In the classic 1959 Sci-Fi novel Starship Troopers, Robert Heinlein lays out a view of the future where only the military is allowed full citizenship and suffrage. He presents democracy as intrinsically flawed and physical punishment as an essential part of child-rearing. The novel is often seen as advocating militarism if not fascism.
By contrast, the 1961 Sci-Fi classic Stranger in a Strange Land seems to advocate the polar opposite view, and is partly anti-violence and anti-fascism. Stranger in a Strange Land is in many ways makes the case for Peace and liberty, in the same way that Starship Troopers outlines the value of never-ending conflict. The tone and spirit and even writing of the two novels are as if they came from two different authors, or at least viewpoints.
How did Heinlein reconcile the opposing world-views of these two classics?
Were there any interviews where Heinlein addressed the conflict between these two novels? How did he respond to accusations of fascism? Did Heinlein ever openly reject any of the views in Starship Troopers?
Answer
As late as 1980, the year of publication for Expanded Universe, a book of fiction and essays, Heinlein made no apology for Starship Troopers. He attacked the book's critics as largely being unable to adequately understand written English. Heinlein also made a case for increasing the requirements for the franchise in some fashion and offered some serious and some humorous proposals. (I have to believe that the reference to "The Curious Republic of Gondor" was meant humorously.)
Heinlein was unapologetic about his glorification of the military, observing that he'd been on the Navy rolls for 56 years and he would have hardly stayed there if he were not proud of it.
As for how Heinlein reconciled the pacificist and warrior viewpoints, consider this excerpt from a speech he gave to a brigade of midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy in 1973:
I must pause to brush off those parlor pacifists I mentioned earlier... for they contend that their actions are on this highest moral level. They want to put a stop to war; they say so. Their purpose is to save the human race from killing itself off; they say that too. Anyone who disagrees with them must be a bloodthirsty scoundrel -- and they'll tell you that to your face.
I won't waste time trying to judge their motives; my criticism is of their mental processes: Their heads aren't screwed on tight. They live in a world of fantasy.
Let me stipulate that, if the human race managed its affairs sensibly, we could do without war.
Yes -- and if pigs had wings, they could fly.
Being a gifted writer Heinlein could adopt many voices, but it seems clear where his heart was.
Comments
Post a Comment