinlein is clear that he is presenting a different kind of society, where government service is voluntary but all voting citizens are veterans. He spends some time arguing for the benefit of a post-service citizenry, but I don't know if we actually meet any citizen other than Dubois in the story.

It's a curious omission, and I find myself speculating more on what happens to Rico after the War. How does he continue his growing up into citizenship? Is public office in his future? Exactly how does the transition from retirement to citizenship work? I wouldn't go so far as to say that The Citizen is the story element that is missing, and I don't want to see Dubois return physically in the story (either as John Wayne or Mazer Rackham).

I don't think that the movie should explicitly be about the greater society and the questions of citizenship; I just want it to leave those questions for the viewer to think about later. The big story is of a healthy society facing a threat, told as one individual's relationship to the society and the threat. The threat is military, so the story is about the military resolution, but I wouldn't say that it is "pro-war," whatever that might mean. I think an interesting movie treatment might highlight the threat (which is almost in the background in the book) and Rico's place in society in deciding to, training for, and ultimately fighting against that threat. Sort of like High Noon, I guess. (Though that puts the senior Rico in the Grace Kelly role, which is something to think about.)

I always thought of Starship Troopers as a classic Heinlein juvenile, not unlike Rocketship Galileo, Red Planet, or Tunnel in the Sky. Coming-of-age tale starring typical (though more curious than most) 1950s-era American teenage boys. Take away the red scare subtext and that's what you're left with. Heinlein himself (as Jim has thoroughly and convincingly argued in his essay many years ago) couldn't remember the details of the plot or the essential political point of the story. So, it's just a juvenile, no more or less entertaining than the others, through legendary because of the political controversy.

I agree with you Jack. Absent the initial stages of what the VN war eventually became, ST would have been seen as just another one of RAH's coming of age excursions.

I had started a reply to LilLeager to mention that, but then got tied up in pointing out that RAH did not "do" biographies, or, save in his later work, multi-generational stories [TEfL, etc.], and abandoned that reply as a lost cause. Sigh.

Well, it turns out that police are veterans. From Chap 11, towards the end, Ace says "Someday I'll make sergeant . . . and presently I'll have my twenty years in and retire and get one of the reserved jobs — cop, maybe — and marry a nice fat wife."

I don't think I've looked closed at ST since the last revision to my Federal Service paper. I wonder if it would be possible to map the sociopolitical arrangement of ST's world? The FS paper would be a good start, as it quotes every sentence referring to government and service. There might be a few more comments, like the one Bill M just cited, that fill in the gaps.

The map would be mostly holes, but that would be illustrative in itself.

Was the lash used in society at large? Or only within the military? or only within the MI? (neither of which I would necessarily consider to be a "public use").

Certainly the lash was used in society at large, although not seen directly:

(chapter 5) I had never seen a flogging. Back home, while they do it in public of course, they do it back of the Federal Building—and Father had given me strict orders to stay away from there.

(chapter 6) Nobody in our family had ever been flogged (except paddlings in school, of course, which isn’t at all the same thing). There were no criminals in our family on either side, none who had even been accused of crime.

(chapter 8) “But—good heavens!” the girl answered. “I didn’t like being spanked any more than any kid does, but when I needed it, my mama delivered. The only time I ever got a switching in school I got another one when I got home—and that was years and years ago. I don’t ever expect to be hauled up in front of a judge and sentenced to a flogging; you behave yourself and such things don’t happen. [...]"

(The latter is just before Dubois' discussion of morals theory: "They had no scientific theory of morals. [...] A scientifically verifiable theory of morals must be rooted in the individual’s instinct to survive—and nowhere else!—and must correctly describe the hierarchy of survival, note the motivations at each level, and resolve all conflicts. ¶ We have such a theory now; we can solve any moral problem, on any level. [...]")

(yes, I have a searchable Word file of ST not obtained illicitly)