[Barrin92]

That's arguably the worst argument given that the author has no special authority over the interpretation of the work. Heinlein with his increasingly militaristic views wrote Starship Troopers as a sincere story, but Paul Verhoeven showed quite compellingly that it might make for better satire.

[falcor84]

That's actually an ironic example, seeing how so many (maybe most) viewers took the intended satire at face value, essentially looping all the way back to Heinlein's intent.

[pessimizer]

The best satire is always convincing to its targets, because it doesn't misrepresent their positions. The Prince may be satire; who knows what was in Machiavelli's head.

[FrustratedMonky]

Exactly. Even today, a lot of satire aimed at the 'right', viewed from the 'right's perspective is not realized as satire and is viewed like someone is trying to make a real point. They can't tell it is satire.

[username332211]

Doesn't the guy have another book - The Discourses on Livy, that confirms the general gist of The Prince? (i.e. autocracies are horrible, to be a successful autocrat you need to be brutal and ruthless)

[BoingBoomTschak]

Didn't Verhoeven famously not read the book? Hard to call it "satire" then, "straw man" might be more accurate.

[justin66]

Perhaps less famously, Edward Neumeier wrote his screenplay.

[johnnyfived]

I hadn't heard that before but I agree with you, it doesn't qualify as satire if he didn't even bother to consume the source material. At least not in the literary sense.

[koverstreet]

You could only think Heinlein had militaristic views if that was the only book of his you read.

Read another book of his and you'd think he was a communist, another an anarchist, et cetera.

He liked to explore ideas. If there's one thing that's reasonably consistent across his work, it's his belief in individual agency.