Heck, Heinlein also repeated some hoary old urban legends as fact, too, like the 200 MPG carburetor. Being good at fact-checking only helps you when you realize there’s something to check. He knew that he needed to do the orbital mechanics calculations for The Rolling Stones, so he did. But he already knew all about the carburetor, so he didn’t need to double-check that one.
By comparison, missing one detail in an otherwise-accurate story is small potatoes.
As I say, though, a pretty important detail that takes up a big chunk of space in the story. A pretty major point, not some throwaway item.
Eh, it was only a short story rather than a novel, but the 200 MPG carburetor was pretty significant in “Let There be Light”, probably more significant than the Cox story was in Starship Troopers.
I wouldn’t say it’s an important detail. Whether or not the Sergeant’s story was true had no impact on the narrative; in fact, Heinlein could have been making the whole Cox thing up and it wouldn’t have made a bit of a difference.
Besides, NCOs are notorious bullshitters. Maybe the character knew the truth, but preferred to tell his version of the story.
It wasn’t an NCO that told the story. It was his OCS commander, who’s not supposed to be a “notorious bullshitter,” especially when he’s giving you a pep talk prior to your first mission as a proto-officer. In fact, this is precisely the point at which you want your facts to be straight. If they aren’t, why should your charges ever trust anything you tell them again?
This. The truthfulness of the story is nearly irrelevant to the novel. Honestly, when I read the book, I just assumed he’d made that up, but didn’t care.
He could, indeed, have made it up. It makes the point.
The fact that he didn’t make it up, but distorted an actual event , though, bugs me. Heinlein usually gets his historical facts straight.
It’s obvious that Cox’s name being cleared is the butterfly effect event where the Starship Troopers universe diverged from ours. Cox remaining disgraced led directly to the war between the Russo-Anglo-American Alliance and the Chinese Hegemony of 1987. So we really all have Harry S Truman to thank that we’re not on that particular timeline.
But that means that we’re going to be woefully unprepared when the Bugs flatten Buenos Aires.
That was a false-flag operation. Everyone knows you can’t poop rocks across interstellar distances.
I thought we already were? Why else would Johnny’s mother have been vacationing there?
I like this.
Quite right. Not to mention the ludicrous suggestion that a near-encounter with one disabled the Rodger Young’s communication mast.
I was going to say the same thing. People nowadays forget how difficult it could be to check on basic facts in the era before Wikipedia.
But they also exaggerate how difficult it was. I researched my first thesis and half my second using citation indices and yearly records of abstracts. I researched non-technical stuff with the Readers Guide to Periodic Literature and the New York Times index and suchlike. My own home town library had the Reader’s guide, and the local university had a LOT more.
It was harder than a few keystrokes on your phone, tablet, or Chromebook, but it wasn’t absurdly difficult.
It seems to me the most likely answer is that Heinlein heard the story back in his early cadet days, and it stuck in his head just like it was supposed to stick in Johnny Rico’s head. So since he knew the story so well, he didn’t need to “check the facts” on it, he knew it by heart. And so he told the story in the book the same way he heard it back when he was a cadet, and didn’t bother to research the story.
He probably just remembered–off the top of his head–the Old Sea Story that was used to scare the bejesus out of cadets at the Naval Academy back in the 1920s.
But he might also have “fact checked” himself by grabbing something off his own bookshelf; you know, just to make sure he got the names and dates and the other little details right. But of course the book he grabbed was a few years out of date, but gosh, why would that matter? It was an anecdote from history from nearly a 150 years ago, and it might not have even occurred to Heinlein that he really needed to have the most up-to-date (not to mention detailed) book or article he could find. (Again, assuming that he just happened to miss that later development as it happened.)
(Also, some of y’all are clearly posting from the timeline where Starship Troopers was adapted into a Major Motion Picture. That never happened on this timeline! Never!)
But then why would the Commandant have mentioned that Cox’s family had tried unsuccessfully for a century and a half to get the conviction reversed? Unless Heinlein was aware that there was an effort to clear Cox’s name by his great-grandson at the time he was writing the book?
Of course. What idjit would make a movie of it *without *powered armor?!?
Never happened in my timeline either. A film using the title but adapted from a completely different story was made though.
Cox’s family had been arguing the case since at least 1882 - they got Theodore Roosevelt to remove disparaging remarks about Cox from a book TR wrote in that year William Sitgreaves Cox - Wikipedia - Heinlein could well be aware of those continuing efforts to clear Cox (and their failure up until the 1950s).
Of course, the real problem with the story – as Billdo pointed out – is the exaggeration of the difference between Cox and the Captain.
A shipboard analogy to a platoon leader commanding a brigade might be a two-days-out of OCS lieutenant in charge of ordering galley supplies suddenly had to command an aircraft carrier.
But that’s not what happened on the Chesapeake. Cox was actually one of the three watch officers, in acting command of the ship a third of the time, not ‘four levels’ below the Captain but one of the three people who were all one level below the Captain. So it’s less like a platoon leader commanding a brigade, and more like the brigade’s executive officer, or a battalion commander taking charge. Which is something that the XO or battalion commander should be prepared for, and something that the platoon leader wouldn’t be.
As far as the Court-Martial, Cox was certainly a fall-guy scapegoat for the bad-PR from the loss of the ship, no question. But, given that he was second in command at the point he carried the wounded Captain below, it was arguably not the right move.
More here, by the way: Making Light: Chesapeake v. Shannon