Robert Heinman wrote a wonderful novel but is it conciderd a classic? It was writen quite some time ago and no one can give a straght answer of yes or no, and why that it is or isn’t.
Ask an English literature major, and you’ll likely get the answer “no”. Ask a science fiction fan, and you will almost certainly get the answer “yes”.
A few years ago I wasn in an American Lit class, and the TA repeatedly used the terms “great” and “classic” related to The Great Gatsby. Frankly, I was nearly bored to tears by it, so I why it was so considered. She was completely astounded by the question, hemmed and hawed, and finally said it was because it was the first book to have an “unreliable narrator”. Personally, I think that’s a crock, but then again, I’m not a lit major.
I think a book is a classic because of several things: it deeply impresses most of those who read it (with admiration or disgust), its ideas remain accessible to future generations, and it spawns copycats (or antitheses, ie., Joe Haldeman’s The Forever War.
Yes, it is a classic. I don’t buy into it like I did when I read it at age 12, but so what?
I certainly think so.
And it’s “Heinlein”, not Heinman. 
Say three TANSTAAFL’s as penance.
It’s an important work in the SF field, though not Heinlein’s best (most critics go with “Double Star”; most fans with “Stranger in a Strange Land”).
But Heinlein is a major writer in the genre, so anything he writes has something of a classic status. The fact that it remains in print after 40+ years indicates there’s something to it.
I liked “The Number of the Beast”
as far as the book version of “Starship Troopers,” I thought it a good read. But not a classic. The movie is an instant classic. Of Sci-Fi gone wrong! (I’m wretching from the memory)
I heard the movie bears very little semblance to the book, much more so than your average book-to-movie conversion. Can someone elaborate?
It is an important book because Heinlein is an historic writer. Five hundred years from now when they study the literature of the 20th century, Heinlein will probably be in the top 50. He, Asimov, and Clarke will be remembered as the representatives of '20th Century Science Fiction". Pretty much every other author in the Genre will be obscure by then. That’s just my prediction.
There’s been lots of threads complaining about the movie. To get you started though, they got rid of just about every cool bit of technology from the book rendering their soldiers worse than useless. And they also reversed the message as well. You can’t get much of a worse adaption than that. If you want more detail, do a search: there’s pages :).
Note–
Heinlein was a Navy man, Lt. Commander & Annapolis.
If you examine the training & organization of the MI & compare it to the US Navy Special Warfare Program---- the **S. E.**a **A.**ir **L.**and Commandos—you find the programs to be almost identical. The novel Starship Troopers was published 7 to 10 years before the S.E.A.L. Teams were created in their modern form.
I don’t believe there is a coincidence here.
Well, other than the fact that they were fighting bugs, there were little in common. Most telling was the fact that the original book was a musing on patriotism and the need for an army, while the movie tried to be antiwar.
I don’t necessarily expect the movie to follow the book all that closely, however. The big problem with “Starship Troopers” the movie was that it was terminally stupid.
Well, y’know the female lead in the film, Dizzy? In the book Dizzy is a guy who dies on page 2.
The film also left out the ‘you don’t get to vote unless you serve in the military’ message.
And before Rico signs up for the military, he didn’t even know there was a war going on…
On the other hand, I’ve just seen the movie, and I thought it was sort of ironically funny. The action was acceptable, but the whole “neo fascist governemnt” thing was funny. Plus the ads were hilarious.
I’d agree with smiling bandit on the movie. It had the same kind of sardonic humor that Verhoeven put in Robocop, and I found it entertaining in both films. Also seeing Doogie Howser as a telepathic secret police agent was hilarious.
As to the book, I think yojimboguy nailed it in the first post, it depends on who you ask and their definition of a classic. A poll of university Literature professors would probably not find very many who would give ST a “classic” label. It is science fiction after all, and Heinlein’s (undeserved, IMHO) reputation as a misogynistic fascist probably wouldn’t help any. Ask fans of science fiction, though, and most would rate it as a major work in the field.
If you’re taking votes from SDMB members, you’ve got one “yes” here for classic status. It continues to be read and discussed decades after it was written, it brings up thought-provoking issues (what responsibilities come with citizenship, for example), it was written by a giant in the field, and it has spawned countless other novels. And to top it off, it’s a pretty good yarn.
As regards the movie version, I always got teh distinct impression that Verhoeven directed the movie as a deliberate and direct satire of the book. In theory, there’s nothing wrong with this. On a certain level, you could read Haldeman’s Forever War, or John Varley’s Armor, the same way. Of course, the difference here is that neither novel was claiming to be Starship Troopers. Verhoeven decided he had to comment on his source material, therby alienating everyone who wanted to see the movie because they loved the book. And he’s such a ham-handed, talentless hack that the movie on it’s own lacked enough interest to attract people who weren’t already Heinlein fans. Basically, everyone Verhoeven failed to alienate by being an ass he managed to alienate by being an idiot. Thankfully, this disaster of a film, followed by the equally stupid Hollow Man, may have finally put a bullet in his career.
As for the status of the novel, definetly a classic of science fiction, but not a classic of literature in general. Still one of my favorite books, though.
Well, frankly, they waited so long to make a movie from it that there was no way they COULD have done the powered MI suits without every viewer immediately saying, “Those lame copycats–isn’t that just Robotech? Come up with something original!”
I don’t know about that, necessarily. Rico is NOT Heinlein, he’s a character in Heinlein’s book. And as I once noted in another thread, Heinlein also wrote about the religious-hippy-sex-romp known as “Stranger in a Strange Land.” So which is the real voice of Heinlein? (Neither, fully, I’d guess.)
sorry, just “wrote the” not “wrote about the” … at least, I don’t THINK those events actually happened…
I always assume Heinlein is the “old man” guy he has in every book.
And, yes for classic. (as for the movie…rename it Plothole Troopers)
Heinlien is closer in spirit to Rico’s father than to Rico.
The “military service = voting” was mentioned passingly in the movie, in the oath taken by the new recruits containing the phrase “soveriegn franchise” (i.e. the vote) but for the most part the social structure was left a complete mystery.
The book has a litle too much “gosh, golly, gee-whiz” dialogue for my taste. The better dialogue comes from the various teachers/instructors who coughed up page after page of cynical exposition.
The book is interesting but I wouldn’t call it a classic. For one, it’s pointlessly sexist (having described at length the power suits worn by the troopers, Heinlein can’t seem to explain why a woman couldn’t be so equipped) and the various military and social rituals are best left in the fifties where they belonged.
But having had my car recently broken into, I’ll admit a certain fondness for the possible return of public whipping.
Every viewer? I think you over-estimate the cultural impact of Robotech. I was a big fan of the show, but I don’t really see any connection between Starship Troopers and Robotech, aside from them both being science fiction. Most of Robotech was giant robots, anyway. They didn’t have anything like power armor until they got those dinky transforming motorcycles in the third series, and even those don’t really compare to the deadly two-legged tank that was a Mobile Infantry Battle Suit.
I agree with Tars Tarkas (Jeddak of Helium? I forget…), I think Heinlein wrote himself in as “old man” characters often. Lazarus Long, Jubal Harshaw, whatever his name was (main male character) in The Cat Who Walked Through Walls. (Maybe he was the cat…)
He seemed to belabor the incest question quite a bit, too.
His personal views really show up in Expanded Universe.
He was a great writer. His older stuff is still being eaten up by newer and newer fans. So almost anything he wrote is a classic.
I still vote no on this book, tho. Very enjoyable, but it failed to enthrall me like other stories of his.