Starship troopers

Does anyone know an online scource where I could download the book? I saw the film recently and thought it was amazing. Especially considering the book was written in the fifties.

Starship Troopers, while a short book, is still for sale all over the place thanks to the movie. Because of that, I doubt you'll be able to find a downloadable version anywhere. However, Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0441783589/002-9291756-4487233?v=glance&s=books) has it for $7 or so, less for used ones.

I would suggest getting a used one, for if you've never read Heinlein before, you might not like his style and might regret paying full price.

Nahh, never read Heinlein before but Asimov spoke well of him, I'll doa search on Kazaalite.

Sometimes... Just sometimes killing and maiming are good.

Download? Oh visit a used bookstore and pick it up for like a bukc or two, that's how I got it. :)

I heard the guy was pretty much some kind of facist.

Please bear in mind that I "heard", yet to find out for myself ;)

Sounds about right, after all the government thing in the film was mentioned slighty.

Anyway I did find it on kazaa (a 500kb rtf document) and someone wasn't so tightfisted and actually shared it long enough for me to download it and read it.

I was going to read it last night except I rediscovered my dune encylopedia so I had a good read of that.

I've never heard of Kazaa. What is it, a file sharing thingy?

Gah don't people pay for anything anymore? :p

Yeah, just buy the friggin' book...and buy a quality one :)

I pay full price for a lot of things. like going to see the matrix 2. I'd pay to see that. I don't HAVE to, as I know where I can get it online, I just WANT to, 'cuz it's one of those things that kicks lots of ass in theaters.

I use Kazaalite (a modifed kazaa that doesn't have the spyware in it) to try things before I buy them. I downloaded deus ex, but din't like how the ripped game had no conversatons so I bought the game.

I downloaded starship troopers and frankly im glad I didn't buy it. It's another sad facist view oof the glorious world and lots of millitary angst.

OK... but why not even go to a library to read it then? :)

It's always more fun to read a book on paper for some reason ;)

*sigh* Why does everyone think the book and movie are even remotely alike? Ok, the enemies are insectoid. That's about it. The book is tremendously better, the movie taking all the good points and twisting it around. CRS, I'm trying to figure out what on earth you read.

I personally thought the book was well written with a mix of high action and black humor, which always lends itself well to military SF, but the entire point of the book was about the system of government. The entire war was just window dressing. Compare to Hunchback of Notre Dame, the original title was Notre Dame of Paris. That book was about architecture, not about some hunchback and a gypsie, that was just fluff for the core point of the book. It's the same in Starship Troopers. Heinlein, an ex-navy man, was pointing out all the flaws in the Democratic system, namely that people, as soon as they realize they can vote themselves bread and circuses, will do nothing but vote themselves bread and circuses, interested in themselves now rather than the public good in the long term.

In Heinlein's military, every soldier learned that they were part of a squad which was part of a company which was part of a brigade, and everyone worked together to bring success. After leaving the army, this notion was so ingrained that everyone voted for the long term good, leading to a successful, wealthy, healthy, and happy world. Fascist? The movie was fascist, Heinlein's original work is closer towards a socialist (impossible) government. I say impossible because socialism was designed as a Utopian state, and not even Heinlein is that optimistic.

You notice all the characters volunteer for the service? The draft has been abolished. All people in the service are there because they desire to be there. Even in the movie, they at least remembered that his father discouraged him from joining, simply because they were happy and successful without being voting citizens. The book is about national pride and working for the greater good. How is it a tale of angst? Did you even read a decent chunk of the book? I encourage you to try again, pretending the movie is completely unrelated, you might have a different view.

The movie bears little resembalence to the book (but it's still enjoyable to watch) but this.

a socialist (impossible) government. I say impossible because socialism was designed as a Utopian state, and not even Heinlein is that optimistic.

Not my idea of a uptopian state, and pure socalism doesn't really work with this society. Now say if we were ants then yes it would work. The impression the book gives me is facist capitalism works, everything else is wrong and leads to societs downfall.

He's a good writer, but misguided. Corproal punishment isint the way to teach respect for the system. Violence and gangs aren't made because the children haven't been spanked enough (sometimes too much, which has been linked to violence in later life). It's because inefficenies and waste of the government and the stench of capialist corruption which ruins the society. No rescources are allocated to improving their living areas, no resources are allocated to making the enviroment feel safe (and im not talking about putting a CCTV camera around every corner).

The thugs have nothing to do, they feel intimidated by other gangs, they form gangs for protection.

But im getting sidetracked now. I wanted to read the book which inspired the film (the lack of power armour in the film surprises and disapoints me) to see what the real story was about. Instead it's another thinly disguised master plan in a story.

You say socialism doesn't work, and you prove my point. Socialism requiring ants? That's a way to make an inefficient version work, but real socialism just requires motivated people finding their true drives and utilizing them for a greater good. This latter viewpoint is quite similar to ludism. True socialst in this ludist sense presents a world in which food and shelter is provided for all, and then people can direct their energies to their constructive interests. People who want to be artists don't have be forced into white-collar drudgery because its 'the proper, respectable thing to do.' People who genuinely care become doctors, those with drives for knowledge become scientists, and, ideally, you get an entirely self motivated society with maximum output efficiency and minimum to nil burnout.

As I said, impossibly utopian. The view of Marxist socialism as everyone farming to provide equal food and decent housing for all requires ants, but is pretty antiquated not that 5% of energy and labor in the US goes towards foodstuffs, rather than 95%.

I have to say that I believe the comments on creation of gangs are more a character than author opinion, but corporal punishment is a very effective tool, provided it's used well. After all, in the book he's punished for being related to the events involved in someone's death, not for some petty thing. It's rarity makes it effective in the minds of those punished and those witnessing. I know this for a fact. When I was a child, physical reprimand was the Ultima Thule of punishments, and I can probably count all the times I experienced it on one hand. Because it was so rare and monumentous, it left a definate impact on me to improve and not be willfully destructive. I like to think I turned out pretty well. It's the overuse and abuse of physical punishment that causes problems, but too many people assume this means it should be taboo altogether. If kids don't have any real consequences to their actions, what do you think they'll believe when they are grown?

Besides, you talk about the reason gangs exist, but notice that problem is more or less eradicated in the book. Not through militance (although that's part of it), but by fixing the core of the problem. After all the voting citizens are comprised of nothing but those who know and research the issues before voting, governmental bloat goes to nothing pretty damn quick.

Personally I loved the film, and the Verhoeven/Neumeier commentary is a must listen for details on why it seems so pro-war, etc, which it isn't, as that was the point. :)

Been so long since I read the book though, definitely need to reread it...

Verhoeven's the director, right? What else has he done?

Canada has a Democratic Socialism going. look up our governing system. it's the only real thing that differentiates Canada from the US, apart from our lack of lethal force.

(Was going to write out a big long post of patriotic doom, but I figured that I'd best look up all my facts in person before trusting completely in the propaganda spewed out by the educational system. Public education is the devil.)

Verhoeven did RoboCop, Showgirls, Basic Instinct, Total Recall, Hollow Man, Flesh + Blood, and a bunch of Dutch films (Spetters, 4th Man, Turkish Delight, Soldier Of Orange...)

I've only seen Total Recall of those...

So is he considered a director of fame or infamy? Most of those films aren't very good from what I've heard and I really don't have much interest to see them.

THe only two I really liked were total recall and robocop.

Its a real love or hate kind of thing. I love his stuff personally, but many think its vile and disgusting. He's known for pushing sci fi effects forward, but also intense violence too.

Oh yeah, total recall was cool in the violence it had but the brain removal in Robocop2 was gruesome.

Definitely! That wasn't Verhoeven though, sounds almost to blunt for him. :)