[EatingPie]

Annndd.... Part II!

In the case of Starship Troopers, I don't believe that Heinlein thought that was any kind of ideal basis for society at all. In fact, in the novel itself I think one of the characters says that they stick with it because it works, not because it has any kind of theoretical basis for good government (again, take the universe as you find it...) I don't see any connection to Scientology personally.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Absolutely not. Neither atheism nor Scientology are part of the underpinning. (To my knowledge, RAH was agnostic and Libertarian.)

I'm stringing you guys together of give a better (hopefully!) response.

As taught in my Science Fiction class, Heinlein was frustrated by his inability to fully serve in the military. Frustrated even further that he had very good ideas for military theory and strategy that he thought would benefit the country. But his illness cut his career short, and he didn't have the chance to gain a rank in which to properly convey his ideas.

Starship Troopers is born from this frustration, so to speak. It lays out his ideas on military theory that he could not while actually in the military. But who was going to read a bunch of military essays by a civillian science fiction writer? So he wrapped it all up in a Novel of sorts so it would be more palatable to the masses.

Again, this comes straight from my college science fiction class.

The book's structure is as I said above. You have a set of short stories -- missions -- that tie together by the war. But in between each story, there is classroom time (!!), where the cadets (!!) are giving military theory lessons by the wise, battle-hardened Sergeant. (In Stranger, Heinlein had a similar character: the wise old man, who taught Mike.)

Starship Troopers is a "coming of age" story, which I believe was originally intended for the Scribners Juvenile/YA line he did an assortment of earlier books for. Johnny Rico grows up and learns to take responsibility, first for himself, as a Trained Private in the Mobile Infantry, then for others, as a non-commissioned officer in the MI, and finally for the human race, as a commissioned officer. His moral development can be charted by the different answers he gives to "Why we fight" at different stages of the book.

You may disagree with the author's philosophy, but you won't get very far if you don't at least recognize what kind of book the author was writing.

The very point I'm making is that I do recognize the type of book he was writing! You are confusing "type of book" and "audience of book."

The target audience was probably the YA market. And were I Heinlein, I would have thought that perfect! Young, moldable minds that he could influence with his notions of military theory. Certainly having a young soldier, and three (or so) short stories about his battles, make great YA fiction. But the military theory is still there, between missions.

Note that what I am saying does not contradict anything said about Johnny Rico. The theme of personal responsibility is there, sure. But the military theory is there too. A (very politically minded) friend of mine loves to cite Heinlein's philosophy that only those who served in the military could vote or (I believe) hold office. You had to earn it, to prove your mettle, or to prove you cared.

It isn't, really.

Ah, but it is...

The difference lies in the source... or the purpose. Heinlein wanted to teach his military theory, and that's exactly what he does. And he takes those theories to their logical conclusion, so to speak.

Many authors -- Atwood included -- want to convey themes in their books, sure. It's similar in that regard. Handmaid's Tale uses a post-nuclear theocracy (of sorts) to convey the dangers of rampant blindly accepted religious beliefs. Does she believe in that's happening? Dunno, but she certainly came across as concerned about blind faith influencing society.

Heinlein, as I stated, had a more distinct purpose. Not just theme but an actual didactic work, theories and ideas he wanted to teach directly through the voice of a... teacher!

Absolutely not. Neither atheism nor Scientology are part of the underpinning. (To my knowledge, RAH was agnostic and Libertarian.)

I saw many elements of Dianetcs in the book, particularly the early chapters in the classroom. I recall something about a cat, and that being a key metaphor that was rooted in Dianetics. I admit this isn't the strongest evidence, but it's been over 10 years since I read the book, and I am not really very excited about pulling open the crappy thing right now (see thread topic! ).

Heinlein was friends with Hubbard, and the earliest form of Dianetics first appeared in "Amazing Science Fiction" magazine, published by John Campbell... who I believe was already noted as Heinlein's editor for a while. So Dianetcs was very much known to him, and while Heinlein may not have accepted the philosophy, it proved a good basis -- a bottom-floor philosophical framework -- to justify the military society.

Did he believe in Dianetcs? Don't know. It was a basis, a philosophical justification that fit. But that wasn't the important part. The part he wanted to teach, the military theory, that is what was important, and that's what we see in much of the book's classroom time.

-Pie