Heinlein is a classic of sci-fi, but nowadays it's fashionable to demonize him because Starship Troopers, his best known book, is considered fascist. But… I loved that book! It means a lot to me. Oh noes, am I the baddie? Or are his critics simply wrong?
Neither. In this essay, I will argue:
Yes, Starship Troopers portrays a fascist society: one where military service is considered the only contribution to society valuable enough to give you a say. Sure, you can “choose” to be a second-class citizen, uh-huh. That will totally have no real consequences. You… do know what happens when entire categories of people are denied a vote, right? And where have we heard of such a society before? That's right, in the Roman Empire, which indirectly gave us the word “fascist”. Since, you know, they were the first. Funny that.
My main objection is that most of the book doesn't focus on that. In fact the main themes are duty and responsibility. Are you going to tell me those are bad things? Look around you. Look at the politicians running this world in 2022. Think again.
(Also the book features a father and son who part ways over differences only to find new common ground in the end. A happy ending I never had, and now it may be too late.)
Now, sure, Heinlein was a soldier. That's another problem with forcing military service on people (while pretending not to): it's not just a couple years or whatever of faffing around in uniform and being occasionally humiliated. Military service is literally designed to break people and rebuild them into… nothing, actually. Slaves. Too broken to be anything else ever again. Unless you go to officer school I suppose.
Those of us who weren't? It's because we were already broken in different ways. The first trick we learned was how to put ourselves together again. You know the line.
Besides, Heinlein wrote more major books, and each of them features a different system of government:
Gee, it's as if Heinlein was, wait for it, a writer setting out to explore the many facets of human society, and not just some shill with an agenda. Imagine that. Or perhaps his political convictions evolved over time? Another good thing, if true. Only fanatics or stubborn old fools cling to an idea.
Needless to say, those books are also complex, with good and bad parts that don't cancel each other out. Double Star picks up the themes of duty and responsibility again, adding a motif of personal sacrifice for a greater cause, and for once not the simplistic “die for your country” proposition. And frankly it explores the concept of identity better than Phillip K. Dick ever did. Too bad it also gives us a positive portrayal of a monarchy explicitly clinging to the past, and look how well that's working out these days for certain empires from a few decades ago.
In a similar way, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a grand tale of friendship, loyalty and again sacrifice. Not to mention a reminder of how fragile and precious life is, and how unique, too. Also an exploration of gender as social construct that may not seem like much nowadays, but at the time it was revolutionary. Pardon the pun. Compared to Asimov's blatant, relentless misogyny, that was a breath of fresh air.
It also goes to town with its portrayal of a libertarian wet dream, complete with summary executions, presented as a good thing, no less! (Thankfully off-screen.) That, and it makes light of the fight for independence led by countless colonized nations over the centuries. Yo, that's no laughing matter, Mr. American Eagle! Or did you forget that time when your own country was what we call nowadays a banana republic?
Anyway, as for Stranger in a Strange Land, I don't remember much about it, except for feeling confused and dissatisfied in the end. But its sheer weirdness merits a mention here. This was not the creation of a man who thought he knew everything.
Do we have to leave Heinlein in the past? Definitely. That doesn't make him a villain. And his books might still have a thing or three to teach us, as long as we read them critically. Which is an important skill that people no longer learn. Who benefits?
Last but not least: you know Verhoeven's much-maligned Starship Troopers movie? That's not even an adaptation: it's a parody of the popular image the book has. Its savage roasting of fascism still flew over the heads of most viewers, despite being the very opposite of subtle. And that's why it reared its ugly head again since 2016.