Really? I like the straight literal interpretation MUCH better. It’s about hope, love and loss at a bar at closing time. Now, that’s poetic.
In an Eagles interview of some kind, Glen Frey was talking about how the song “On the Border” just didn’t turn out the way they intended and was all wrong. . . That is by far my favorite Eagles song! That A-hole does not know what he’s talking about.
It’s been years since I’ve read the book, but I thought there was a bit about how anyone, no matter what, was accepted into the service, and the service would find a role for them. Something about “counting fuzzy caterpillars by touch,” IIRC, which doesn’t strike me as having a lot of military applications.
I’ve never heard Wilder say anything negative about the original movie or his performance in it. He seems to have been enthusiastic about the role and talks about the input he had on the character.
Wilder has, however, been open in his dislike for the remake.
It was a bit more specific than that - they can’t refuse to take you for medical reasons - everyone has to be able to earn the franchise. So the doctor gave the example of a blind, deaf, paraplegic recruit, and the “counting fuzz on a caterpillar by touch” job. Note that the doctor at the recruiting station was a civilian employee, not a vet or active duty, so he was somewhat talking out his ass. But if you’re a lazy moron who can’t/won’t do the job they give you, you could easily get an Undesirable Discharge or Bad Conduct Discharge. Maybe with 10 lashes as a parting gift.
The jobs the recruiter told Johnny he might wind up with if he was useless as a soldier sounded pretty nasty - labor battalions for the terraforming of Venus, or field testing survival gear on Titan. “It gets chilly on Titan. And it’s amazing how often new gear fails to work as advertised. Got to have those field trials though.” Quite a far cry from sorting mail.
Agreed.
You can go in circles forever remembering one passage at a time. The comprehensive analysis noted above closes pretty much all the “as I recall” and “this guy said this” holes.
Nope. Jokes are funny.
Has anyone of note in the past 40 years claimed that John’s explanation of the title was bullshit?
Apparently one of the reasons that the Chronicles of Narnia are now published in the wrong order (with Magician’s Nephew first) is some offhand remark CS Lewis made in a letter to a young fan, saying that that was a fine order to read them in, or something.
If in fact he said that and thought that and meant that, he was wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
^this.
And thank God writers and artists in general are not aware of all the various interpretations their work might be subject to, or they might become critics as well. We don’t need anymore stinking critics.
NO, the “comprehensive” analysis elides one side of the argument pretty consistently:
The answer is clearly laid out in the H&MP class Johnnie takes in OCS: the idea is to discourage applicants, to suggest to them that serving can cost them a limb, and that service is dangerous. If you join, the government decides where you go – you can list preferences, but ultimately if they want you in the armed services they can put you there. But that doesn’t exclude the fact that non-combatant, “civil service” type jobs exist. The author does not “comprehensively” mention this as an answer to his rhetorical question.
Of course: because the typical service of a clerk, manager, or technical worker doesn’t involve losing hands, unless the file cabinets of the future are considerably more contentious than they are now.
I’m disinclined to go through each and every claim in that paper, but they’re slanted bunk.
Which is why no one’s successfully countered it in over 20 years. Those who start with the position that it must be wrong end up never being heard from again; they later resurface with entire arguments built on one selected passage and an even more selective argument based thereon.
It’s an interesting study in preconceived notions and how they direct hasty conclusions. 
Quote a single passage from the book that unambiguously states that there are non-military components to FS, without falling back on inferences such as “file clerks don’t lose their hands.”
How would you “successfully” counter it?
Do you think my two passages above successfully counter the points he was making in the two passages of his I quote?
Sorry, I missed that link in your previous post. Having read the essay, I think the most I can say about it was that it was certainly eleven pages long.
I’ve accepted it as correct and valid since I read the first drafts almost 25 years ago.
No. You are bringing in truckloads of outside inference, not supported by the text.
ST is an interesting book in that there is one hell of a lot less of it than most readers remember, especially from the perspective of “I read it years ago and…” It’s a very slim book that skates very lightly on all but its central thread.
It says next to *nothing *about the actual government - fewer than 100 words, IIRC. (ETA: making the endless reams about libertarian, fascist and other issues exceed the actual content by a ratio the 2nd Amendment crowd would find astounding.)
It says *nothing *even remotely like Heinlein’s claim of “95%.” Anywhere. At all.
It says so little about the nature of Federal Service that that paper cites every single relevant passage without reaching a dozen pages.
It’s highly regarded and frequently cited in Heinlein studies. As I said, no one has written a meaningful challenge to either its gist or specifics in two decades, although it’s really, really pissed off a lot of people who come in with a viewpoint like yours. (To no contrary end.)
Arguments from your perspective are based far more on faulty recall and extra-textual material and concepts than anything else. (Sorry.)
Go ahead, re-read the book and compose your own argument based on what is actually in the text - not in what the casual readers think they recall about it ten years later.
One important factor is that Starship Troopers is told from a single point of view - and that point of view belongs to somebody going through infantry training.
You could read a novel about a Marine serving in World War II and barely be made aware that the Army existed and was a larger service. A novel about a Marine serving in the Pacific might never mention the major fighting going on in Europe. And there would probably be no mention of the civilian economy that’s supporting the military.
So just because the book focused on one infantryman’s experience doesn’t mean infantry was the only thing going on in the world.
Before this side issue derails the whole thread - and I’d be happy to follow it to a separate one - I should add that I don’t have a horse in this race, because the race was over long ago for me. I spent around 25 years discussing this topic and related ones in everything from online forums to Worldcon panels to SFRA seminars, and satisfied myself long ago as to the validity of the various viewpoints.
I don’t know of a major Heinlein scholar who disagrees with the FS paper except in fine details. That includes the late Bill Patterson, Dr. Robert James and some lesser-known names. I’ll leave my arguments at that.
Tony got whacked, and I don’t care what David Chase has to say.
There was an IMHO brilliant shot-by-shot analysis of that last scene that leads to no other conclusion. I’ll bet it was a hell of a funeral.