For Sci-Fi fans: Was Robert Heinlein a Fascist?

[tclouie]

If you read a lot of science-fiction writers, you will eventually notice some recurring themes and even be able to point out some personality traits. For instance, Arthur C. Clarke is the visionary; Robert Sawyer is the eternally optimistic geek; Michael Crichton (snicker) is the formulaic, technocratic hack, not that that impedes my enjoyment of his work, it's like a guilty pleasure for me; Ray Bradbury, in his best work, is like a hippie on a bad acid freak-out, twenty years ahead of his time; Philip Dick was a raving (but harmless) psychotic with an identity crisis.

All of this can be gleaned just from their work, without knowing any of their biographies. But the only one that I really dislike, Robert Heinlein, seems to be a fascist. Just look at "Stranger In A Strange Land," "Starship Troopers," "Farnham's Freehold." (OK, he was also racist and a dirty old man. Ve must continue ze bloodline, little girlie--!)

So how about it? Was Heinlein an escaped German who came over here after the war to put some blood and iron into our sci-fi? I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

[vtel57]

Outstanding!

I can see it now...

Heinlein: Vee have vays to make you read zee book, and then burn it in the ovens! Yawohl, mein Heir! Heh-heh...

[Dragon Phoenix]

Right-wing? Certainly. Sex-maniacal in his later works, yes. Fascist? Hm.

I have heard this before, but always found it difficult to believe. His Sixth sense (about an Asian invasion of the USA) has a lot of racism overtones, but on the other hand he clearly attacked racism in his The moon is a harsh mistress. And what makes you list Stanger in a strange land as an example of his supposed fascism?

[Badtz Maru]

I don't think so. He put a lot of importance on individual freedoms and rights, but also on personal responsibility and societies right to remove those who are harmful to it.

[tclouie]

In "Stranger In A Strange Land," the hero is a superior being who gets into the habit of "cleansing" the population by winking undesirables out of existence. The hero is later lynched by an unappreciative rabble. OK, this is not the most clear-cut example of fascism in Heinlein's work, but there are definite overtones.

In "Farnham's Freehold," the future has been taken over by black cannibals. Definitely racist. The hero is a balding, middle-aged man (who is pro-nuclear war) who gets to mate with his son's college girlfriend because the son turns out to be such a wimp.

I didn't read "Starship Troopers," just saw the movie. But that future society, constructed after the "failure of democracy," bases citizenship on military service, and more than one reviewer commented on the Gestapo-like Intelligence uniforms and the Holocaust-era tactic of classifying society's enemies as "bugs" or other vermin.

[Billdo]

I'd say he is much more libertarian than fascist. In fact, I would venture to say that he is rather strongly anti-fascist.

A recurring theme of his is opposition to authoritarian government. Very few of his heros are directly involved with the government, and those few that are have a strong "he who governs least, governs best" sentiment.

One of his recurring villians is is a strong, controlling government. Whenever a powerful or personally-invasive government is set up, it is inevetably opposed (and usually defeated) by rugged, free-thinking individualists.

Yes, he can be militaristic, but that is very different from being fascist.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Originally posted by tclouie
I didn't read "Starship Troopers," just saw the movie. But that future society, constructed after the "failure of democracy," bases citizenship on military service, and more than one reviewer commented on the Gestapo-like Intelligence uniforms and the Holocaust-era tactic of classifying society's enemies as "bugs" or other vermin. [/B]

Umm, well, you see- the book was not like that so much. As it explained- you got to be a "citzen" by signing up for "government service"- not just the Military. So, stuff like the "peace corps" would count. The gestapo-uniforms are from the movie- only. And, umm, the enemy WAS 'bugs".

Heinlien liked to raise eyebrows. he apparently raised yours. And, you have read only a few of his books- you would have to read more to make such a judgement.

[waterj2]

There's a thread somewhere about how Paul Verhoeven was a genius for making a movie that made the good guys out to be really no better than fascists, so that those "in the know" could feel superior by looking down on the masses cheering for the Gestapo. Regardless of whether one thinks this is a good thing, it bore only a passing resemblance to the book. For one thing, in the book, the Mobile Infantry was actually mobile, and didn't rely on pre-WWI tactics.

Anyways, it's not as if Heinlein actually advocated that sort of government. I think he was writing about it as an intriguing idea, rather than a plan for the future.

[sewalk]

Before pronouncing Heinlein a fascist, read more than two or three of his books. His earlier works are much less political and are much smoother reading. There is a constant recurring theme in these books, and the later ones, when read objectively, of basic individual rights and responsibilities. Fascism suppresses the rights of the individual. No Heinlein protagonist is any kind of oppressor. I'd say the most common recurring personality is the rugged indivdualist.

I've always heard a lot of people denounce RAH because of the militaristic theme of Starship Troopers. The thing that strikes me is that they seem to ignore the personal sacrifice the elder characters in the story have made: Colonel DuBois' arm, Fleet Sergeant Ho's legs, and the OCS Commandant's eyes. To me, these people epitomize the other side of the coin in Heinlein's franchise-through-service society. They did not give up their limbs and eyes to gain the right of full citizenship; they gave them up to secure the freedom of all their fellow men and they continue to contribute by nurturing the sense of honor and responsibility of future citizens.

[tclouie]

It seems to me a person believing in Fascism would not admit to being an oppressor. However, a Fascist would believe that he is being oppressed by certain segments of society, like the mediocre, the weak or the different. "Tyranny of the weak" is a good Fascist slogan.

If Adolf Hitler were to write a sci-fi novel, it would probably resemble one of Heinlein's.

[tclouie]

By the way, Heinlein defenders -- How come nobody is mentioning Farnham's Freehold?

[Badtz Maru]

Well, I haven't read it myself, it's kinda hard to find. From what I've read and heard, though, there are sympathetic black characters in it.

[zen101]

Originally posted by tclouie
By the way, Heinlein defenders -- How come nobody is mentioning Farnham's Freehold?

Firstly: You state matter of factly that if Hitler wrote Sci-Fi it would read like a RAH story. Read more than two of Heinlein's books and ignore all movies "inspired" by his work unless you want to make such a mistake. You are dead wrong. Heinlein has been credited with being one of the first great libertarian authors and wrote in 1946 a book called "Take Back Your Government!" (published much later in the 90s') which was almost a manifesto for political activism in the common man and similar in approach to the Perot campaign. Heinlein continually advocates personal responsibility hand in hand with personal liberty knowing quite well that you can't have only one and have prosperity. Yes in many ways his words are sexist and bigoted by todays standards and demonstrate a visible prejudice. Hey guess what, people in his generation were brought up to think certain things and no one told them otherwise. Just like reading anyone who comes from the past you have to filter things a bit. People used to think there were demons in the ocean and the earth was flat too, they were not idiots they were simply ignorant to the kind of enlightenment that we have today. Heinelin also was the most feminist chauvinist I can think of. His femal characthers were feminine indeed and very sexual and would usually be leaders and do as much rescuing as geting rescued. If you insist on commenting further then read Friday, I Will Fear No Evil, and The Number of the Beast and you will encounter only a few of the truly stron femal charachters in his works.

on Farnham's Freehold: Yep the bad guys were black Africans or the descendants of black Africans. They ate people too. RAH was probably a bigot, I'd think so. See the first section to clarify why I don't thin he's burning in hell over it. Ever read any Clemens? The point isn't that Clemens or Heinlein were bigoted (which it is obvious they were by todays standards) but that they didn't try to be and in fact they tried to discover such things and banish them. In fact if you read his work you will see that he grew as a human being. The problem you seem to have is that you pick up something written by a human in 1964 (Freehold) and then fail to read something written 87' (Sail Beyond the Sunset) so you don't get to see that he was a man who learned and changed his own perspective. When I was a little itty bitty kid I did not know any black people. Never met one. I thought they all owned father and son garbage dumps and dry cleaning businesses, as I grew up I learned a lot more and hope to continue doing so.

I apologize if I come off harsh but I do not take well to people insulting someone who I admire as much as RAH offhandedly and without doing the simple courtesy of reading the man's work.

[waterj2]

I would imagine that if Hitler wrote Sci Fi, the main character's name wouldn't be Juan Rico. Just one little difference off the top of my head.

[Northern Piper]

For a counter-example to "Starship Troopers," read "If this goes on ---" - Heinlein's novella of army officers rebelling against a theocracy that's taken over the US and reinstituting a democratic government based on individual rights - hardly a fascist theme.

I'd go with the analysis that he was a libertarian who experienced personal growth on race issues.

[Astroboy14]

Dude!! I second all of the above! Read more of his stuff before you label him as a fascist of any sort! I have read, to the best of my knowledge, everything the man published... and much of it multiple times.

Yes, the bad guys in "Farnham's Freehold" were black... so what? If they were white, would RAH still be a racist? Let me introduce you to the term "plot device". When the book in question was written, the audience was primarily white... and he needed people who were sufficiently different (to a much more naive audience, and I include RAH in that group) to be believable as the bad guys. He also needed a predominant group in this future world visibly different than the group that had managed to fuck up the planet with a nuclear war.. but shock these people, with their darker skin and all, STILL managed to fuck up the planet in their own way! :eek: Oh my GOD!!! Maybe these darker people are not so different from us!

:rolleyes:

Try not to judge before you know what you are talking about, please.

And "Stranger in a Strange Land"... did you actually read it, or did you just skim? Michael does not "cleanse the population by winking undesirables out of existence!"

He does this only a couple of times, IIRC (don't have the book here, and haven't read it for a year or so... but HAVE read it about 7 times before!), and ONLY before he is introduced to human values/morals. Once he IS introduced to human society, he does not do this. If he DID continue to "wink undesirables out of existence" he would never have been martyred by the crowd. (BTW: he is NOT lynched, he is shot several times and then literally pulled apart by the mob...I think... is this correct? Anyone got the book handy?)

[tclouie]

Look, Heinlein didn't live in the days when people believed in a flat Earth. He lived in the MIDDLE TO LATE TWENTIETH CENTURY, so you can't blame it on the times he lived in. He was alive for a goodly portion of my own life, and I'm only 35.

By 1964, everyone in America was totally aware of things like civil rights and racial stereotypes, particularly anyone who had been a published popular author since the '40s, and particularly someone who often drew inspiration from news headlines for his stories. Heinlein probably would have read in the papers about King's "Dream" speech only one year before.

Anybody who wrote about a future race of black cannibals in 1964 would have been seen (in the context of the time, yes!) as being on the side of the Klan and the White Citizens Councils. Such a novel could be interpreted as a racist warning: "If you give the blacks equality, this will happen."

This was 1964, for crying out loud! And it was still the "good" years of the Civil Rights Movement--the big-city riots and the Black Panthers hadn't happened yet. Heinlein was definitely making a statement by publishing that book at that time, and I don't like what he was saying.

Heinlein was definitely no innocent "creature of his time." How could a "libertarian" who believed in individual freedom be so historically deterministic anyway? How can you say "no one told him otherwise"? Even 100 years ago there would have been people like W.E.B. DuBois telling him otherwise--maybe their views weren't widely reported, but a writer of speculative fiction, writing about the future rather than staying in the past, definitely would have had access to those views. If Heinlein was such a great writer, then how dare you imply he was like some blank slate who believed everything he was told by society.

He was a creepy right-wing racist because he CHOSE to be, not 'cuz he was ign'ant.

I think your comparison of Heinlein to Clemens is very insulting to Clemens, and not just because Clemens was a much better writer. Clemens, living 100 years before Heinlein, was much more enlightened about race relations. Clemens was a reporter of his own present, and so he reported people using the n-word. Heinlein, writing about the future, reported that first the Russkies would nuke us, and then the niggaz would eat us in the aftermath. There is no comparison between the two men.

Sure, I can give someone credit for changing and growing. Bobby Kennedy changed by '68. Even George Wallace had changed by '76. But reading Farnham's Freehold was a deal-breaker for me. There is no coming back from that.

And how can you say I haven't done Heinlein the courtesy of reading his work, when everybody else in this thread is willing to admit I've read two??? Two was enough! I tried to read more, but I couldn't stomach any more scenes in which girls always have some excuse to walk around naked, or have sex with middle-aged men...

I think in order to be a well-rounded SF reader, you don't need to read any more than two books by one author (unless it's a trilogy). Hey, I like Ray Bradbury and Philip Dick, and I've only read 3 by each of them. Of course, I've also read 6 by Robert Sawyer, 6 by Arthur C. Clarke and collaborators, and at least 11 by Crichton, but all of these authors have a more positive view of humanity and more likeable characters.

[tclouie]

I think I'm remembering "Stranger" better than you. It's AFTER he's reintroduced to society, AFTER he "grows up," matures, starts a religious cult, whatever, that he admits to Jubal Harshaw that he's been weeding out evil people--"sent to the foot of the line, to try again," I think he puts it. Basically saying it's OK to kill people because everyone gets reincarnated, thus preparing himself for his own death.

By the way, "lynched" doesn't have to mean hung. It just means executed without a trial, for instance by an enraged mob. Shooting and tearing limb from limb will do. The very first Judge Lynch in Ireland threw his own son out the window. Didn't hang him, but did lynch him.

I hated the lynching scene in "Stranger." Another example of Heinlein's bloodymindedness.

[Guy Propski]

Asimov made the comment in his autobiography that he noticed a change in Heinlein's outlook around the late 40's, not long after he divorced his first wife. Before this point, Asimov said that Heinlein was a hard-core liberal; afterwards, he felt he had become just as hard-core a conservative.

The fascist label is a litle strong. This tends to get stuck to anyone that doesn't meet with our ultra-liberal beliefs.

For a glimpse of what a SF novel written by Adolf Hitler would look like, read Norman Spinrad's "The Iron Dream."

[Astroboy14]

Reply to Astroboy
I think I'm remembering "Stranger" better than you. It's AFTER he's reintroduced to society, AFTER he "grows up," matures, starts a religious cult, whatever, that he admits to Jubal Harshaw that he's been weeding out evil people--"sent to the foot of the line, to try again," I think he puts it. Basically saying it's OK to kill people because everyone gets reincarnated, thus preparing himself for his own death.

Hmmmmmm... as I said, I don't have the book here, so maybe you are remembering it better than me. (Anyone? RAH fans? Help!! Help!!!!!! I'm sinking!!!!)

By the way, "lynched" doesn't have to mean hung. It just means executed without a trial, for instance by an enraged mob. Shooting and tearing limb from limb will do.
OK, I'll give you that one... but I still think RAH wasn't a fascist!

[Eft]

Originally posted by Astroboy14
And "Stranger in a Strange Land"... did you actually read it, or did you just skim? Michael does not "cleanse the population by winking undesirables out of existence!"

He does this only a couple of times, IIRC (don't have the book here, and haven't read it for a year or so... but HAVE read it about 7 times before!), and ONLY before he is introduced to human values/morals. Once he IS introduced to human society, he does not do this. If he DID continue to "wink undesirables out of existence" he would never have been martyred by the crowd.
Michael does indeed continue to make undesirables disappear after coming into contact with humans. Right after the Church of All Worlds goes into hiding, he disposes of a couple hundred people whom he deems not safe, because it's better to kill a man than to imprison him. As he puts it, "for a while, this will be an uncommonly decent city." He doesn't do it when being martyred because he goes out to meet the crowd on purpose to have them martyr him. (Yes, he's shot a couple of times, then pulled apart and incinerated.) Remember that according to his worldview, he can't die--all he was doing was discorporating and thus making a powerful symbol for his religion.

Originally posted by zen101
Heinelin also was the most feminist chauvinist I can think of. His femal characthers were feminine indeed and very sexual and would usually be leaders and do as much rescuing as geting rescued. If you insist on commenting further then read Friday, I Will Fear No Evil, and The Number of the Beast and you will encounter only a few of the truly stron femal charachters in his works.
"Feminist chauvanist" I can buy, but "strong female characters"? Let's take a look at the examples you cited. Friday is emotionally dependent on and a tool of RAH's favorite character, the Wise Old Man Whom Nubile Young Things Would Love To Have Sex With. She's neurotic. But she's the best of the bunch, yes. Eunice (IWFNE) is the Wise Old Man, who's taken over the body of the Nubile Young Thing. And both before and after the merger Eunice's main source of power is that she's sexually desirable and thus can make men do what she wants. This is also true of Maureen in To Sail Beyond the Sunset. Finally, the women in TNotB are both intelligent but control the men largely by sexual manipulation and temper tantrums. The women are all intelligent, but contrast their behavior with that of the men in the stories and you'll see how they use sex to get what they want when the men use force of will. If those are strong female characters, I fear to think what weak ones are like. The strongest female characters he's got are probably the ones in Tunnel in the Sky, and even they are generally--not entirely--subordinate to their male counterparts. RAH is a 1960s male feminist: women should be intelligent (so they can help) and sexual (so they want to sleep with the men) but they're still fundamentally beautiful children.

[Northern Piper]

Asimov made the comment in his autobiography that he noticed a change in Heinlein's outlook around the late 40's, not long after he divorced his first wife. Before this point, Asimov said that Heinlein was a hard-core liberal; afterwards, he felt he had become just as hard-core a conservative.

I just don't think that someone who wrote "Sixth Sense," one of the worst anti-Asian screeds I've ever had the misfortune to read, could be called a "hard-core liberal." As well, I think that if Heinlein had died in the mid-sixties, books like "Sixth Sense" and "Farnham's Freehold" would have left a clear impression that he was a racist.

But, then you read a book like "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," written in the mid-seventies, where, the heros are the rag-tag unwanted of Earth, of all races, banding together to throw off the oppression of the Earth government. For example, one minor episode is where the protaganist, visiting Earth, is tossed in jail on miscengeneration charges in one of the southern states, because he was a member of an extended, multi-racial family. That makes it much harder to dismiss him as a racist in my mind.

[tclouie]

Since we're getting into specific definitions here, and since someone pointed out that "fascist" is sometimes overused, and since I've seen no evidence that Heinlein believed in the "organic state" or "class collaboration".....

OK, OK, I'll drop the accusation of fascism, IF you all agree that Heinlein was racist. That was the worst part of fascism anyway...the hating and stuff. To get from right-wing to fascist, all you need is hate....

For much the same reasons, I don't like Rudyard Kipling either.

They say Roald Dahl was an anti-Semite, but as far as I know he didn't let it seep into his writing. So I still like his books.

[CalMeacham]

At the risk of incurring the wrath of all, I don't think Heinlein was a racist or a fascist or a sexist.

I love his books, and have re-read them multiple times. He is, regardless of your opinions of his views, a HELL of a writer.

I get the impression that he hated being pigeonholed for his p[olitical views. He was very active politically, and I think your average person would call him a libertarian, from what I've read.

For a spirited defence of Heinlein, read Spider Robinson's "Rah!Rah!R.A.H!" (In "Requiem" and other books). Read Heinlein's own "Expanded Universe". His women are interesting creatures. I find them frequently embarassing (If you want to see something to make you cringe, watch "Operation Moonbase", which Heinlein wrote the screenplay for. There's a lot of excellent stuff in that, but his treatment of women is condescwending and decidedly odd). But he really does have strong and independent female characters -- read "The Star Beast" or "The Puyppet Masters" or "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

As for the charge of fascism, it aint' so. Read his own defense of "Starship Troopers" in "Expanded Universe" or "Grumbles from the Grave", or Robinson's defence of it. Read even Alexei Panshin's criticism of it. Certainly DON'T take the Verhoven film as any sort of guide -- Verhoeven's politics and phiklosophy are 180 degrees from Heinlein's. The movie is a fascinating perversion of the book. And don't assume that the book represents Heinlein's political views -- Heinlein liked to create novel political systems VASTLY different from our own. There's usually one per book, but "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" contains several, as does "Expanded Universe". I suspect the one in "Starship Troopers is closest to his heart, but I can't prove it.

As for racism, there are plenty of statements in Heinlein's books denouncing racism. I don't find "Sixth Column" racist. (Heinlein claimed the John Campbell novel he effectively rewrote it from WAAS racist). Most of "Farnham's Freehold" tells either about surviving a nuclear attack, or about the survivors living in a future when most whites have been killed in a nuclear war, and their descendants have become the slaves of black masters. It was definitely a "shoe-on-the-other-foot" situation. The inhabitants of that future society are depicted as generally sympathetic, although culturaklly very different from us. The bit about cannibalism is NOT a major element in the story, and is dropped in at the end, I think, for shock value. I note that even the whites in the book are cannibals. I don't for a moment think that Heinlein is sayaing "If you let Blacks run the World they're going to end up eating White People!" There's just far too much stuff in hisd writing that is extremely anti-racist.

[Northern Piper]

Sorry - "Sixth Column" not "Sixth Sense." But I have to disagree with you Cal - I read it with a horrible sense of unease. It wasn't just his treatment of the invading Asians, but of the American-Japanese gardener - patronizing, admiring his brave little heart, his sacrifice at the end, and so on. I think it is a racist treatment of the theme.

[muttrox]

I was just about to bring up that facism != racism, when you conceded the point. Great!

Can we rename the thread then? Asking whether he was a racist is much more interesing anyhow, the answer isn't so clear.

IMHO, I think he did have a bias towards much of the culture and cultural values that is identified with causcasians. It would be accurate to say the RAH was racial in that he believed that race made a difference in (at a minimum) a cultural sense. I don't think he was a racist, in that he didn't belive that one race was inherently better than another.

My $.02

[RealityChuck]

Under any reasonable definition of faschism, Heinlein doesn't qualify. You can pick and choose things from his work to prove your point, but you can do that for any author. Heinlein said many things, and it's not always clear what was his philosophy and what was the philosophy of the character speaking.

If you judge from his work, Heinlein's politics were all over the map:

1. He was in favor of democracy (Double Star)
2. He was in favor of a monarchy (Glory Road)
3. He thought democracy was generally good, but needed strong leadership to prevent mob rule (Moon is a Harsh Mistress)
4. He portrayed non-caucasions as ugly stereotypes. (Farnham's Freehold)
5. He was one of the first to portray a non-caucasion as a hero in a science fiction novel (Starship Troopers). (N.B., Samuel R. Delany has written that the description of Johnny Rico indicated he was Black, and I have rarely seen Chip wrong on something like that).

So using the books is pointless. Heinlein's nonfiction seems to indicate he was pretty much a Libertarian, with a belief in the necessity for strong leadership (and if that's fascist, then nearly all U.S. presidential candidates are fascists -- including Ralph Nader).

As far as racism is concerned, it's a complex issue. Farnham's Freehold can certainly be read that way, but to call that Heinlein's philosophy is a very tricky proposition. We just can't look at it with the right perspective. Heinlein may have only been portraying a group of villains and had no intention of implying that the characters in the book were meant to represent black people.

Current critics have their own biases in these matters and unconsciouly assume that the books were written according to 21st Century values. It's the same issue with sexism -- Heinlein cannot be expected to act like someone living in 2001 (that's Clarke's job :)). The most you can say from a reading of the text is "under current assumptions and biases, Heinlein's work gives the impression of racism/sexism." However that tells nothing about Heinlein or his intentions.

[Edward The Head]

I haven't read Heinlein in about 6-7 years but I don't remember ANY raceism or facism or anything like that. I'm tring to remember what I read, I remember Stranger, # of the Beast, Job, Friday, The cat who could walk through walls, and the one where the man is transplanted into a woman.

I always thought he was busting on religion, especially in Job and Stranger. I still can't remember anything racist, I can kinda see the sexist part, but even that's not that bad. Seems to me people are TRYING to find stuff like that in peoples writing just to find a reason NOT to like them. I stopped reading Heinlein cause I got tired of him not cause I found anything wrong with what he said. I guess that makes ME a racist too.

[CalMeacham]

It's been a while since I read "Sixth Column". I'll have to have another look. All I can say is that I don't recall it being overtly racist. Certainly the Asians were villains -- but it was written just before the US entry into WWII. The Japanese WERE the villains. He certainly didn't depict them as stupid. I'll check my copy tonight.

I've recall plenty of other examples -- in the last story in "Expanded Universe" the president of the U.S. is black -- and female. (The president of the US in "Operation Moonbase" is female, too, but I have to admit thatshe's still an embarassing character.) Johnny Rico in "Starship Troopers", it turns out, is black, too. (Actually, although several people have assured me that this is made clear at the end of the novel, I keep missing it.) If you really want to see Heinlein railing against racism, read "Tramp Royale", his recently-released travel book. He was appalled by British attitudes towards Blacks in South Africa and towards the Chinese in Southeast Asia. I can't say I blame him.

I recall him talking about "brown bothers and sisters" several times in his books. As I say, I really don't think Heinlein was a racist OR a fascist.

[RealityChuck]

Robert Sawyer is the eternally optimistic geek.

In certain circles, Rob Sawyer's reputation is that he's the root of all evil.

[toadspittle]

I don't think he was a racist. Get back to Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie) and Juan Rico. Pretty forward-thinking, IMO.

You name me one other novel with a Filipino protagonist.

[tclouie]

Aw come on! Who would say that about Rob?

[Danimal]

I absolutely cannot believe that anyone who has actually read _Farnham's Freehold_ thinks it is a racist tract. It is the most unsubtly anti-racist book I have ever read. The protagonist's wife and son are walking, talking representatives of the worst anti-black bigotry of Heinlein's time, and Heinlein, through the protagonist, takes every opportunity to smash their stupid prejudices to a pulp.

As for the future where blcks have become the dominant race; wake up already! This was Heinlein's clear message to white supremacists, as subtle as a brick in the face: "Racial supremacy is good? Let's see how you like it when it's happening to you, eh? Don't like it so much now, do you?"

Sheesh.

[Akatsukami]

CalMeachem writes: Johnny Rico in "Starship Troopers", it turns out, is black, too. (Actually, although several people have assured me that this is made clear at the end of the novel, I keep missing it.)
Actually, what's made clear is that, culturally, he's Filipino.

He mentions that Tagalog was spoken at home. He refers approvingly, and with more than a bit of hero-worship, to Ramon Magsaysay, Filipino statesman and President of the Philippines before his unfortunate death (the cap trooper that he's talking to, WRT national hero-worship, admits, "We were taught in school that Simon Bolivar built the Pyramids, married Cleopatra, and was the first man on the Moon"). Filipinos, from the long Spanish occupation of that archipelago, often have Spanish forenames, and sometimes (although less frequently) surnames.

I suppose it could be argued that, on the united Earth, some blacks (perhaps a U.S. serviceman?) passed through or settled in the Philippines, and contributed to Rico's ancestry, but such is never mentioned.

(Incidentally, there is a throwaway line in The Cat Who Walks through Walls that indicates that the protagonist, Richard Ames (a/k/a Colin Campbell) is part black. There's also a bit in Time Enough for Love that states that Zaccur Barstow was part black, although Heinlein may well not have had that in mind when he wrote Methuselah's Children. Of course, those two works are late enough that the PC crowd would whine if there weren't explicit references to people not of simon-pure Northern European ancestry in them.)

[Triskadecamus]

Farnham's Freehold:

Robert Heinlein wrote a book in which he portrays a society where race is the primary determinant of social position. He portrays that society to be hypocritical, exploitative, and devoid of even the minimal self-awareness to know their real history. He chose to make this particular society an inverse of his own in terms of which race was "superior." Now he is accused of promoting racism.

You guys need to read his screed about the education system.

Morons.

Tris

[toadspittle]

an IMHO:

Personally, I find the govt. setup in Starship Troopers to be a pretty cool idea: only the people who give up 2 years of their life to serve their country (not necessarily in the military, either) are allowed to vote and run said country--having shown themselves to be at least marginally selfless. Those who do not go into civil service are not otherwise penalized or belittled--they just can't vote. There are still wealthy, non-voting businessmen, but they can't hold political office.

[sdimbert]

Hey, tclouie, you've said some interesting things in this thread.

But the only one that I really dislike, Robert Heinlein, seems to be a fascist


and

If Adolf Hitler were to write a sci-fi novel, it would probably resemble one of Heinlein's.


Strong words. But, that's OK, because you're not the first person to make this charge. Of course, you then make yourself look rather silly by saying things like:


I didn't read "Starship Troopers," just saw the movie.


and

I think in order to be a well-rounded SF reader, you don't need to read any more than two books by one author


So, how about it? Which of Heinlein's books do you think are racist? The first one, or the second? :rolleyes:

Look, I'm not coming at you from the perspective of a big RAH fan (though I am one). I'm just trying to point out the irrationality of your argument. You admit that you don't know much about a man's life and that you haven't read anything close to the totality of his work, then you label him a racist. Did you read the works written by his critics? You know, people like George Edgar Slusser, Alexei Panshin, Howard Bruce Franklin, Thomas D. Clareson, Leon E. Stover and others?

Look: People more informed than you have made these charges, and people more informed than you have dismissed them.

And as far as:
I hated the lynching scene in "Stranger." Another example of Heinlein's bloodymindedness.
:rolleyes: Yeah. That Heinlein sure is a disgusting person. Just like Arthur Miller (mob scenes in The Crucible and A View from the Bridge), Mary Shelly (terrible violence in Frankenstein), William Shakespeare (have you read the last act of Macbeth?), etc, etc, etc.

[Lemur866]

Or what about "Tunnel in the Sky"? Carolyn is Zulu. And RAH said in "Expanded Universe" that Rod Walker (the protagonist) is black, although it is not explicitly stated.

In "The Star Beast" Mr Kiku the undersecretary is african, and compares the position of Earth and the Hiroshu to an african tribe against the british.

And yes, in "Starship Troopers" the aliens are indistinguishable bugs. But RAH also had aliens that were humane and friendly...Lummox, Dr. Ftaeml, Willis, the martians in "Double Star", the venerians in "Space Cadet", etc etc. Not exactly xenophobic, eh?

And in "Starship Troopers", Juan Rico is Fillipino and his native language is Tagalog. The service is explicitly portrayed as multiracial, and this is explicitly portrayed as a good thing.

And of course, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" portrays the multiracial and multicultural libertarian society on the moon as superior to earth. Main characters: Manuel Garcia O'kelly Davis, Bernardo de la Paz.

And Danimal and Triskadecamus are correct. "Farnham's Freedhold" is perhaps flawed, perhaps unsubtle, but definately anti-racist. The dominant race is black because RAH thought it would shock his white audience. It's a simple case of putting the shoe on the other foot.

In the book, the black "master race" characters use exactly the same racist claptrap to justify their mastery that white racists did in his time. The point was to show how stupid white racism was by putting it in the mouths of black racists. Not exactly subtle, but apparantly juuuust a little bit too subtle for the OP.

The point is that RAH had the racial views of a sophisticated person of the early part of the century. He was aware of cultural differences, but considered them unimportant, just another set of customs. And he noticed racial differences without ascribing much importance to them. I know this is different from today, where cultural differences are supposed to be extremely significant and people from different cultures are supposed to fundamentally and permanently estranged. So sue him.

[sdimbert]

Originally posted by Lemur866
In the book -[Farnham's Freehold], the black "master race" characters use exactly the same racist claptrap to justify their mastery that white racists did in his time. The point was to show how stupid white racism was by putting it in the mouths of black racists. Not exactly subtle, but apparantly juuuust a little bit too subtle for the OP.


Hee-hee! :D

:applause:

[LazarusLong42]

[Disclaimer: Yup, I'm a supporter and lover of Heinlein's novels. If that weren't obvious from my screen name...]

Trisk and Danimal pretty much have the idea correct regarding Farnham's Freehold. It should be noted, also, that before the Farnham family et al. discover the black society that runs the Earth in that future time, Hugh Farnham chooses Joseph (the black houseboy) as his right-hand man, the person whom he trusts the most--because his son's an idiot, his wife is a drunk, and he feels more protective of Barbara and Karen than anyone else. (Of course, by the end of the novel, he only has Barbara left. His son is still an idiot, his wife is still a drunk, and Joseph, rather than staying loyal has turned sides).

Now, what I want to know is... had Hugh Farnham et al. been black with a white servant, and the future society white supremacists who ate black children, would you have thought that was non-racist? I suspect not.

As to fascism... So many people have tried to prove that Heinlein is a fascist using Starship Troopers that the questions is part of the alt.fan.heinlein FAQ. Learned essays have been written on the subject. The only conclusion I've ever seen is that Heinlein's not a fascist; the society of Starship Troopers is an example of what could happen and, regardless of its philosophy, not necessarily consistent directly with Heinlein's beliefs.

OK, that's racism and fascism. Oh yes, sexism, the thing of which Heinlein is most often accused. Someone above said "Even all of his strong women characters use sex to get what they want." I strongly disagree. This is partially true--not entirely so--of Maureen Johnson Long, Hilda Burroughs, and Deety Burroughs, but is specifically not true of:

Dora Brandon Johnson (Time Enough for Love): Put into Lazarus Long's arms from a fire which killed her parents. She ends of loving him as wife, but never uses sex to get what she wants.

Hazel Stone (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, The Rolling Stones, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls): As a young girl in TMiaHM, Hazel is extremely self-reliant, to the point of being the youngest member of the rebellion and the youngest signer of the Charter of the Luna Free State. As a grandmother in TRS, she's still self-reliant, not to mention probably the person most turned to for advice by Castor and Pollux, and especially Lowell Stone. As Gwen Nowak, she's quite a bit sexier, but again doesn't use sex to get what the wants from Colin Campbell/Richard Ames--rather, she falls in love with him. And far from becoming dependent on him (as, admittedly, Friday Jones does on her mentor), Gwen/Hazel is the person who keeps solving every problem the two run into.

Anne, Miriam, Dorcas (Stranger in a Strange Land): They have power over Jubal Harshaw and, while they may flaunt their beauty a bit, in reality they don't use it for power. Jubal loves them as daughters, not as concubines, and they have a daughter's power.

And, finally, a quote from Lazarus Long:

"Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably gotten the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. They should never settle merely for equality. For women, 'equality' is a disaster."

Premise: Contrary to what some believe, Heinlein was a feminist. A chauvinist feminist in many ways, I'll admit, but a feminist nonetheless. Discuss.

LL

[LazarusLong42]

Manny, Chronos... I submit that the OP cannot be answered satisfactorily to anyone who believes differently... and that this oughta be over in GD.

LL

[Northern Piper]

Relating to the OP itself, I wouldn't say that the society in "Starship Troopers" (the book, not the movie) was fascist.

Communitarian, yes, in the sense that to earn full citizenship, you had to put your life on the line, to shield the community from the threat: "Greater love hath no man, etc."

However, it's clear that everyone in the society has the right to do that. The recruiting sergeant (or col Dubois?) says that if someone turns up at the recruiting office blind, deaf and in a wheelchair, he/she would still have every right to apply to serve, to earn full citizenship. The gov't would have to find some form of service that would be sufficient for that person to try to qualify. Sounds very much like modern duty to accomodate in human rights law, and completely opposite to "master race/only the strong can rule" fascism.

Similarly, women are the top honchos in the space navy, while men are the troops, since RAH says that women tend to do better in flying the space ships. (You may say that is a sex-based stereotype, but it's a stereotype that says the women are better at an entire range of crucial military service than men.)

It's also a very egalitarian military system. What holds the Mobile Infantry together is that everyone drops (i.e. lands on the battleground), and everyone fights, from the generals down to the cooks.

Finally, RAH emphasises that one of the biggest differences between the humans and the arachnids is that humans will save injured humans, the arachnids just abandon injured arachnids. Johnny's first commander gets killed saving someone else at the beginning of Johnny's service, and by the end of the book, the humans are planning a major raid on an arachnid planet to rescue human POWs. The duty of the individual to put his/her life on the line for the society is counter-balanced by a duty on the society to pick up the injured soldiers, even at great risk to other soliders. (Say, now if they had had Tom Hanks in the film version...) That seems quite removed from the fascist concept that the state takes priority, and that individuals serve the state/the leader, etc.

Interestingly, the political philosophy that guides the moon rebels is quite different from that of "Starship Troopers." When Wyo, Manny and Professor de la Paz are inadvertently organising themselves in the first cell of the underground, the professor asks Manny "in what circumstances is the community justified in putting it's interests ahead of yours?" Manny replies "Never" and the prof beams and says that they have reached an acceptable political first principle for their revolution. However, even though the community cannot put its interest ahead of individuals, the individuals can freely decide to subordinate their interests to that of the community. Wyo, Manny and the prof decide to start the revolution, at great personal risk and at odds that Mycroft calculates at just under 1 chance in 10 of success (I may have the odds wrong - been a while since I read it), because they feel they owe a duty to rescue their fellow moonies from the inevitable starvation and food riots that will result from the current regime

The moon society is libertarian, the Starship Troopers society is communitarian, but both emphasise the concept of individuality and responsibility - and RAH writes approvingly of both. Which suggests that he was a great writer who could build different societies and make them appealing. To the extent they actually reflect his own views, the concepts of individualtiy and responsibility are likely the key points.

[Togepi no Miko]

The OP is an idiot. See Have Spacesuit, Will Travel for a non sex-wielding female protagonist and a friendly alien, the Mother Thing.

OK, about stranger; VMS kills when his or his friends' lives are in danger, and later kills people who would doubtless be waiting for the death penalty in jail anyway. I like the point about his belief in reincarnation, so you'd just come back, having screwed up big this time around. BTW, in The number of the beast, it seems like VMS was saved somehow? I was quite glad that they rescued Mike the computer from Moon, which is as non-racist as you can possibly get. the poster who said that farnham was a shoe's on the other foot book was quite right. The women in Methuselah's Children are fairly non sex-wielding, too. And don't forget podkayne, or mary cavanaugh from Puppet masters... or the girl from Beyond th stars.

THe OP needs to READ more Heinlein before making uninformed assumptions and accusations. I recommend Citizen of the Galaxy.

--We pray for one last landing on the globe that gave us birth...

[Tamerlane]

Damn! Lemur866 got to my points first ( especially re: Tunnel in the Sky ) :) . RAH was no racist. And while I don't favor his libertarian politics myself, he was no fascist.

Sexist? Well there is some room for discussion there. But relative to the mores of the 40's and 50's his female charcters were remarkably capable, intelligent, ( and often witty ) beings. Sometimes THE most capable character in his novels. Grandmother Stone in The Rolling Stones, Carolyn as the top hunter in Tunnel in the Sky, and I could go on through virtually every novel he wrote. Even in Starship Troopers Juan Rico's "girlfriend"/buddy ( who he wants, but doesn't get ) is an independant-minded top pilot. This was not a man who generally projected an air of quiet domesticity for his female characters. And even the quietest domestic housewife sometimes contained a surprise - See the revelation about the mother of the protagonist at the end of Have Space Suit, Will Travel . No RAH liked and respected women. Where he may have fallen down is in buying into some of the stereotypes of the supposed occasional childishness and overly emotional ( and nurturing ) nature of women and girls. And as time wore on, he may not have adapted to more modern views as quickly as perhaps he should have. But I'd stack up his female characters in the 50's to those in any other sf novel in that same period without hesitation.

tclouie: It is my considered opinion that you read two of RAH's weakest early/mid-period works :) . Try his "juvenile" novels from the 50's - I listed some in Dinsdale's column requesting sf for younger readers. Now days they are marketed for adults ( and still read well ) but they were originally written for mature teens. His best work IMHO. Also the slightly later The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a great novel ( though again, I don't buy into the overt libertarian themes expressed within ).

- Tamerlane

[Tamerlane]

Argh!! Damn you people for typing so fast and stealing all my points :D . I agree fully with the last several posters.

- Tamerlane

[Lemur866]

One more thing. Sometimes people who read Heinlein's later books can't understand why he is regarded as such a great writer.

Well, speaking for myself, I would say that his earlier "juveniles" are the reason we like him. Read "Tunnel in the Sky", "Have Spacesuit--Will Travel", "Time for the Stars", "Citizen of the Galaxy", "The Star Beast", "Red Planet". Those are the books that most Heinlein fans grew up with and love. Or read "Stranger in a Strange Land", "Starship Troopers", and "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", or his short stories in "The Past Through Tomorrow". I agree, his later books are rambling and not his best work...he had severe medical problems later in life and wrote with difficulty. Of his later books, "Friday" and "Job" are OK, but not great.

Anyway, Heinlein was writing about cultural and racial differences and how they were irrelevant back when it was still a shocking idea. The fact that the OP missed all that says more about him than it does about RAH.

[Northern Piper]

Tamerlane, you've just got to get Captain Keyboard's Typing Tutor™ (http://www.zoogma.com)

:p

[Moirai]

Wish I had gotten here earlier.

I, for one, have never been disturbed by a s-f novel, except when THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE STORY. The storyteller (because that's all the author is) is trying to show you something new, and it might not be comfortable.

(BTW, don't assume that a good author is being autobiographical every time he puts stylus to tablet, ok?)

Having said that, I still never got any of these rascist/fascist/sexist/whatever vibes while reading Heinlein. I do understand that he was a product of his time (the mid 20th century), so certain things that might make me squirm a bit could be present, BUT THAT'S NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT STUFF GOING ON.

I thought that the philosophy and story in Starship Troopers was the important part, not how many blacks there were, or whether or not women are better star pilots.

For Christ's sweet sake, read a story for entertainment once in a while. Sheesh.

[RealityChuck]

Aw come on! Who would say that about Rob?

Half of SFWA, tclouie.

[Danimal]

On a tangential subject, another amazing thing about Heinlein, considering his time and background, is the extremely tolerant attitude he had toward homosexuality. This is most apparent in _The Number of the Beast,_ _Time Enough For Love,_ and _The Cat Who Walks Through Walls._ It's fairly apparent that he hadn't glommed onto the idea of "orientation," he apparently imagined that homosexuality was a choice, but in no way was it a choice he disapproved of. And that put him leagues ahead of the contemporary thinking that homosexuality was a mental disease.

Granted, homophobia is not necessarily an integral requirement for fascism, so pointing out Heinlein's tolerance of homosexuality does not directly refute charges of fascism. But certainly homophobia has been characteristic of fascist movements throughout this century, notably Nazism, and Heinlein had no truck with such nonsense.

Heinlein wasn't a fascist, and although he has undoubtedly inspired millions of libertarians, I don't think he would have been comfortable calling himself a libertarian either. I believe that Heinlein was essentially a Goldwater conservative.

[manhattan]

Originally posted by LazarusLong42
Manny, Chronos... I submit that the OP cannot be answered satisfactorily to anyone who believes differently... and that this oughta be over in GD.

LL

Yeah, the General Answer is "no," but if some people want to argue, who am I to stop them? I just make sure they do it in the right place.

So this thread goes to Great Debates.

Once there, please tone down the level of discourse a bit. Some people (Togepi no Miko comes to mind) have stepped over the line into personal insults.

That's not how we do things here.

[elucidator]

Several of the previous posters have revealed that thier critical facilities are, perhaps, less than optimal. I should hope to point out a few salient factors, by which I hope to present an alternative view to these esteemed persons

(Yeah, I know, but the Mod is watching. Gotta play nice)

I'm stunned more than anything by the amount of attention ol' RAH has gotten. Good enough for his era, the rocket ship, ray-gun, Lensman of Gorn era. But I think that any attempt to discern a pattern in his work is futile.

The single most outstanding characteristic of sci-fi writers of his time was to take one thing, exaggerate all out of proportion, and write something about it. In short storys, sci-fi was defined by (1)a McGiver kind of approach, the hero wins because he is more concious of the Second Law of Thermodynamics than the Rull, and (2) the goddam predictable Serling-esque "trick ending".

If Hienlien had an ultimate scenario, it escapes all understanding. The poor bugger was writing for a penny a word, the burden of "literature" was foisted upon him ex post facto.

He was part of a generation (Isaac Asimov, Theodore Sturgeon, Ray Bradbury, RAH, etc.) Groundbreaking pioneers, and some of the most embarassingly bad writers ever! Hey, I loved it! Then.

But along came Ellison, Niven, LeGuinn, Farmer, Moorcock, many many more (did I already mention Farmer? Philip Jose Farmer, who is Kilgore Trout? I did. Oh, OK. Farmer!) These guys could write like flaming shit and had vastly more human perspective than RAH even hinted at.

The memory of groundbreaking pioneers is warm, and friendly. But Sci-fi has far outgrown its roots, RAH is quaint and old-fashioned.

[Tamerlane]

Elucidator: Quaint, old-fashioned, and entertaining :) . As I mentioned elsewhere, my first exposure to sf was The Red Planet. I loved that book then and I enjoy it now ( well I probably haven't reread it in ten years, but you know what I mean ), even though I can now see and understand its flaws. I still contend that RAH's "juveniles" are the finest works produced in that limited genre and one of the best introductions to the field. I'll grant his "adult" output is quite a bit more uneven. Especially as we start getting into the 60's and beyond. But his reputation was already secured by that early run ( including some fine short stories - I'm quite fond of the stories collected in The Unpleasant Proffession of Jonathon Hoag ).

I enjoy all the younger authors you mentioned, but lets face it - All of them have their weaknesses. Ellison's few novels are uniformly weak ( needless to say, this is very much MHO ), he just isn't very good at lengthier forms. Farmer is great, I have probably 15 or 20 of his books. But he tends to start series ( and his longer singletons ) very strong, begins going off on a thousand tangents mid-way, and ends up in a chaotic, meandering mess by the end. Dark is the Sun and the Riverworld series are excellent examples of this. I sometimes think the man has TOO MUCH imagination. I could go on.

So I don't think it is quite fair to dismiss all the writers of the so-called 'Golden Age' as hacks. They all produced some pretty crappy material at times and were perhaps more inconsistent than some of those that came after. But there are still great pieces of older science fiction, that stand up well to this day. Hell, Jonathan Campbell only wrote one top-flight piece in his life IMO - Who Goes There?{ - and I still think it is worth reading.

And if we're going to talk younger generations, I'd match up Tim Powers with any of the above, any day ;) .

- Tamerlane

[CalMeacham]

Tamerlane:

Gotta agree with you.

Elucidator:

If I pull out one of my copies of Heinlein to look for a quote, it's dangerous. The gy is so captivating that I end up reading the whole damned book! Tha does't happn with any other author (except maybe Ellison when he gets on really good rant). Heinlein "Outgrown", writing "for a penny a word"? Heck, the man knew his stuff, knew how to write, new how to entertain, and knew his science. He deliberately set out to instruct as well.

[Lynn Bodoni]

And how can you say I haven't done Heinlein the courtesy of reading his work, when everybody else in this thread is willing to admit I've read two??? Two was enough! I tried to read more, but I couldn't stomach any more scenes in which girls always have some excuse to walk around naked, or have sex with middle-aged men...

I think in order to be a well-rounded SF reader, you don't need to read any more than two books by one author (unless it's a trilogy). Hey, I like Ray Bradbury and Philip Dick, and I've only read 3 by each of them. Of course, I've also read 6 by Robert Sawyer, 6 by Arthur C. Clarke and collaborators, and at least 11 by Crichton, but all of these authors have a more positive view of humanity and more likeable characters.

In order to be a well-rounded SF reader, you need to have read a broad selection of works from RAH, among others. You simply haven't done your homework. I cannot imagine finding an author that I enjoy, and then reading only 3 of his/her works. I also cannot imagine voluntarily reading 11 of Crichton's books, but I digress.

You simply CANNOT be considered well-read in SF if you haven't read most of RAH's (and Clarke's, and Asimov's...) works. In many cases, he either wrote the first story of a science-fictional theme, or he wrote the definitive story of the theme. While I have a few problems with him, he did a lot for the field of science fiction, and he was a very good storyteller. To judge him on two books and a movie is...pathetic. What's more, you've deprived yourself.

Me? I've been reading SF and fantasy for 35 years or so...and I had my grandfather's collection to draw on, as well.

Lynn

[zen101]

Originally posted by tclouie

OK, OK, I'll drop the accusation of fascism, IF you all agree that Heinlein was racist.

So you will agree to the obvious that he was not a facist if we all agree to something that may or may not be true? Uh.... what the hell is the logic in that. Hey I'll agree that you have access to a computer if you agree that Heinlein wasn't a racist. How about that?

Heinlein was not a facist, it's not even debatable. You can call him a facist in the same way a petulan child calls a parent a facist for grounding them and all it does os demonstrate that you have not a single cluse what a facist is. I will quote Jerry Pournelle here from a recent correspondence that I had with him on this topic :"It is very difficult to label Mr. Heinlein (who once ran for office on Upton Sinclair's "Ham and Eggs" ticket) but "fascist" certainly does not fit a man who said, often, and a nation that had to rely on conscription for defense didn't deserve to be defended.".

Certainly the man was conservative in many ways while at the same time being far ahead of his contemporaries in many of his more liberal ideas (including but not limited to the roles of women in the work force and the economy, environmental issues, religeous dogma vs spiritualism, etc.), this making him nearly the model of the modern Major Gen.....er... I mean Libertarian. Personal liberty at the cost of responsibility for this liberty seemed to be his one great recurring theme.

You yourself state that you are 35 years of age and yet you speak matter of factly about what people knew in 1964 to be true and good. From my calculations what you know for certain about that year was that the life of a zygote and a gamete. Other than that you have a possible textbook and History channel knowledge of this era and what little you may have picked up from parents and grandparents. And while this may do something to tell you what the 60's were like they can do nothing to tell you what the frame of mind of a man born in 1907 in Butler Missouri was.

Heinlein was far from a 90's era NAACP chairperson but not so far that he would have been welcome to a clan rally at any time based on any of his writings. You paint the man as a Nazi bigot and it gives me pause to wonder if he appears this way to you in reality that you must be so completely left wing as to make Hoffman (Abbie not Dustin) look like a piker.

PoF: The cannabalism in Freehold was not limited to the blacks (as has been pointed out), and not among other things illustrated that the rulers viewed the slaves as less than human. Take a look at the scene when Farnham is speaking with the boss slave abouth the ancestry of the meal and the humor in which it is taken. The slaves themselves don't even see a problem with being served as food. You are not a cannibal is the people you eat are not people.

PoF: The protagonist in Stranger (VM Smith) eats people as a sign of love. A desire to "Grok" someone in fullness. To "grok" is to know someone or something in such a complete manner that it becomes a part of you and you of it. Thus eating someone is the culmination of a desire to grow closer. Also RAH makes not that cannibalism is pretty common as a meataphor in certain popular religeous practices (body of Christ/blood of Christ).

PoO: Heinelein appeared to have been disturbed by cannibalism at some base level. I think this is why he wrote about it. He was able to detach himself to some degree and think "Why does this bother me? I don't think it should bother me.". Thus it was somewhat fascinating to him. He goes into some interesting detail in Stranger that seems almost introspective on this point. The same could be said of his dealings with incest in his Lazarus Long and Howard families stories. As Lazarus he points out that his ideas were formed in the 1900's and he is set in his ways but also observs that there is no logical reason against it because it is no longer a genetic problem and all the creepy molestation issues are removed when the parent is pursued by the child (as is the case in the Long family books). Lazarus is often viewed as an avatar of RAH himself and it can be seen that Heinlein was often able to allow LL to do that which Heinlein would never do so that he could "live vicariously' through his charachters. You ever read any Clive Barker or Stephen King? You don't think either of them wants to kill teenagers because they write that stuff do you? It's the stuff that creeps them out too (according to King on Dennis Miller he writes about the stuff that scares and shocks him).

PoF: The Sixt Column is about invading Asian hordes, written in 1941 and as noted a time when the Japaneese were boogey men and bloodthirsty killers, and Heinlein was like pretty much every other American of his day pissed off at them for the Dec 7th attack and the alliance with the Axis forces. However it was not the entire race it was the nationality that was invading. Just so happens that when America goes to war we are a lot of different colors but many (if not most) nations are predominantly of one race and even more so in the early parts of the last century.

PoF: In correspondence Heinlein let it be known that the race of the main charachter in I Will Fear No Evil Joan Eunice Smith was black. He kept it intentianally vague in the book and the original cover had the old man in front of a black woman and a white woman but in personal letters he let it be known.

PoF: Often he made little note of the race of his primary end secondary characters unless there was a reason to make this point. If he made a point of stating things like "Dr.Wallaby (who was black by the way)" he would have been nothing more than someone trying to prove how non-racist he was. Wheras by not making an issue out of it he was demonstrating that it really did not matter all that much to him.


You are not required to love Heinlein or even appreciate him or his work and the work that he inspired. However, unless you want to look like a fool it might be a good idea to do more than read some 800 pages or less of someones words before making such broad accusations.

(PoF= Point of Fact)
(PoO= Point of Observation)

Oh and to that great pile of sexist female charachter traits let us not forget that in Citizen of the Galaxy all the highest officers on the "People" ships were women, and not much mention of sex in that one. Of course it was a "kids" book. I would say that Heinlein may have made his females use sex quite a lot, but he never hid from this. He oft pointed out that men and women are not the same (adding "thank god") and to each his or her own. Men had men abilities to get the job done and women had women abilities and seduction may seem demeaning to some of you, but to any of you men who had a woman use you or control you with sex I would ask "who was really in control and who was relly demeaned?". Heinlein also made a habit of making the women smarter and more self confident thant the men which I'm sure should make him somewhat safe from most accusations of blatant sexism. While I think I did coin "Chauvinist Feminist" in this thread I would like to ratify that with my definition: He knew that men and women are not the same and that each had abilities in common and other abilities that were particular to the gender and that is how he wrote. He was a chauvinist because he made not of some of the foibles common to women in his experience (and hell I known a good number of women and most of them have at least a few stereotypical traits). He was a feminist because he never let the aforementioned alone weaken a female characther and he also made the same kind of note of male stereotypes (Ego problems are the most common as well as the male characters common assumption of superiority to the females and inevitably finding out otherwise). His females, as noted, were usually far smarter and more competent than the males and it was only becaues of the females that most of his male heroes got anything done at all. Also if you look at the number of male leads and female leads in his books he has about the same number of solo female heroes as he does males (and he is a male author) and I'm hard pressed to think of any male leads that didn't rely heavily on some female wheras to many of his females (Poddy for example) the men were useful but fairly easily discarded.


And thats about all I have to say about that. :p

[Sam Stone]

It should be pointed out as well that Heinlein made a lot of Swiftian Modest Proposals in his books. There are many places where he is clearly enjoying the heck out of outraging and shocking his readers - his treatment of religion in Stranger in a Strange Land, his treatment of marriage in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and the treatment of racism in Farnham's Freehold.

Heinlein was certainly not a racist. Not only are his books ANTI-racist, but personal accounts describe Heinlein as one of the color-blind people around. And remember, this is a guy that grew up in the Genteel south.

If you actually read Farnham's Freehold, it becomes almost immediately clear that he wrote it to rub the noses of racists in their own hypocrisy. By showing an alternate civilization in which blacks rule and treat whites like slaves, he makes white readers feel more about the evil nature of racism by making them feel like it could be them.

And just so their are no confused readers, Heinlein uses another device of a black servant who comes through time with them and gets the opportunity to show just how demeaning racism is. Heinlein also ridicules the lesser characters when they make racist comments. I can't believe that anyone who actually read Farnham's Freehold couldn't see this.

Another example of how Heinlein liked to shock racists - in several of his books he has major sympathetic characters whose race is not revealed until near the end of the book. When you find out they are black, it makes you stop and realize that you just assumed they were white, and makes you confront your assumptions.

I think Heinlein's view of women was distorted. He wasn't anti-woman or a sexist, he just didn't understand them very well. He tried to depict women as being better than men in a lot of cases, but he just couldn't convincingly write about what such women would actually do and feel.

If you think Heinlein saw women as kittenish sex-pots, you need to re-read his books. For instance, he makes the point in 'Starship Troopers' that women make better pilots than men, and most starship pilots are women. Carolyn in "Tunnel in the Sky" is bright, strong, and lethal. But he went completely off the wall in some of his later books, some of which were written while he was mentally incapacitated by a blockage of blood flow to the brain. He had surgery to correct that, and the books that came out after, ("Friday" and "Job: A Comedy of Justice", for example) are markedly better.

And at his peak I think he was a great writer. One of his greatest gifts was his ability to allow you visualize a scene without having to make you slog through long descriptive paragraphs. You're just reading the story, and suddenly you're immersed in it and can picture the room, the way it's finished, where people are sitting, what they look like - but if you go back and read the text, you won't really find a spot where he told you all that - the picture just unfolds along the way.

[tclouie]

Triskadecamus and Togepi No Miko: the next time I see you making personal attacks on anybody, in any forum, I will report it immediately to the moderator. I don't know how many "strikes" you get. As members, we all know (or all SHOULD know) that you do not use insults like "moron" and "idiot" here. Take it to the pit, please. But I won't be waiting for you there.

If you think someone's argument is idiotic, then you should let the facts themselves demonstrate that. But throwing an insult in someone's face is crossing the line.

sdimbert, LazarusLong42 and jti: you seem not to have noticed the partial retraction I made, quite some time ago. The "fascism" thing ought to be moot by now. Since you say I should not make ANY assumptions about Heinlein without reading every !@#$& one of his !@#$& books, then AT LEAST read the entire thread before making any assumptions about me.

Hey, at least give me credit for giving a lot of people an excuse to reminisce about their favorite author.

Reality Chuck: please explain the allegations about Rob Sawyer. Half the SFWA hates him? Why? Because of his writing, or because of some other issue only an SFWA member would know about? Do they hate him because of professional jealousy?

Oh, and by the way, if Heinlein is to be judged only by the quality of all his writing, shouldn't Sawyer's fans demand the same consideration for him? I've read 6 of his books and haven't noticed anything wrong with them. Actually, a lot of people seem to like Rob. Didn't he win an award, or something?

Oh, and how come only half the SFWA dislikes him? Does that mean the other half likes him? Any close election will leave half the populace with bitter feelings. ;)

Lynn Bodoni: really, you've read SF for 35 years? Fantastic! Of course, that's only about as long as I've been alive, so you must understand that I have a lot of catching-up to do, before I can arrive at your level of fandom. Gimme a break, I haven't had TIME to read as much as you.

But I'm still not reading any more Heinlein. What I've read in this thread has made me hate his work even more. He's not part of my "canon", even if he is part of yours. And yet, I'm still a true-blue SF fan, because I read WHAT I LIKE, not what y'all say I should like.

If someone has read Sophocles, Euripides, Aeschylus and Herodotus, but can't stand (blech) Homer, they can still call themselves a fan of Ancient Greek literature.

[tclouie]

It IS possible to know what things were like in 1964 without having been born yet. I'm a bit of a history buff, with a bit of a specialty in the history of protest movements. So I know a bit more than a textbook or the History Channel would teach me. I've read scores of sources on that time, I've had access to samples of the popular media from that time, and most importantly, I've had access to a grand oral history tradition (not just parents or grandparents). I've known dozens of people who participated in the events of that time, most of whom are still fighting the good fight for a better world.

The only thing I haven't seen yet, that I would really like to see, is a review of Farnham's Freehold from the year 1964. Now, that would really be interesting.

By the way, your equating of Heinlein with Mark Twain still concerns me. Especially your calling Twain a racist.

New thread, anyone?

[waterj2]

Both Twain and Heinlein were prolific and gifted authors whose writings may be interpreted by today's standards to have been racist, despite the fact that the intent was clearly not racist, and was not at all so by the standards of their times.

[zen101]

Originally posted by tclouie
It IS possible to know what things were like in 1964 without having been born yet. I'm a bit of a history buff, with a bit of a specialty in the history of protest movements. So I know a bit more than a textbook or the History Channel would teach me. I've read scores of sources on that time, I've had access to samples of the popular media from that time, and most importantly, I've had access to a grand oral history tradition (not just parents or grandparents). I've known dozens of people who participated in the events of that time, most of whom are still fighting the good fight for a better world.

The only thing I haven't seen yet, that I would really like to see, is a review of Farnham's Freehold from the year 1964. Now, that would really be interesting.

By the way, your equating of Heinlein with Mark Twain still concerns me. Especially your calling Twain a racist.

New thread, anyone?

Textbook knowledge. Did you live then? Time travel to that time? Channel someone from that time and mind meld with them? No? Textbook knowledge. No shame, it's the same knowledge that I have too. I don't besmirch your date of birth, but you casually assume that because you are a "history buff" you know these things. You know what people write today, and what people wrote then and the inheirent flaw is multiple. First of all, you cannot possibly have read everything pertaining to the timefram and secondly the people who wrote that stuff were by and large exceptional people. Average citizens do not typically end up in quotation marks in history books. Again, your interest in history is admirable but don't think it justifies an assumption that you actually know what people thought then. We only know that about the past which those who lived in the past wanted us to know for the most part.

As for Mr.Clemens, he was not a racist and I did not state that he was. People who live to misquote others are self realized idiots. Clemens wrote about noble people, living in common suroundings. Those people were black and white, and he wrote about them all impartially. My statement referrs to his style of writing and how one might view it today in comparison to our moder tastes. You could hardly have a charachter lovingly referred to as Nigger Jim without a few raised eyebrows among the masses. Anyone who reads the book with an opened mind can clearly see that for both boys Jim is the only real positive male role model for them. I compare Clemens and Heinlein because they wrote in the vernacular of their day and their influence show and often lead those people with more prurient minds to convict either of them of being racist.

waterj2: thanx. You get it. :)

tclouie: that patronizing header should land you with a flame but you seem to be begging too much for it. As for refusing to read any more of RAH's works, you are simply declaring your own masochism. We would have accepted flaggelation as a suitable punishment for your imposition and ludicrous assertation.

[tclouie]

Originally posted by zen101
The point isn't that Clemens or Heinlein were bigoted (which it is obvious they were by todays standards) [/B]

zen101: I didn't misquote you. You called Clemens a bigot by today's standards. I'm not so sure he was, even by today's standards. In fact, Clemens comes off kind of forward-thinking and advanced in some respects. He was way ahead of his time on religion, for instance. ("Letters from the Earth")

You seem to be arguing that no one can possibly know what people in a prior era were thinking, without having been there themselves. If that's so, then what's the purpose of historical research? I hope you're not suggesting that the study of history is useless. Historians certainly do try to figure out what the average person was thinking during critical periods, for instance, during the Civil War. Are all their efforts for naught?

For that matter, how can you possibly know what people are thinking NOW? Why, through the mass media of course: newspapers, opinion polls, radio, TV, internet. All of those things, except the Internet, were available back in 1964, and are still available to historians. And people expressed themselves back then as freely as they do now.

Watch it with the "idiot" stuff, or I'll report you to the moderator.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Lynn Bodoni: really, you've read SF for 35 years? Fantastic! Of course, that's only about as long as I've been alive, so you must understand that I have a lot of catching-up to do, before I can arrive at your level of fandom. Gimme a break, I haven't had TIME to read as much as you.

I'm 42, I've only had 8 years' start on you. Yes, I started reading it when I was 8.

I really, REALLY think you should re-read what others said about Farnham's Freehold. To recap, Heinlein was using racist arguments and putting them on the other foot, to show how ridiculous they are. He was not, by any means, saying that one race is inferior or superior to another. You might not like hard science fiction, that's your privilege. But Heinlein wasn't a racist by any means.

Incidentally, Heinlein used, at least once, the phrase "grass widow". Does anyone know what it means?

[Tamerlane]

zen101 - Excellent post :) .

tclouie: - You said that ( referencing RAH ) "What I've read in this thread has made me hate him even more." Was that a bit of hyperbole? Or were you serious? If so, why? What is it that you hate about Heinlein and what revelations here have intensified that feeling? I'm not trying to be snotty or intrusive, I'm honestly curious. It seems like such an out of proportion reaction to me ( and I hope that doesn't come off as condescending ).

I'll reiterate what I said earlier. RAH had a very large output of work. Some of it was clearly inferior. I personally believe that the two you have read were among his weaker pieces ( some will certainly disagree with me here, but that's MHO ). I think you are depriving yourself of an honest pleasure ( even if it is a quaint and old-fashioned one :D ), by not giving him another try. Why not take a stab at just one of the recommendations that have been floated your way and see if you change your mind? Citizen of the Galaxy would be a fine place to start. Sort of an Horatio Alger story and a quick read. Just trying to be helpful :) .

- Tamerlane

[Northern Piper]

tclouie, you said:

sdimbert, LazarusLong42 and jti: you seem not to have noticed the partial retraction I made, quite some time ago. The "fascism" thing ought to be moot by now.

I'm afraid I didn't find a partial retraction; I found a quid pro quo, trying to set the terms of the debate unilaterally:

OK, OK, I'll drop the accusation of fascism, IF you all agree that Heinlein was racist.

Some of the posters are not willing to agree that Heinlein was a racist, and therefore do not accept your conditional concession.

If you now are saying that you are unconditionally dropping the fascism accusation, convinced by our arguments, fine, we'll stop debating it.

[Alessan]

How about Heinlein's attitude towards Jews?

I have to admit, his depiction of God (New York Jew) verses Satan (Good Ole' Boy) in Job has always bothered me a bit, considering who the "good guy" turned out to be. Are there any other Jewish characters in his novels? I can't seem to recall any, but I've only read about 10 of them.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Alessan
How about Heinlein's attitude towards Jews?

I have to admit, his depiction of God (New York Jew) verses Satan (Good Ole' Boy) in Job has always bothered me a bit, considering who the "good guy" turned out to be. Are there any other Jewish characters in his novels? I can't seem to recall any, but I've only read about 10 of them.
I think you're misremembering:
In Job, The Trinity (Father/Son/Holy Ghost) was the New York Jew (which, as a Jew, I found funny)
Satan was, as you said, a good ol' country boy. So was St. Peter.
God, however (Jesus and Satan's boss) was Mr (sp) Koneichi. The character was a tribute to a character from James Branch Cabell. In any case, the name struck me as being Japanese (I don't know if it is or not) but the only real description we get of the character from Heinlein is after he takes human form, Alex describes him as having the kindly demeanor of an old, country vetrinarian.

Fenris

[Alessan]

Fenris - you're right. I got the details wrong, but still, it bothered me a bit. I tend to be paranoid about that kind of thing.

[Fenris]

I don't have a problem with you a) not having read all of Heinlein's works or b) deciding that you don't enjoy Heinlein's works on the basis of two novels that you hated. Everyone has different tastes. (as an aside, I've read about 4 of Sawyer's novels and they struck me as extremely competent, except for a sight tendency towards weak endings that just sort of dribble off... I thought The Terminal Experiment is probably his best)

However:
Branding an author with the horribly offensive, derogatory terms "racist", "sexist", "Nazi", or "fascist" on the basis of having read two novels (out of something like 40 novels and 60 short stories) and one movie (that shares a title and little else with the book it's 'based' on) is irresponsible and weakens your argument to non-existance. If you're presuming to judge the man based on recurring themes in his work, you have to read the bulk (if not all of) his work for your opinion to have any weight or meaning.

Fenris

[jcgmoi]

Originally posted by Lynn Bodoni
Incidentally, Heinlein used, at least once, the phrase "grass widow". Does anyone know what it means?

From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.

NOUN : 1. A woman who is divorced or separated from her husband. 2. A woman whose husband is temporarily absent. 3. An abandoned mistress. 4. The mother of a child born out of wedlock.

ETYMOLOGY: Perhaps in allusion to a bed of grass or hay.

WORD HISTORY: The term grass widow cries out for explanation of what grass means and how grass widow came to have its varied though related senses. Grass probably refers to a bed of grass or hay as opposed to a real bed. This association would help explain the earliest recorded sense of the word (1528), “an unmarried woman who has lived with one or more men,” as well as the related senses “an abandoned mistress” and “the mother of an illegitimate child.” Later on, after the sense of grass had been obscured, people may have interpreted grass as equivalent to the figurative use of pasture, as in out to pasture. Hence grass widow could have developed the senses “a divorced or separated wife” or “a wife whose husband is temporarily absent.”

Hope this helps.

For me, early Heinlein (well, the 1st 30 years) was always great fun, but by the 70's I found him basically unreadable: wordy, preachy, solipsistic. But his classic stuff remains as good as it gets.

I never thought Heinlein was a fascist or a racist. Those words are too often thrown around IMO, esp if the object of the slur is politically conservative. Heinlein intended to be a career naval officer after all, so it's not surprising he honored duty and discipline.

BTW, anyone wishing to read 'more' Heinlein should investigate the work of John Varley. He writes great hard-science adventures, he's 40 times better at characterization, esp of women, and he's sexy as hell to boot. It always bugged me that when Heinlein tried to be sexy, he came across as leering.

[Freedom]

I can't believe the PC crowd is ready to burn the RAH books. Talk about missing the point people....



And a slight factual correction....

. But certainly homophobia has been characteristic of fascist movements throughout this century, notably Nazism, and Heinlein had no truck with such nonsense.




Many of the top Nazi's were homosexuals. I think it would be a gross distortion to say that homosexuality was not tolerated under the Nazi's.

They were complete power animals. Whoever was in a position of power got to discriminate and abuse their power in whatever ways pleased them. Besides persecuting the Jews and blacks, most of their cruelity seems very random to me.

Of course...many of their leaders were also straight, I'm not trying to blame homosexuality for Nazism, just correcting the claim that it was persecuted by them.

[dal_timgar]

an author has to create a plot that is interesting enough to read. undoubtedly something of his personality will go into it, but i'm not sure that anyone who doesn't know him personally can figure out what that would be. Fahrnam's Freehold shows that whites can be psychologically conditioned to be subservient to blacks. could Heinlein have been creating a mirror for people to look at themselves and people are missing the whole point.

one novel i found interesting was CITIZEN OF THE GALAXY. but to me the point of the story is that every child is born into a society that is already a going concern. that society may be totally indifferent to the child and each of us is stuck figuting out what is going on and how to react to it. many time i think authors glorify the rich and powerful but they may make more interesting and varied characters.

besides libertarians are schizoid fascists. talk about scientific objectivism when anyone that is scientific and objective has to know planned obsolescence is going on. LOL!

Dal Timgar

[waterj2]

Least shocking I've seen all day: dal_timgar whining about planned obsolescence in a thread that has nothing to do with it.

Freedom2, while there may have been homosexuals in the Nazi heirarchy, homosexuals were certainly persecuted. The pink triangle emblem as a symbol of homosexuality started as the symbol that the Nazis required homosexuals to wear. This is all fairly common knowledge.

[Tristan]

I have read Stranger probably dozens of times. For a while, I was at the point where someone could read me to consecutive lines, and I could tell the context they were in, storywise. I love it. Changed my life, and when I die I will be creamated and served mixed with tea to a very close circle of friends.

I love RAH, and have liked everything of his that I've managed to lay hands on.... which is almost everything he had published.

zen101, you are my hero.

To those that are convinced of RAH's Fascist/Sexist/Racist tendencies... keep reading. Hopefully, you will figure it out. Until then, I pity you.

[tclouie]

Tamerlane, here's your answer.

Reason #1 for hating Heinlein even more now.

Judging from the posts, many Heinlein supporters seem to support a Libertarian or possibly Ayn Rand-ish philosophy, and believe that Heinlein would also support it. I do not support that philosophy, and would prefer not to read about it in science fiction. Thanks for the warning, guys!
(Comix fans: I did enjoy Frank Miller's "Martha Washington" series, which is also kind of AynRand-y, but then I'm a sucker for good art and a good story.)

Reason #2 for hating Heinlein even more now.

Several people have backed me up on Heinlein's dirty-old-man treatment of his female characters, so what I already knew has been confirmed.

"Stranger In A Strange Land." One of old Jubal Harshaw's "fronts" goes and has sex with him, on Michael's instructions. Not very fatherly, eh, zen101? "He said that if you refuse, I am to cry," says the sexy android with no will of her own. Heinlein never identifies which front.

"Farnham's Freehold." The balding middle-aged protagonist gets to have sex with his wimpy son's college girlfriend. At least he doesn't have sex with Kitten.

"The Number of the Beast." (I did read it partly, but couldn't stand to finish.) The young female character marries a guy she just met. "Nice view. No foam rubber." Then her dad marries an older female on the same night. Then they all honeymoon at dad's scientific retreat, which conveniently happens to be sweltering, so the two females walk around naked. "I am a militant women's rights gal." "I like to be naked and usually am at Daddy's house."

Honestly. Is there anything here that doesn't sound like the fantasy of a middle-aged man trapped in adolescence?

So far Heinlein is 3 for 3 with the sexism, and other posters have confirmed that it's in the other books as well.

Reason #3 for hating Heinlein even more now.

I refuse to buy that Farnham's Freehold was, somehow, an anti-racist novel or an allegory of white racism. The "shoe on the other foot/turnabout is fair play" aspect is intriguing, but I don't think it applies here. If it did, the black-dominated society would more closely resemble 20th-century white-dominated society--but it doesn't, not in any way.

This is clearly the blacks who are enslaving and eating whites and genetically turning them into dim-witted dwarves. They are not stand-ins or allegories for white racists. (The Klan wasn't eating people.) The cannibalism makes it especially clear. Black + Cannibal= one of the oldest Western stereotypes about blacks. Heinlein had to have known that. Releasing a story about black cannibals in 1964 was irresponsibly bad taste at the very least.

Joseph's defection to the new society is also disturbing, because he's from the 20th century. It's like Heinlein is telling us, in the midst of the Civil Rights years, "See, the blacks will turn the tables if they get the chance--and revert to savage ways, to boot." As if civil rights will result in not an equal society, not a colorblind society, but an even worse society.

There is no way this is an anti-racist novel. The cannibalism just ruins everything. For a better treatment of the "shoe on the other foot" theme, rent the John Travolta movie "White Man's Burden," or read Griffin's "Black Like Me."

Lynn Bodoni: I most certainly do like hard science fiction--which is not synonymous with Heinlein. Love hard sci-fi, love it! That's why I like Sawyer. Lots of science, well-researched, and believable because his scenarios take place in the present day or the very near future. No mucking about with alternate worlds or alternate societies. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's so prevalent nowadays that Sawyer was like a breath of fresh air.

Oh, you haven't read Sawyer? You're really missing something, your education is incomplete, you can't claim to be a real SF fan, blah blah blah. NOT.

Lynn, please don't try to define my canon for me, and especially don't try to define me. Nobody elected you the supreme arbiter of what makes a science fiction fan. I'm a fan 'cause I say I am, and more importantly, I've found something I like. Liking something is what being a fan is all about. So it's not what you like, big deal.

If someone said they didn't like Sawyer, or J.R.R. Tolkien, or J. K. Rowling, I wouldn't jump all over them or say they are somehow incomplete. Kinda reminds me of the mid-70's: some people liked Star Wars so much, they would actually ostracize the few poor saps who said they didn't like Star Wars. (I did like Star Wars.)

New unconditional concessions! Yes, you lovely people have convinced me!

Heinlein wasn't fascist! End of argument!

Heinlein was, probably, not consciously racist--but only he will ever know that for sure. End of argument!

Heinlein WAS sexist, had bad taste and was just plain awful. Let the argument continue!!!!

[CalMeacham]

tclouie:

De Gustibus Non Disputandum Est.

If you don't like Heinlein, you don't like him. Ain't nothing I'm gonna say that will change your mind. I DO think you were romng to call him racist and fascist. I don't think a lot of your other assertions are correct either.

I do like him myself. He is a compelling writer, a thought-provoking one, and a highly original one. I don't believe in all the ideas he suggests in his stories, but, then again, neither did he. As I've noted (and so have other above) he proposed several different societies, with different rules. Don't mistake the lead chaacter for the author.

"Farnham's Freehold" isn't his best book, but it' not the sinkhole you make it out to be. It certainly IS a "turnabout" novel -- which DOESN'T require that you make everything mirror image (God, but you are literal!). If nothing else, such a novel wouldn't be nearly as interesting as the one he wrote. The point is that the overlords in that novel didnt believe themselves baqd people -- they belevde they were cmpassionate, forgiving and fair-handed masters. As did the slave-holding aristocracy in the antebellum South. Read the last chapter in "THe Battle for Christmas" to see the truth behind that.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by tclouie
Heinlein WAS sexist, had bad taste and was just plain awful. Let the argument continue!!!!

::Sigh::
He was a product of his times. #1 He was born around 1908 or so and grew up with far different mores. #2 He worked under constraints that are nearly unimaginable to modern authors (there're horror stories told by Heinlein, Asmimov, Kuttner etc about Campbell's assistant (who's name escapes me) and her probing searches for the barest hint of "filth"), but within those constraints, he was far less sexist than many writers of his era, and the reason that he gets discussed for sexism and Asimov and other contemporary writers don't, is that Heinlein tried his best to show strong female characters while Asimov (excluding Susan Calvin) and others simply either ignored female characters, made them victims or love interests or, like Susan Calvin, made them sexless. Heinlein was one of the first SF writers to try to allow women to have sexual feelings rather than making them virginal china dolls to be rescued. Whether his attempt succeeded or not, he must be given credit for the effort.

Off the top of my head:

Delilah and the the Space Riggers (not Heinlein's title, I belive) is one of the very first (if the THE first) portrayals of a woman as an equal to a man in SF. The title character had to use her initals rather than her first name to get a job in space, once there she was able to do her job as well as the men, but had to put up with near constant harrassment until she resolved the situation. The whole point of the story is sexism. But you haven't read it...so you wouldn't know.

In "Let there be Light", one of the two main characters is a woman, she and the male lead are co-equal scientists who together invent a free power source...but you haven't read that one either.

In "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag", the female lead is every bit the detective her husband is. But you haven't read it, so we can't discuss it.

In "Gulf" one of the all time great SF villians is a woman. Cool, rutheless and evil to the core. But again...same story.

"Tunnel in the Sky", the toughest, smartest character on the survival test is a black woman. Witty, strong and competent, she's one of the best drawn characters in the book. But we can't talk about that one either since you won't read it.

I could go on and on but I think my point's been made.

What's your problem anyway? It's ok to not like Heinlein's writing without demonizing the man. Even Lefty-types like Joe Haldeman, Sam Delany and Harlan Ellison all have had good things to say about Heinlein the man and his works even if they didn't agree with his politics.

Again, I don't care if you like his stuff or not, but judging the man's character and trying to demonize him having only read something like 2% of his total output is pathetic.

Fenris, waiting for the next accusation to be flung (I can see it now: "Ok, he wasn't a racist, sexist or a fascist. But he was a SATANIST!" :rolleyes: )

[Lynn Bodoni]

Lynn Bodoni: I most certainly do like hard science fiction--which is not synonymous with Heinlein. Love hard sci-fi, love it! That's why I like Sawyer. Lots of science, well-researched, and believable because his scenarios take place in the present day or the very near future. No mucking about with alternate worlds or alternate societies. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's so prevalent nowadays that Sawyer was like a breath of fresh air.

You might enjoy Heinlein's juveniles, then. Quite likely you'll enjoy Varley, too, and possibly Forward. Forward's not a good writer, but he IS a good scientist.

Oh, you haven't read Sawyer? You're really missing something, your education is incomplete, you can't claim to be a real SF fan, blah blah blah. NOT.

He's not one of the Big Three, is he? Sure, I'll look him up, and I might very well enjoy him. Right now, I'm economizing on my book purchases, and due to ill health I find it hard to get out as much as I like. So I rely on my daughter to bring books home from the used bookstore where she works for me to read.

Lynn, please don't try to define my canon for me, and especially don't try to define me. Nobody elected you the supreme arbiter of what makes a science fiction fan. I'm a fan 'cause I say I am, and more importantly, I've found something I like. Liking something is what being a fan is all about. So it's not what you like, big deal.

Again, Heinlein is one of the Big Three. I'm not defining the canon, the SF readership at large has done so. It's sort of like saying "I like TV or movie SF, and I'm familiar with the genre", and then admitting to only having seen half an episode of Star Trek, or half an hour of Star Wars/Phantom Menace. Sure, you might LIKE the genre, but you are not well-read or well-versed in it. I don't dispute that you like some SF writers. I DO dispute that you are well-read in the field of SF.

[tclouie]

All of you types that are saying I have to read every freakin' thing Heinlein wrote before I can say one word about him. Like, I have a life. It would take me a whole year to read a prolific author's entire output, if I didn't read anything else during that time. And without enjoying it, to boot. I think I'm allowed to have an opinion before that point.

Lemme ask you something. When they take polls, do they ask every single voter in the United States who they want for president? No, they take a sampling.

Do you have an opinion about Bill Clinton? Have you reviewed every single decision he made during his presidency? Probably not. You probably only know about a fraction of them. Hey, that's not fair to Bill!

Do you have an opinion about Thomas Jefferson? Have you read every single word HE wrote? Even a very educated person probably hasn't.

Do you have an opinion about Leo Tolstoy? Have you read every single word he wrote?

How about the Marquis de Sade? Lots of people definitely have an opinion about him. Have they read all his novels?

I took a sampling of Heinlein, and I formed a pretty strong opinion about his work. Enough for me to not want to read any more. He didn't pass the "yuck" test. (His work, Fenris. Not him. I don't know or care about his family life.)

My sampling included some of his better-known titles. I read them BECAUSE they were better-known. Two of them were written in the early Sixties, and the other about a score of years later, give or take. That's a pretty good span of time, and apparently he learned nothing about women in that time.

I will not be backing down on the sexism. Other posters in this thread have agreed with me on that, so you can call them pathetic too if you want.

You know what's really pathetic? Obsessing about your favorite writer so much that you can't stand for anyone to criticize him.

[tclouie]

Standards are always changing. Canons change. In a previous era, the Big Three may have been Jules Verne, H. G. Wells and Edgar Rice Burroughs. How many of you have read everything THEY wrote?

The generation of SF fans that is still clinging to power defines their Big Three as Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke and Bradbury. (Whoops, that's four!)

The Big Three WILL change, like it or not. In the near future the Big Three may include...oh, I don't know...Sawyer...Robinson...Turtledove...Resnick (hack that he is, but an entertaining hack)...even freakin' L. Ron Hubbard...just throwin' out names...

Can we put Philip Dick in the Canon? Huh? Can the Big Three have Dick? Pleeeeease, somebody let Dick into their Big Three!

Meantime, I'll choose my own big three, thank you very much.

[Lemur866]

Tclouie...we can stand you criticizing Heinlein...as long as you tell the truth. When you throw around accusations of FASCISM, and have them slapped down, then throw around accusations of racism, and have them slapped down, and now you throw around accusations of sexism, well, we're gonna slap that down.

Why don't you face facts that you were completely, utterly, and without question wrong about the fascism charge?

And the racism charge has been completely, utterly, and without question dismissed. I know you can't face it, but Heinlein wasn't a racist. You're like the kids who think Swift wanted to kill Irish babies.

Now, sexism. Look, buddy. You're going to have to work harder than this. There are dozens of people on this board who've read every Heinlein book four or five times. So, when you come in and say you've read 2 Heinlein books and saw a movie that had the same name and you just KNOW that Heinlein had such-and-such attitudes...well, since we know different, we're gonna disagree.

You don't have to read another stinking word Heinlein wrote, no skin off my nose, not everyone likes the same things. You don't have to read Heinlein, fine. But, you cannot make statements about Heinlein's views that are based in ignorance. You got the idea that Heinlein was a virulent racist by a complete misreading of his novel.

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that you're doing the same thing with your other charges.

Or you could just shut up. Why do you have such an attachment to proving Heinlein was an asshole? Why is it so important for you to do this? My guess: you just can't stand to be proven wrong. Well, that's tough, but you are wrong. Don't get mad at us for proving you wrong, we can't help the fact that you are wrong. The only thing for you to do is admit you were wrong, and go home. I don't care if you like Heinlein or not, but you are wrong and you should admit it.

[tclouie]

Originally posted by Lemur866
My guess: you just can't stand to be proven wrong.

Um, gee, have I not admitted I was wrong, anywhere on this board? Did I not admit I was wrong about the fascism?

Read the whole freakin' thread. So many want me to read all of Heinlein before judging him, and yet so many are willing to judge me before reading all my posts.

Only a few of us have admitted we were wrong about something in this thread....wrong about fascism, wrong about intentional racism, wrong about Michael eliminating people in "Stranger," wrong about Heinlein's portrayal of Jews....

But only a few of us have had the guts to do that. You're welcome to join our number anytime.

[waterj2]

Originally posted by tclouie
Do you have an opinion about Bill Clinton? Have you reviewed every single decision he made during his presidency? Probably not. You probably only know about a fraction of them. Hey, that's not fair to Bill!

Do you have an opinion about Thomas Jefferson? Have you read every single word HE wrote? Even a very educated person probably hasn't.

Do you have an opinion about Leo Tolstoy? Have you read every single word he wrote?

How about the Marquis de Sade? Lots of people definitely have an opinion about him. Have they read all his novels?


If I came here and started a thread saying that Tolstoy was a closet capitalist, or Jefferson was really a monarchist, based on my interpretation of a very small sampling of either's writing, those who are more familiar would point out my obvious idiocy. No one is saying that you can't have a valid opinion of Heinlein, just that you are disagreeing with virtually every person who actually is familiar with his work, which means that you have supernatural insight or are just plain wrong.

Others have posted here far stronger evidence that Heinlein was not a racist, fascist, or sexist, yet you hold on to your preconcieved notions until they are absolutely shattered. Hell, I've only read one of Heinlein's books (Starship Troopers, nothing against Heinlein, who I rather like, I've just never really been interested in Sci Fi) and I have more of an idea of what's going on here, because I accept the opinions of those best qualified to make them.

[tclouie]

Originally posted by Dragon Phoenix
Right-wing? Certainly. Sex-maniacal in his later works, yes.

Originally posted by Eft
"Feminist chauvanist" I can buy, but "strong female characters"? Let's take a look at the examples you cited. Friday is emotionally dependent on and a tool of RAH's favorite character, the Wise Old Man Whom Nubile Young Things Would Love To Have Sex With. She's neurotic. But she's the best of the bunch, yes. Eunice (IWFNE) is the Wise Old Man, who's taken over the body of the Nubile Young Thing. And both before and after the merger Eunice's main source of power is that she's sexually desirable and thus can make men do what she wants. This is also true of Maureen in To Sail Beyond the Sunset. Finally, the women in TNotB are both intelligent but control the men largely by sexual manipulation and temper tantrums. The women are all intelligent, but contrast their behavior with that of the men in the stories and you'll see how they use sex to get what they want when the men use force of will. If those are strong female characters, I fear to think what weak ones are like. The strongest female characters he's got are probably the ones in Tunnel in the Sky, and even they are generally--not entirely--subordinate to their male counterparts. RAH is a 1960s male feminist: women should be intelligent (so they can help) and sexual (so they want to sleep with the men) but they're still fundamentally beautiful children.



waterj2: your argument seems to be that calling Heinlein a sexist is as ludicrous as calling Tolstoy a capitalist or Jefferson a monarchist. That is a false analogy.

For that to be true, it would have to possible to pull out capitalism or monarchism from something they wrote. But it just isn't there. ANYWHERE.

By way of contrast, you can definitely go into Heinlein's writing and pull out sexism. It definitely is there. I and others have given examples. It may not be the most prevalent thing in his work, and it may not be in every novel, but it's common enough to prevent me from enjoying his work.

A lot of people seem to think there's only one kind of sexism, but there are several varieties. Sexism can be patronizing. Sexism can be objectifying women for their sexuality. Sexism can be woman-hating. I think Heinlein indulged in the first two. No woman-hater, he.

Is it possible for a novel that has a competent female hero to still be sexist? Yes. No matter how many counter-examples you offer, you cannot erase the examples I and others have given.

So it is a valid point of view to say that Heinlein was sexist.

By the way, why do people still think I am arguing that Heinlein was fascist? READ THE WHOLE DAMN THREAD, already. It is hypocritical to say I should read all of Heinlein's writing when you won't read all of mine.

[slowhand53]

uhh..how to put this gracefully so as not to be tattled on...

look you stuborn SOB no one is asking you to read every piece of material by RAH, but your presumption of being able to speak authoritatively about his work after reading 2.5 books (I won't even get into the Starship Troopers mess) is akin to my reading a page or 2 of your diary and recite your life history. It's ludicrous.

So let's exchange shoes shall we. What would you say if I started to make wild assumptions about Sawyer after reading a chapter or 2 of his work? Me thinks you would hound me until I tossed my computer out the window.


oh and BTW, I have read the entire thread

[Fenris]

Originally posted by tclouie
All of you types that are saying I have to read every freakin' thing Heinlein wrote before I can say one word about him. Like, I have a life. It would take me a whole year to read a prolific author's entire output, if I didn't read anything else during that time. And without enjoying it, to boot. I think I'm allowed to have an opinion before that point.
A lie. I said that to presume to judge a man's life, opinions or morals based on his writings, you need to read more than 2% of his work.


Lemme ask you something. When they take polls, do they ask every single voter in the United States who they want for president? No, they take a sampling.

Do you have an opinion about Bill Clinton? Have you reviewed every single decision he made during his presidency? Probably not. You probably only know about a fraction of them. Hey, that's not fair to Bill!
<snipping several examples that repeat the above arguement>

Straw-Man arguement. No one's saying read them all.

When they take polls, they take a random sampling. You read two books written in a 6 year period out of a 6 decade career. (The fact that you read a few chapters of Number of the Beast written 10 years later is barely relevant). This is hardly a random sampling of his works in volume or in range. If you'd read a some of his stories from the 40s, a juvenile or two from the fifties, maybe one of his novels from the 50's, and maybe read one of his novels from the '70s or the 80's, yeah, I'd say you had an reasonable sample.

I will say this slowly in hopes that you'll understand or read it this time it this time: No...One...has...said...that...you...have...to...read...ALL ...his...works. I have said that reading 2% of his works and then judging the man's entire life based on that is pathetic. I'll say the same thing about someone who knows nothing about Clinton except for, say, 5 decision's he's made and presumes to judge Clinton's entire life based on those 5 decisions.

To turn the tables a bit: I could judge your entire life from this thread and perhaps say you were a total wanker. But I wouldn't. It wouldn't be fair to judge your entire life based on this tiny fraction of what you've written.

I took a sampling of Heinlein, and I formed a pretty strong opinion about his work. Enough for me to not want to read any more. He didn't pass the "yuck" test. (His work, Fenris. Not him. I don't know or care about his family life.)

You're calling HIM a sexist. Implying that he treats women in a sexist manner. He doesn't in his writing and he apparently didn't in real life. I've presented evidence to the contrary, but, in your own words "

Once more: I don't care if you don't like him, but you don't need to try to demonize him.

My sampling included some of his better-known titles. I read them BECAUSE they were better-known. Two of them were written in the early Sixties, and the other about a score of years later, give or take. That's a pretty good span of time, and apparently he learned nothing about women in that time.

One of his two best known titles (Stranger). Farnham's Freehold is one of his two least known. The next book that you read the first few chapters of (Number of the beast) was written 15 years later.

You read 2 books and looked at a chapter or two of another from a 15 year period of the man's writing output which spans 6 decades (1939-87).

I will not be backing down on the sexism. Other posters in this thread have agreed with me on that, so you can call them pathetic too if you want.

You know what's really pathetic? Obsessing about your favorite writer so much that you can't stand for anyone to criticize him.
Hardly. I'd be happy to discuss any informed criticism. I simply haven't heard any from you. (And as often as you run snivelling to the mods for any insult, perceived or otherwise, there's more than a hint of irony in your last paragraph.)

I also note that your accusations of sexism didn't show up until A)your original point was demolished and B)Someone else mentioned it. You could hardly have been all that offended by Heinlein's alleged sexism, but it seems as though you desperatly need some excuse to hate the man as opposed to simply not liking his writing. Why, exactly, do you feel the need to demonize your opponent?

In any case, since I've presented evidence to the contrary regarding Heinlein's alleged sexism and your only response has, in essence, been to put your fingers in your ears and sing "La-La-I-Can't-Hear-You-La-He-Is-So-Sexist-La-La" I doubt I'll be participating much more in this thread. It's not really a debate at this point. For future note: If you're not going to try to look at the evidence, it's a Rant and Rants go in the Pit.

Fenris

[Eft]

I find interesting the assumption that anyone who can possibly find anything wrong with RAH's writing must either hate him on PC principle or has not read much of what he's written. Over the past 25 years I, for one, have read and reread a great deal of what he's written (both in the Boy's Life era and in the post-1960 era) and I enjoy the books as fluff. But that doesn't mean that I can't see common elements in the book that in my eyes are sexist. Some have suggested that anyone finding elements of sexism in the books should reread them, or that they're looking to be insulted. It's equally possible that those who are convinced that the original examples mentioned are strong female characters haven't read carefully or are blinded their own set of prejudices, isn't it? (I explicitly mentioned Tunnel in the Sky as a counter-example that had some pretty good female characters in it, BTW. Jack's not bad, either.)

[Incidentally, Jubal does not sleep with one of his secretaries, he sleeps with Dawn Ardent. Michael's the one who sleeps with an unnamed secretary, whom we only know is not Jill. And yes, I agree that it's implied that Eunice has dark skin and may be black. At one point she's wearing off-white and it's mentioned that the color sets off her skin well. You can't really tell from the original book jacket, though: she just looks like a woman with full lips.]

By the way, I should have clarified: RAH does okay with very young and very old female characters, but make them of child-bearing age and my statements stand. The person who suggests that he didn't really understand women has a point. I don't think that he was deliberately dismissive or that he disliked women, but he's too hung up on the sexual and emotional aspects of women to see them as people and characterize well.

[tclouie]

Originally posted by Fenris
If you'd read a some of his stories from the 40s, a juvenile or two from the fifties, maybe one of his novels from the 50's, and maybe read one of his novels from the '70s or the 80's, yeah, I'd say you had an reasonable sample.

Yippee! Finally! Finally, someone who is specific about the requirements for Heinlein-criticism! Four books! FOUR BOOKS and I qualify!

If I read those four things and still thought Heinlein was sexist, would you still jump all over me?

I noticed you didn't mention anything from the 1960's. Is that because you think they're not representative, or something? You see, I have read a couple things from the'60s. Can I substitute one of them for one of those four things? And I already started "Number of the Beast." Could I just finish that for the last thing?

Yippee! Two and a half books! 2-1/2 more books, and I qualify for Heinlein-criticism!

(And as often as you run snivelling to the mods for any insult, perceived or otherwise, there's more than a hint of irony in your last paragraph.)

When we became members, we all agreed to abide by the rules. I for one agree with those rules and will do my best to enforce them. People who use debates to make personal attacks under cover of anonymity are the worst thing about the Internet.

I also note that your accusations of sexism didn't show up until A)your original point was demolished and B)Someone else mentioned it.

Boy, oh boy.
Admitting you're wrong is a great thing. It shows maturity and open-mindedness. I think someone who freely admits they're wrong is even more likely to be right on the points where they stick to their guns. But some people in this thread seem to think of it as a sign of weakness. Kinda makes me think it would have been better not to admit anything at all. "Fascist! Racist! Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" Would have gotten me more respect.

I think I have been very flexible in this debate. It's the Heinlein-lovers who are seemingly unable to admit that there is any sexism at all in Heinlein, or even anything objectionable at all. I gave examples. Do those examples not exist? Do you think I made them up?

And no, slowhand53, I would not hound you for saying something about Sawyer, although I would be interested in why you're saying it. I am particularly interested in why Reality Chuck says half the SFWA doesn't like Sawyer. Does anybody have any more insight about this?

Fenris. Have you ever admitted you were wrong in a thread?

And, did that automatically invalidate the remainder of your argument?

By the way, your above statement is untrue. ("A lie," you would say.) Go back and read my OP. I didn't use the word "sexist," but I did call him a "dirty old man." Does that qualify? I was glad when some posters said the same things about Heinlein's attitude toward women that I had already been thinking. Thanks, eft. However, I made this statement BEFORE eft posted:

I tried to read more, but I couldn't stomach any more scenes in which girls always have some excuse to walk around naked, or have sex with middle-aged men...

So stop lying about me. I did not make up the "sexism" in mid-stream.

Why, exactly, do you feel the need to demonize your opponent?

Heinlein is my opponent?? I thought he was my subject!
I am not aware of "demonizing" any opponent who has posted to this thread. If I have done so, it was unwitting and I apologize.

I think part of the problem here is over-identification with the subject. Criticizing Heinlein is not the same as criticizing you personally, even if you do admire him. And there is no way Heinlein himself will ever be hurt or offended by anything I say here, being dead. If anybody here is an heir or a relative or a personal friend of Heinlein, well....that is something to consider, but so far nobody like that has popped up. Also, if Heinlein himself were a poster to these boards, I would have to be more circumspect, but he's not, so I don't.

Famous people who are not members of SDMB are fair game.

In any case, since I've presented evidence to the contrary regarding Heinlein's alleged sexism and your only response has, in essence, been to put your fingers in your ears and sing "La-La-I-Can't-Hear-You-La-He-Is-So-Sexist-La-La"

No, that's you. I've presented evidence too, but your only response has been to attack the source. Do my examples not exist? Do eft's examples not exist?

I doubt I'll be participating much more in this thread. It's not really a debate at this point.

Byeeeeee

Oh, it's my thread and I'll stop when I want to, stop when I want to, stop when I want to.....

[bashere]

tclouie

[first, a brief aside]
You know, I'm a low-count poster on these boards, and hardly any one has heard of me. So you can ignore me if you want to, but...well, I doubt you are impressing anyone, even those people who agree with you, with your arguements. I'm not disputing that you have something to say, but, well...you might want to take a few deep breaths before posting next time.
[/aside]

One the reasons you hate Heinlein now:

#1
many Heinlein supporters seem to support a Libertarian or possibly Ayn Rand-ish philosophy, and believe that Heinlein would also support it

Well, I can't speak for the posters, but I think you'd be wrong about RAH himself. You might want to read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. In it, Professor De La Paz is talking to one of the many characters about economic systems, and specifically mentions "rand-ites". Sort of funny, really.

Oh, this book is one of his better ones. I could have sworn it won both the Hugo and the Nebula, but my copy does not make reference to either. In answer to your question "nothing from the '60s", this one was published in 66.

#2
Heinlein's dirty-old-man treatment of his female characters. Yes, I have met people who feel he had a real fixation on this. I think he was making a pretty good arguement at the time: women have gotten the short end of the stick, sexually speaking, for about forever. Women can be as competent as men in any field and still be sexual creatures. This has been an ongoing arguement in certain parts of the feminist movement for the last 30 years. If interested in discussing this, open a new thread on the subject (since this one is about facism).

#3
I refuse to buy that Farnham's Freehold was, somehow, an anti-racist novel or an allegory of white racism.
Well, you may try reading it again with this in mind. It shocks a lot of people the first time through.

Oh, in your OP, you mention:
Was Heinlein an escaped German who came over here after the war to put some blood and iron into our sci-fi?
Well, maybe. That would explain the line (in To Sail beyond the Sunset) "There is something sick that goes to the core of the German culture".

What constitues "hard" SF has changed a lot over the last 2 years. RAH's discussion of the problems inherent to life on the moon; his discussion of recessive genetic defects (in Time Enough for Love), amoung others, qualify him. Is he Kim Stanley Robinson, or Neal Stephenson? No, he is not. But in a lot of ways, he was looking a lot further forward.

At the time of his writing, there were 3 authors who wrote passable characters, reasonable plots, and actually stopped to consider some of the problems with space travel. These 3 people are the trinity of modern SF. They changed SF in ways that are hard to discribe. There may be another long lived change (hey, a lot of people credit Gibson with making one), but these 3 authors haver stood the test of time. This isn't about claiming that they were better writers than any one who came after them. This is about saying that they made a real change to the genre. The other names you mentioned have all written good stuff, and have made important contributions. Possibly, say, Robinson or Tepper will change the way SF is written or read. This will not degrade the importance of the original big three; that's just not how it works.

It is fair for you not to like any or all of them, but when you start criticising their work, especially some place like this, you have to remember that a lot of extremely knowledgeable people will poke holes in any argument that is less than perfectly thought out.

Finally, you might note that for a long time, Heinlein and Ellison stood tied for the highest number of Hugos and Nebulas (I think a total of 9 apiece). This doesn't mean that they aren't facist antisemites (especially tht Ellison character - you should read some of his treatments of jews), but it is something to keep in mind when critiqing him.

[tclouie]

Why didn't anybody get mad that I called Crichton a hack, Philip Dick a psychotic, and compared Bradbury to a hippie on a bad acid trip?

(bashere--good post. Go ahead and post more often if you want to.)

[Tamerlane]

tclouie: Well I, for one, didn't get mad when you called Heinlein a fascist, a racist, or a sexist ;) . I think you're mistaken on all counts ( as you've partially admitted - with sexism the most open to debate and different interpretations - I think eft has some good points ), but I never knew the man personally so I can't really say. And I just can't get worked up sufficiently about these sort of debates to ever get "mad" anyway. I think the evidence is not in your favor and I think I ( and many others here ) have a better handle on the subject than you do. But hell, I could be wrong I guess - Though I really doubt it :D .

As to the others you mentioned:

1) Crichton can be a hack - he wasn't always. Some of his earlier work was pretty decent.

2)Philip K. Dick was disturbed at times and it could show in his writing. But at his best he was both powerful and challenging.

3) I think you're more off-base on Bradbury. Lyrical and vaguely hallucinatory at times? Yeah, I can see that. But a hippy? Ehhh...Not really ;) .

- Tamerlane

[tclouie]

Lynn Bodoni:

I'm still interested in exploring the topic of how to consider someone well-read in science fiction.

You dispute that I am well-read in SF, but actually I didn't use the term "well-read." I originally said that someone only needs to have read a couple of books each by many different authors in order to be well-rounded. Well-rounded and well-read are not necessarily synonymous.

But does one need to read a lot of Heinlein to be either well-rounded or well-read in SF? Well....

Let's say my local university offers a major in the field of Science Fiction. (Oooooo, what a fantasy!)

To complete the major, I might have to complete certain courses such as Science Fiction 101, Science Fiction 102, Elements of Science-Fiction Writing 150, Links With Other Genres 200, Science Fiction as Predictor of the Future 202, and so on.

As part of the major, I would have to read some Heinlein. But very few professors would require me to read a LOT of Heinlein as part of their course, unless the course was Heinlein's Contribution to Science Fiction 250 (an elective course I could easily avoid).

There is just too much material in the subject matter to require a comprehensive review of any one author....unless it were for my thesis. And, boy oh boy, no academic adviser better try to make me write my thesis on Heinlein. I'd slit my wrists first. I'd organize a takeover of the dean's office. I'd climb the Administration Tower to hang a banner. I'd start daily food fights. Or, I'd choose an author I like as the subject of my thesis.

I could probably manipulate this major so that I could graduate without ever having read very much Heinlein.

And, when I receive my Degree of Bachelor of Arts in the field of Science Fiction, I will be able to say that I am well-rounded and well-read.:)

[Togepi no Miko]

Um, to the person who mentioned casually that "ellison is an anti-semite", are you aware he IS jewish? But please cite an example of why you think he's anti-jew.

tclouie, if you are willing to try one more heinlein, can I recommend double star? it's short, it's funny, and it's very well-written.

I like heinlein, but in some of his books he did go a bit overboard, like number of the beast and time enough for love.

BTW, in Stranger, how do we know it wasn't jill who is the first to sleep with VMS? There is IIRC no indication of who does seek him out. Could be Miriam, could be anne, could be dorcas, jill... I mean jubal couldn't figure it out, and he knew three of them better than ayone else did. (Caxton had know jill for longer.)

OK, fellow heinlein fans, what is your least favorite book by him? I vote for I will Fear no Evil. While it has an intriguing premise, it was badly executed and could have used some editing/ another draft.

Hmmm... no one has mentioned Glory Road. Star is a very strong character. Always thought it would make a great movie. Anyone have any opinions on The door Into Summer?

Also, what's the general consensus on how old jubal was in stranger?



--TANSTAAFL.

[Ankh_Too]

Originally posted by tclouie
Tamerlane, here's your answer.
Reason #2 for hating Heinlein even more now.

Several people have backed me up on Heinlein's dirty-old-man treatment of his female characters, so what I already knew has been confirmed.


Unfortunately, you're missing a step there. Your complaint about Heinlein's perceived sexism has not been 'confirmed' in any objective sense of the word. There have been a number of people who have agreed with your interpretation of his work. There have been more people who have disagreed with it, seeing it as a flawed interpretation, focusing on the fact that his female characters had a higher than average sexual appetite. If you notice, most of his male characters do so as well, (Jubal Harshaw is a notable exception and explained within the framework of Stranger in a Strange Land. If you feel he's sexist, that's fine. You are free to interpret the writings any way you wish. Don't be surprised, however, when people who view things differently than you disagree. Repeating the same examples over and over again is not going to convince fans who have been reading R.A.H for 30 years (or more) that you've suddenly found the incontrovertible evidence of his supposed sexism. You are not the first to have interpreted his writing so as to be sexist; it's a recurring discussion amongst both old-time fans and people who have recently discovered his work. The fact that so many people disagree with you should leave you with two main probabilities as a solution:

1) You're wrong. If this many people who are so intimately familiar with his work disagree and can speak even more knowledgably about specific examples, it may cause you to reconsider your thoughts.

2) Everyone else is wrong but you. That's always possible, as I am the first to admit. But what's even more likely is that reasonable people can disagree about the interpretation of a book or even a series of books.

Originally posted by tclouie
"Stranger In A Strange Land." One of old Jubal Harshaw's "fronts" goes and has sex with him, on Michael's instructions. Not very fatherly, eh, zen101? "He said that if you refuse, I am to cry," says the sexy android with no will of her own. Heinlein never identifies which front.

As has been pointed out by Eft, you're wrong about your example. Dawn is not one of Jubal's secretaries. I could argue about your interpretation of the sexy android with no will of her own, but it serves no point. You see in it that which you wish to see and adjust your interpretations accordingly.

Originally posted by tclouie
"Farnham's Freehold." The balding middle-aged protagonist gets to have sex with his wimpy son's college girlfriend. At least he doesn't have sex with Kitten.

And your point would be... what? In the entire book, that's the only evidence for sexism that you could filter out was the fact that Hugh Farnham shags an attractive young woman who seems to be just as pleased by the arrangement as he is? Of course, we all know that no self-respecting 20-ish woman would be even the slightest bit interested in a middle-aged man when there's a buff young stud her own age right there next to her. Is it impossible to believe that a smart, intelligent and strong woman might be attracted to Hugh over his whining son?

Originally posted by tclouie
"The Number of the Beast." (I did read it partly, but couldn't stand to finish.) The young female character marries a guy she just met. "Nice view. No foam rubber." Then her dad marries an older female on the same night. Then they all honeymoon at dad's scientific retreat, which conveniently happens to be sweltering, so the two females walk around naked. "I am a militant women's rights gal." "I like to be naked and usually am at Daddy's house."
[/b]

Since I'm one of the few who apparently likes The Number of the Beast I'll take a crack at this one.
I'm confused by your argument, however. Are you objecting to Zeb and Deety deciding to marry on the night they meet? Are you objecting to the fact that Jake and Hilda get married the same night? If so, that seems much more a matter of plotting and has nothing to do with the charge of sexism. I've never met anyone who has married after such a short courtship, but then again, I've never met anyone who has a space/time twister that looks like a Singer sewing machine. Perhaps if they have one they're more likely to do the other.

If on the other hand, you're complaining that the women were walking around naked, bear in mind that casual nudity, particularly in small family groups is hardly the world-shaking aberration that you seem to think it is. Additionally, as R.A.H. seemed to take particular delight in skewering "useless" social convention, his predisposition for dispensing with clothing in many of his story settings is understandable. In a perfect world, wearing clothing in a small family group may be a matter of vanity but it shouldn't be a matter of shame or taboo.

Originally posted by tclouie
So far Heinlein is 3 for 3 with the sexism, and other posters have confirmed that it's in the other books as well.

Once again, I, and a number of other including Fenris have pointed out our disagreement with your examples. Simply because you feel that they are so inherently sexist that the truth blazes like the torch of righteousness from through the darkness does not mean that simply by presenting them, they are 'proven'. I happen to think that given his background, R.A.H. wrote extremely strong female characters, but if I were to list the relevant examples, you would not suddenly be convinced that my interpretation is the correct one. Please quit pretending that the reverse should be so.

Originally posted by tclouie
Is it possible for a novel that has a competent female hero to still be sexist? Yes. No matter how many counter-examples you offer, you cannot erase the examples I and others have given.

So it is a valid point of view to say that Heinlein was sexist.

For my part, I have no desire to erase them, since I don't find your examples to be illustrations of sexism. You're starting from a faulty premise and building a towering, albeit incredibly shaky, framework of logic from it. If that foundation is not valid, then the entire framework collapses as a means of convincing others.

And, as for your "others" who have agreed with you.

Dragon Phoenix called him a "sex maniac", although I'm not sure that's exactly synonymous with "sexist".
zen101 declares R.A.H. a bigot and sexist, although he provides no examples of the latter.
Edward the Head said that he can "...kinda see the sexist part, but even that's not that bad."
Tamerlane starts off promisingly enough for you, but goes on to cite several examples of the opposite opinion.
Unfortunately for your support, zen101 returns and pretty thoroughly demolishes any reasonable support of blatant sexism in the work of R.A.H.
But, finishing on a high note for you, in a very well-written post, Eft does support your view of R.A.H. as a sexist author, although he does later limit it a bit more than you. Ironically, it came in the same post that should have illustrated to you that you need to do better research before hauling out examples that you feel bolster your claims. It can be so heart wrenching when they blow up in your face because they're factually wrong, can't it?

If you think R.A.H. is a racist, a fascist or a sexist, don't read him. I don't see anyone lining up to use the Ludovico Technique on you to modify your tastes. But don't pretend that simply because you bring up an example that you think supports your theory, we are somehow bound to agree with you.


Originally posted by tclouie
Reason #3 for hating Heinlein even more now.

<snip>

I'd love to sit here and argue your ideas about R.A.H. and racism, but needless to say, I find your interpretation and logic for that even more laughable than your ideas about his sexism. And anyways, I've got this... thing I have to do... over there.

[Ankh_Too]

Originally posted by Alessan
How about Heinlein's attitude towards Jews?

I have to admit, his depiction of God (New York Jew) verses Satan (Good Ole' Boy) in Job has always bothered me a bit, considering who the "good guy" turned out to be. Are there any other Jewish characters in his novels? I can't seem to recall any, but I've only read about 10 of them.

Bear in mind we're were seeing this through the eyes of Alexander, who started out as epitome of a Bible-thumping and more than a little bigoted fundamentalist preacher. Remember, he had to go to heaven and meet the nun in St. Peter's office before he was convinced that Catholics could be saved. Additionally, he's already left Heaven in what can only be described as a huff. I doubt that his trip to Hell would have made his views of the Trinity any more charitable.

Just another interpretation.

[mbh]

I could probably manipulate this major so that I could graduate without ever having read very much Heinlein.

And, when I receive my Degree of Bachelor of Arts in the field of Science Fiction, I will be able to say that I am well-rounded and well-read.
Sorry to post off-topic, but that one gave me a chuckle. In the book Expanded Universe, the nonfiction portion of "The Happy Days Ahead" contains a scathing critique of the American educational system. Heinlein describes how a person can spend four years taking easy classes, and then get a useless degree. His strategy? Major in English literature, and then milk the fine print of the curriculum in the exact manner that tclouie describes. Heinlein was not very fond of ivory-tower academia.

tclouie, you may have more in common with Heinlein than you might want to admit. :)

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Togepi no Miko
OK, fellow heinlein fans, what is your least favorite book by him? I vote for I will Fear no Evil. While it has an intriguing premise, it was badly executed and could have used some editing/ another draft.


You make a bunch of good points: Double Star, while not my fav. is an excellent recommendation. (It also won a Hugo, along with Moon is A Harsh Mistress, Stranger and Starship Troopers. Only Bujold has a chance of equalling Heinlein for "Best Novel" winners at the moment. She's got three.)

My least favorite Heinlein is Beyond this Horizon. It's his first novel...and it shows! I also don't like Farnham's Freehold much. It's Heinlein's only novel where I can't find a single character who I like. My favorites are Moon is a Harsh Misteress, Puppet Masters (uncut version) and most of his juvies.

You exactly pegged the situation with "I Will Fear No Evil". Heinlein was hospitalized (it was severe enough that he was unable to write for several years after) after the first draft was done, but before the editing and second draft had been started/completed. Since Heinlein was incapable of making a decision, his wife and/or his publisher decided that it was better to print his early draft 'as-is' rather than have someone else do the rewrite.

I'm pretty sure that there is some specific comment in the text of Stranger that Jill isn't the one who slept with Mike, but I don't remember what it was. I'll check later if you care.

Fenris

[Lynn Bodoni]

tclouie:
And I already started "Number of the Beast." Could I just finish that for the last thing?

Not at all. The Number of the Beast- is actually a self-parody, and you probably shouldn't be reading it until you've read more of his other works. What's more, many (if not most) of the characters in that novel are from some of his earlier novels. Put this book aside, you're not ready
for it.

Instead, try The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, Have Spacesuit, Will Travel, and Expanded Universe at the very least. These are all readily available. If you can find The Rolling Stones, that's good, too.

Fenris:
Heinlein was one of the first SF writers to try to allow women to have sexual feelings rather than making them virginal china dolls to be rescued.
Whether his attempt succeeded or not, he must be given credit for the effort.

In fact, if you read the literature of that period, I think he was one of first (non-porn) writers, regardless of genre. In SF, he was definitely one of the first to write of women as PEOPLE, not just daughter/wife/mother/love interest.

For instance, look at The Rolling Stones which was written, IIRC, in the fifties, when all good American women were home baking cookies, and happy to be there. In fact, this was commonly regarded as the most fulfilling role a woman could have...but in this book, the mother of the protagonists was a dedicated, competent doctor. The grandmother was an engineer, and even gives a speech about how she was passed over for a promotion, in favor of a male. And Grandma is STILL pretty darn sharp, at her advanced age. This book, you must remember, was written specifically for the male teenage audience, it was part of a deal Heinlein had with the publisher. It was MARKETED to teenage boys, and Heinlein was doing his best to enlighten these kids. Grandma and Mother were both competent, attractive women, who were successful in having careers AND in raising kids. The kids suffered no ill-effects from Mom and Grandma going off to work. This was quite a contrast to what most fifties authors would say.

tclouie:
But does one need to read a lot of Heinlein to be either well-rounded or well-read in SF? Well....

Let's say my local university offers a major in the field of Science Fiction. (Oooooo, what a fantasy!) To complete the major, I might have to complete certain courses such as Science Fiction 101, Science Fiction 102, Elements of Science-Fiction Writing 150, Links With Other Genres 200,
Science Fiction as Predictor of the Future 202, and so on.

As part of the major, I would have to read some Heinlein. But very few professors would require me to read a LOT of Heinlein as part of their course, unless the course was Heinlein's Contribution to Science Fiction 250 (an elective course I could easily avoid).

Actually, I've read quite a few course descriptions of SF-as-literature...and most all of them have, in their basic courses, mention of Heinlein. I've also picked up some of the course textbooks, and most of them have short stories and novel excerpts by Heinlein. So yes, you'd have to read a LOT of Heinlein, unless, of course, you managed to find a fantasy-as-literature course. It's sort of like how every high school English course gets around to Beowulf, sooner or later. Heinlein shaped science fiction. Perhaps an English major can tell us if one can get away with not reading the basic authors and still get a degree in English. But I really rather doubt it.

The Big Three of Science Fiction
Standards are always changing. Canons change. In a previous era, the Big Three may have been Jules Verne, H. G. Wells and Edgar Rice Burroughs.
How many of you have read everything THEY wrote?

The generation of SF fans that is still clinging to power defines their Big Three as Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke and Bradbury. (Whoops, that's four!)

The Big Three WILL change, like it or not.

It's pretty clear here that you don't know what I'm talking about when I say the Big Three. The Big Three doesn't refer to the three biggest CURRENT SF authors. Again, it's like I said earlier...if you're gonna talk about SF TV or movies, you're going to HAVE to know about Star Trek (at least the original series) or Star Wars. Whether you like it or not, those shows shaped SF TV and movies. Without knowledge of those shows, you can't be considered well-rounded in those areas.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Lynn Bodoni
tclouie:
And I already started "Number of the Beast." Could I just finish that for the last thing?

Not at all. The Number of the Beast- is actually a self-parody, and you probably shouldn't be reading it until you've read more of his other works. What's more, many (if not most) of the characters in that novel are from some of his earlier novels. Put this book aside, you're not ready for it.

And to add to that, something I just found out about "Number" supports it being a self parody: the name of every "Black Hat" bad-guy in the book is an anagram of Heinlein or one of his pseudonyms. One that comes to mind is the first one we meet: "Neil O'Heret Brain"=Robert A. Heinlein.

Fenris

[Togepi no Miko]

Fenris: thanks for the kind comments. :) Could you look for the reference, please? it's one of the things I always vaguely wondered about whenever I read that book. any guesses on jubal's age?

Re farnham's: yes, after all, look at catherine zeta-jones and sean connery in entrapment, or michael douglas and gwyenth paltrow in a perfect murder. it's not like barbra was duke's girlfriend to begin with, either. the part of that book that saddens me most is when (SPOILER!)




poor karen and her child die. Farnham will prob. never be even remotely considered for filming; can imagine the uproar it would generate? I can't even think who'd try to take it on in the first place...

i hate to think what tclouie's reaction would be to To sail beyond the sunset. (one of my fav. books). hehe



--FRONT!

[Screwtape]

Originally posted by tclouie
...I didn't read "Starship Troopers," just saw the movie. ...Then you have no idea what you've talking about. The movie was an abomination of the great man's work by a Dutch artiste (!) who gave us such culturally-enlightening gems as Robocop and Flesh+Blood. Your criticism of the book based upon the movie presupposes that the movie is an honest interpretation of the book. Which it is not. It is practically slander.

[Eft]

I Will Fear No Evil, as has been noted, gets downright silly. I don't hate it, but Eunice/Johann (and all the other characters) never get beyond being cardboard cutouts. RAH was really good at world creation and that's what I like best about his stories. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is probably the best, IMO, with Friday after that. (Yes, I criticized the main character, but I never said I hated the book.) When I was younger I really liked Have Space Suit, Will Travel but it seems to have worked better for me when I was a kid than it does now.

Regarding the importance of reading RAH and other Golden Age sf writers, I think it's good for getting historical perspective on how sf has developed (I read the 30s stuff for the same reason, and let me tell you: that can be hard going) but if one only reads the Golden Age authors they're limiting themselves, too. I can't recall exactly where I read this, but I agree with it: while RAH pretty much pioneered the archtype of The Competent Man in sf, way too many sf readers think that that's the only valid archtype. An awful lot of good sf has been written that follows an entirely different path. For a sample, I'd suggest reading Dangerous Visions[i], [i]Again, Dangerous Visions, or Future on Fire.

[bashere]

Um, to the person who mentioned casually that "ellison is an anti-semite", are you aware he IS jewish? But please cite an example of why you think he's anti-jew.

That was me. I thought it a clever joke, mainly because I was tired from typing so much. It is utterly impossible to read Ellison's work and to believe him an anti-semite.

He tells a story whose name I forget about a group of 6 legged aliens with very strong jewish features. They speak in a sort of new york yiddish. I was going to go off on that for a bit to really drive home the irony, but I decided the post was too long already.

Suffice it to say that I am well aware that Ellison is not an anti-semite.

[Togepi no Miko]

bashere: Sorry; didn't realize you were kidding. if you substitute "heinlein" for ellison and racist for anti-semite, we have the definitive answer to tclouie. BTW, it was I'm Looking for Kadak. did you ever read the story about the guy who is being haunted by his mother's ghost? lol

--Please pass the necro waiters.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Togepi no Miko
Fenris: thanks for the kind comments. :) Could you look for the reference, please? it's one of the things I always vaguely wondered about whenever I read that book. any guesses on jubal's age?
Sure, I'll check when I get home.

As to Jubal's age, I think there's a comment that gives a clue, but again...I'll have to check.

BTW: Have you tried the uncut Stranger In A Strange Land? I actually liked it more than the cut version. The uncut Puppet Masters has a scene restored that gave me nightmares when I first read it. I understand why it was cut. I also liked the uncut Red Planet better. (Heinlein had massive fights with the editor of his Juvies on a regular basis, but the fight over Red Planet was the stuff of legends: Alice Dagliesh(sp) didn't understand SF, didn't like Heinlein and didn't understand why so little of Heinlein's juvies had "rocket ships". Anyway, she thought that Willis's extendable eyes were "too Freudian" and wanted Willis cut from the story or dramatically modified. Heinlein took exception to that and in a scathing letter explained A)What he thought of Freud and B)That he was doing something right since Heinlein's books were his publisher's best selling kid's books and C)The "Freudian" nature of the 'Girls and Horsies' books that Dagliesh(sp) wrote) :D

Fenris

[Eft]

Originally posted by Togepi no Miko
Fenris: thanks for the kind comments. :) Could you look for the reference, please? it's one of the things I always vaguely wondered about whenever I read that book. any guesses on jubal's age?
PMFJI, but if this is about how we know that Jill is not the woman Mike sleeps with originally, this comes up in a discussion between Ben and Jubal, later in the book. Jubal had assumed that it was Jill, but Ben tells him that he'd assumed the same thing and Jill set him straight.

As to Jubal's age, I think there's a comment that gives a clue, but again...I'll have to check.
Jubal is apparently under 100 (since he's sworn to committ suicide when his age reaches three digits) but beyond that I could never tell. I always guessed him as being in his 90s.

BTW: Have you tried the uncut Stranger In A Strange Land? I actually liked it more than the cut version. The uncut Puppet Masters has a scene restored that gave me nightmares when I first read it. I understand why it was cut. I also liked the uncut Red Planet better.
There's also a later edition of Podkayne of Mars out that ends differently from the one originally published. I haven't seen the uncut SIASL; I'll have to look for that.

[Polycarp]

I think virtually everyone has made most of the points I'd have made in response to the OP quite well. However:

I would comment that one is not obliged to make one's tastes meet the majority's, and this would include the OP. However, if one gets into a debate on the subject of why one dislikes a particular author, one is, I think, obliged to line up all one's facts in support of one's views and have them accurate to attempt to bolster one's case. I personally have a number of authors whose work I understand to be quite insightful and worthy of my respect in the opinions of others, but whose prose is so turgid, dry, and/or boring to me as to turn me off to them. That is my privilege, but I would never attempt to express this as a general negative, just as a personal reaction, in a debate on them.

Reason #2 for Hating Heinlein suffers in this regard. In two of the three examples, tclouie has bollixed up the facts of the story in such a way as to undermine the argument which he attempts to make on that basis. It is Dawn, the former Fosterite exotic dancer, who climbs into Jubal's bed, for her own reasons. Barbara was not Duke's girlfriend but Karen's roommate. In the third, he fails to observe that (1) Deety is in a conspiracy with her father to attempt to get the help of "Dr. Z. Carter" (Zeb's cousin, whom she thinks is him) in support of his work, to the extent that she is quite willing to seduce him. That they fall in love and decide to tie the knot immediately is "gravy" to her intent to get Zeb's help for Jake by whatever means necessary. I admit that the jump-into-marriage-at-first-encounter is a weak plot point, but it adequately portrays the "go-for-broke" attitude of the protagonists (an attitude Heinlein clearly holds in high esteem, as evidenced by much of his other work) and therefore paves the way for them making rapid decisions later in the book, shortening plot development by a great deal. (2) And Hilda makes it quite clear that she has been attempting to tie Jake down for years, having been his late wife's best friend and probably the Burroughs' closest woman friend, so this is hardly a deus ex machina element.

One point nobody seems to have addressed is that Sixth Column was in fact racist. It was designed as such by John W. Campbell Jr., who gave Heinlein the basic plot scheme to work up... a "Yellow Peril" story of the sort that were common in even realistic contemporary literature of just prior to World War II, when it was written. What Heinlein did was to make clear that it was the antihumanistic aspects of the invaders' culture, not the irrelevant fact of their skin color, that was detestable, in relatively subtle ways. Which reminds me a great deal, to revive the parallel already drawn, of what Twain did in making "Nigger Jim" a strong and likeable character in Huckleberry Finn.

Yes, Heinlein is quite sexist. He makes this clear in Expanding Universe. He does feel, however, that we males can make a worthwhile contribution to the ongoing future of the race and our own futures, despite our relative inferiority. ;)

Finally, most males (including me) find the motivations of adult women in deciding who they will fall in love with, and why, less than totally clear. But I would understand the idea that a woman may choose to love, and have sex with, a man who is not Mr. Buff Studmuffin to have been spelled out in, first, Jubal's conversation with Ben, and second, Dawn's remarks to Jubal, in Stranger. And it pleases me as I age that at least a small proportion of the human race does not find loveability to be contingent on degree of youthful beauty.

[bashere]

Fenris There is an uncut Puppet Masters? I'll have to find it. IM(not so)HO, all of the uncut versions have been much better than the cut versions. I hated Stranger until I read the uncut version, and the original ending of Podkayne brought me to tears.

And how can you dislike Beyond this Horizon? The plot might have been a little weak, but his ideas around genetic engineering are good ones, even today.

Least favourite RAH book is definitely I Will Fear No Evil. I didn't even believe it was by RAH at first.
Favourites are The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Glory Road and...well, most of his near-future in-solar-system juvinelle stories. ( Space Cadets, Red Planet, Podkayne ).

Togepi no Miko Thanks for understanding. I handled the joke poorly, so the failure was on my side. I think I've read the story you're talking about, but when I try to remember it, I keep getting the plot to the one where the main character's aunt's laugh is on a laugh track. You know the one I'm talking about?

Two Ellison facts: 1) I've eaten at Pinks. I find it unlikely that somebody can have 3 pinks dogs ( Prince Mishkan, hold the Relish ). 2) An ex-GF of mine was a PA, assigned to drive Ellison around. She had no idea who he was, but she finds him extremely annoying. She confirmed the reputation about his ego is true.

tclouie, you know the idea of a SF degree is interesting. If you post what you feel would be appropriate in the course you mentioned, I'll let you know what RAH books would be appropriate (and Fenris will correct me. I thought I know a lot about RAH until I started reading his posts). You still don't have to read them, and you certainly don't have to like them, but it might give you a better feel for the importance of RAH's books, and where they stand in the grand scheme of things.

[jb3]

toadspittle: How about a Philipina heroine? Or two? CRYPTONOMICON, Neil Stephenson.

Alessan asked:
>How about Heinlein's attitude towards Jews?
Uncomfortable but positive in Revolt in 2100, back in the 40's....

and tclouie flamed:
> Was Heinlein an escaped German who came over here after the war to put some blood and iron into our sci-fi?

When an OP goes out of their way to use offensive and inflammatory language, it's stereotypical that they haven't done their homework, as is the case here. RAH was born in Missouri in 1908 and graduated from the US Naval Academy. Some of his ancestors were German; some of mine were black; both are irrelevant. tclouie should show some manners and apologize on this point.

I read FF in 1964, sneaking it out of the 'adult' section of the Deep South library where I spent most of my youth. (Really relevant, as the Cuban Missile Crisis had Hawk missile batteries out in the watermelon fields.)

It opened my eyes on how racism becomes institutionalized, and helped me understand the racist subtext that adults would not talk about, but which was a dominant force in my life. Yes, I remember 'colored only' restrooms and water fountains.

Maybe we could give FF the 'acid test'; give it to ten African-Americans who were from grade-school age to seasoned citizen in 1964, and ask them it they think it was racist? Suspect that they would find it written as an eye-opener for Southerners, which is how I read it then and read it now.

If a youngster who wasn't alive then doesn't understand, well, perhaps success in reducing racism has led him to believe a few things that ain't so.

[wmdix509]

One aspect I've notted of 1950-1970s Science Fiction is that some authors tended to write stories that would illuminate a section of socail customs f the day in a way that made it clear how stupid or plain ridiculous they were.

In fact sometimes they would take an utterly mundane point and take to a logical or even illogical extreme. In fact Farnhams Freehold for me illustrated how stupid racism could be.

In fact one of the better proponents of the school was Robert A. Heinlein he did it pretty consistently and sometime subtly in his books.

(OT)I really should complete my Robert A. Heinlein collection but have been unable to do so. In fact I was hooked into Science Fiction clear back when I was in second grade primary. and among those who hooked me Robert A. Heinlein figures prominently.

[Togepi no Miko]

fenris: thanks. Yes, I own the uncut stranger. OK, the line is something along the lines of, (caxton) "yeah, i thought that too, till Jill set me straight. She wouldn't say who it was outright, but said that it was the one most suited to starting him off right, which if you know how Jill's mind works, gives you a good idea..."

Jubal said he gave up trying to know how anyone's mind worked. :)

So we're back to Anne, Dorcas, or Miriam.


bashere: Yes, you are thinking of "laugh track," which is a favorite story in that collection. the one i'm thinking of is called logically enough, "Mom," and can be found in the Essential Ellison (among other places). BTW, it was his aunt in "Laugh Track." In "Mom," she's still being a nudj from beyond the grave...

That info about RAH's editor and willis from red Planet is fascinating, and quite sad.

--There must be some way out of here, said the black mage to the thief.

[zen101]

Originally posted by Ankh_Too
[QUOTE]

zen101 declares R.A.H. a bigot and sexist, although he provides no examples of the latter.



ahem.

Actually what I stated originally and then repeatedly was that it was possible that RAH was bigoted and sexist by "todays standards", making a comparison to Clemens and also noting his recurring theme of strong female characters with particular traits (strengths and weaknesses) and also making specific not of the same opposite attributes in his male charachters. Heinlein wrote in the manner of thought which he was most familliar and this betrayed some opinions that viewed today seem either sexist (Women are typically in need of a man in his novels for example. This may even be true IRL but it is viewed as a sexist opinion) or bigoted (In much of his work with characthers that are of color there is a noticeable patronizing attitude. It is not a constant and in fact it is something which appears to vanish or nearly vanish as his work progressed as though he read some of his work and said to himself "hey, if I didn't know better I would think that I was treating my black/asian/etc characters in such and such manner. I'll learn from this insight and strive not to do so in the future".) and bigoted more clearly in his treatment of homosexuality (referring to homosexuals as sad and misfortuned repeatedly in the internal diolouge of some of his heroes thoughts). But this is all in the framing of todays mores and standards. While he had some opinions that are viewed as conservative and indeed possibly bigoted by today's standards they were likely viewed as radical and extremely liberal at the time he penned them. Possibly the simplest to note that have not been noted are his thoughts of homosexuals who he often pitied in his writing but never vilified, which to me demonstrated a caring that was clearly not bigoted or rooted in antipathy but still something that by today's standards would be viewed as a prejudice.

I would avoid even stating this much as it would appear to give some to the opposition by granting some ammunition, but it also seems to me that in some ways he is so beyond reason in his presumptions that it matters little what i offer to clarify. But I did not want to go on record os having stated such things without the opportunity to clarify a little bit where I was coming from.


[/b]tclouie[/i] you keep stating that one need not read all of an author's work to form such an opinion and I agree. Hypotheticaly I could have formed an opinion on Clemens by reading two works of his that he a) believed Native American people were murderous villains who routinely hid in caves b) Frogs should have lead shot poured into their bellies c) escaped black male slaves engage in homosexual activity with young boys on rafts (the often inferred homoerotic content of Huck Finn). These are certainly opinions that some people who don't read much Clemens or don't have much insight could (and in some cases have) come to. Not really my opinions, but then they could be and I would be just as justified in them as you are on RAH from your limited exposure.

[Northern Piper]

tclouie asked:Why didn't anybody get mad that I called Crichton a hack, Philip Dick a psychotic, and compared Bradbury to a hippie on a bad acid trip?

can't speak for anyone else, but I've only read a couple of books by each of these, so didn't feel I knew enough to comment, one way or the other.

[Northern Piper]

One point nobody seems to have addressed is that Sixth Column was in fact racist.

Actually, CalMeachum and I chatted about it on the first page of the thread. Cal doesn't seem to think that it's racist; I disagree, in part because of the supposedly sympathetic treatment of the Japenese-American gardener.

I remember reading it with this sinking feeling in my stomach that a favourite author was betraying me on a fundamental level. It's easily my least favourite RAH book.

[Tristan]

tclouie- For the record, I have read everything that Heinlein or his estate published. Some of it is good, some is mediocre, some may even be bad.

But he was/is commonly refered to by other Authors of all stripe as the Grand Master of Science Fiction.

Numerous Sci-Fi authors make references to him, and use very subtle things (a reference to "Robar Henling" as the Admiral of the Admirality in Smoke Ring by Larry Niven is one of my fav's!) to pay homage to a man that did more to help legitimize Sci-Fi than any other author.

RAH was the first one to sign a "Standard Sci-Fi Book" contract with his publisher, just to set a precedence. The contract was immediatly ripped up and renegotiated upwards....

I've met a few folks that were lucky enough to know RAH, and not as an Author (they didn't read Sci-Fi) but as a person. They found him clever, funny, and good company. They also liked his wife, who was just as good as he.

The fact that his peers lavish praise on him (even those that disagreed with him!) and would give him award upon award, should be an indicator of the quality of RAH's work.

then again, at this point, I think our OP has left the building.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by jti
One point nobody seems to have addressed is that Sixth Column was in fact racist.

Actually, CalMeachum and I chatted about it on the first page of the thread. Cal doesn't seem to think that it's racist; I disagree, in part because of the supposedly sympathetic treatment of the Japenese-American gardener.

I remember reading it with this sinking feeling in my stomach that a favourite author was betraying me on a fundamental level. It's easily my least favourite RAH book.

I'm not fond of that book either, particularly. Heinlein was offered a lot to write it at a time when he needed money and did his best to clean up the rascist content with limited success. He at least tried...unsuccessfully, IMO to give the Pan-Asians a motive and culture that made sense. (Not to propose this as a defense, but the Campbell story it's based on is far worse..).

Personally, I liked the Chinese-American guy, Frank Mitsui (who wasn't just a gardner, he was a farmer and/or ran a greenhouse for orchids): he's the only person in the book. The rest of the characters seem to me to be more or less like cardboard. What didn't you like about him?

Fenris

[AtomicDog]

Ask the Black Guy!
... Just Kidding.
I am black, though, and I loved to plow through every Heinlein story I could get hold of.

And then I hit Farnham's Freehold.

I didn't know what to make of it. It wasn't I reread it years later that I got the point. Heinlein, in making blacks the "bad guys", was just showing that we could, given the chance, be as much a bunch of jackasses as white people could be. I mean, I saw white heroes and villians all the time. Why not black villians?

After that realization, I felt honored. Besides, I liked the "What do you mean we, white man?" bit that Farnham's servant puts in at the end.

[dal_timgar]

have you considered that ALL the sci-fi writers in the 50's and 60's were racists? i started reading sci-fi in '61, blacks virtually didn't exist in sci-fi back then. how much is because of publishers vs writers i have no idea.

Dal Timgar

[Ankh_Too]

Originally posted by zen101
[
ahem.

Actually what I stated originally and then repeatedly was that it was possible that RAH was bigoted and sexist by "todays standards", making a comparison to Clemens and also noting his recurring theme of strong female characters with particular traits (strengths and weaknesses) and also making specific not of the same opposite attributes in his male charachters...

Opps, my bad. I meant to edit that part out when saw your second post. My apologies.

[zen101]

Originally posted by dal_timgar
have you considered that ALL the sci-fi writers in the 50's and 60's were racists? i started reading sci-fi in '61, blacks virtually didn't exist in sci-fi back then. how much is because of publishers vs writers i have no idea.

Dal Timgar


I don't think a lack of charachters of color can make an author a bigot, just as a lack of women in a male authors' works make him a sexist. There are two very logical reasons why an author might choose to omit ethnic diversity from his or her works that are particular to the time period you are referring to and specifically the Sci-Fi genre:

1) Publishers. A lot of original drafts are sent back to the writer with notes on re-writes and specific changes to be made. In the 50's and 60's Sci-Fi was just barely hatching into a business you could make the morgtage on and if you were an author making a penny a word from a publisher you were going to do what he told you to do. Publishers were could be the most liberal people but they had a business to run and some subjects were guaranteed to cause problems. Star Trek barely got away with the black/white white/black race war episode in the late 60's and they were being subtle. What you find is that while a lot of authors didn't say "Joe was an opressed black fella'" they might have said "GleepGlorp was a Venusian slave." and made him green rather than brown and from Venus rather than Africa, but they still often tried to deliver messages. I think that if you go back and re-read some of that work you might see a lot of this that you had glossed over because maybe you were younger and unable to get the subtle suggestions.

2) Perspective. Most working writers even today are white males over 40. If you are a white male over 40 you might not want to or be able to think like a black 90 year old man or a white 20 year old woman (We have discussed Heinlein's various attempts at this in this thread and how some of it has not come off all that well). You almost certainly cannot write plausibly as something so alien to you and I think we can somewhat safely assume that someone who was 40 in the 50's and grey up before black was beutiful and when women were mothers and wives only is just not going to know what the hell he is talking about when it comes to either one. If he is smart he will only make minorities minor players in his work and play it safe. If he is very smart he will collaborate with someone who actually has this POV (some if not many authors collaborate with wives and friends discreetly for such groundbreaking work. Heinlein did so but seldom gave credit to Virginia for her insight but I think I recall some mention in "Grumbles From The Grave" on it and I do recall an interview with Niven on the subject.) but still for the most part unless you wanted to look like a fool you just wrote what you knew which was pretty much being a 40 year old white guy because if you were getting paid to write in the 1950's or about then that is 90% likely to be what you were.

Now, that is only observed factor and certainly cannot disprove any assertation that "all of those guys were bigots" but i would hope that it merits consideration as a possible factor in the lack of ethnic and gender diversity you have noted in your reading.

[Hometownboy]

A humble bow to the skillful arguments and sizzling logic of the above posters. It only confirms my long-held belief that Heinlein fans tend to be above average. While it is possible to read his stuff just for the adventure, it would be hard to ignore the cogent comments he weaves so skillfully into the plots.

As further proof of Heinlein's anti-fascist nature, one of my favorite quotes from The Notebooks of Lazarus Long is "Beware of strong drink; it can make you shoot at tax collectors.....and miss."

Also I greatly enjoyed one of his essays in Expanded Univers in which he offers different possible systems based on the criterion for exercise of the franchise. IIRC, one suggestion was to let only women vote, and he talked about the situation in his mother's time when women did not have the vote. He also suggested systems in which a vote cost an ounce of gold or couldn't be made unless the voter solved a quadratic equation....

Loved his work, miss it deeply. The gentleman had both intelligence and a deep sense of honor. Who among us can claim as much?

[Triskadecamus]

TCLouie

Let's recap for a moment. You start a thread by insulting a respected author with an accusation of being a fascist, in the title. Then you call him a racist, and "support" it with a first grade level misunderstanding of a shallow reading of a single work, which you seem unable to comprehend. After that you get all huffy because I call you a moron.

Am I keeping up with you so far?

:wally

Tris

[waterj2]

Tris, a quote comes to mind here to better defend yourself against tclouie's whining:

"I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea--a practice I shall always follow."

Any guesses as to the author?

[Moirai]

DNFtclouis!

Seriously though- tclouis have proven himself to be less-than-equipped to debate this issue. It has been entertaining reading, but I believe that the OP has been answered (with vigor), and that the poster has no other legitimate arguments left.

Buh-bye.

[sdimbert]

Originally posted by waterj2
Tris, a quote comes to mind here to better defend yourself against tclouie's whining...

Hear, hear!

(That used to be my sig. :))

[tclouie]

Hey guys&gals I'm back!

I'm starting a new thread in General Questions on the "Science Fiction University" question.

Sorry if I seemed to have "left the building," but I really don't do a lot of online during the workweek. (Started this thread while home sick from work.)

It's just that if I spend too much time online, I start to feel....creepy.....

Yuknowhutamean???

[David B]

[Moderator Hat: ON]

slowhand53 said:
look you stuborn SOB I know this insult is about a week old, but I just saw it and there is no statute of limitations on warnings. So let me remind you that if you feel you must insult somebody, do it in the Pit, not in Great Debates.

--------
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

[Mac Guffin]

I know I am getting into this a tad late, but it seems to me that the OP didn't even read the books he/she comments on. It is almost as if Cliff Notes (c) were involved.


I discovered RAH while in Junior Highschool, back in the very early 80's I have been a fan ever since, and have only found one work of his to my dislike. And that was because I read it early, and was not prepared. The Number Of The Beast was the third Heinlein book I read. I didn't get the self parody, wasn't familiar with many of the characters yet, and was totaly confused by the premise. It seemed like the literary equivelent to being slipped a powerful halucinagen.

I loved Friday, but there is a point near the end of the book that makes me think that Virginia finished it while Robert was so ill. I can't quite put my finger on it, butit's as if the style changes.....

[Hazel]

Interesting thread. My least favorite Heinlein book is Farnham. I agree that it isn't racist. I just find the future society really unpleasant, and didn't much like any of the characters.

One of the things I like in Heinlein's books is the way he will occasionally toss in something to just make it very plain just how different from ours is the future society he's devised. In the early book Beyond this Horizon he has two straight men comparing and discussing their shades of nail polish. In the late book The Cat Who... he has a straight male quite happy with the assortment of pastel jumpsuits his wife buys him. In one of the juviniles, the narrator is shocked at the laxity he sees on his return to earth: his father would never have allowed one of his dauthers to come to the dinner table hatless!

I've often wondered why so many people seem to be offended at the idea (in Starship Troopers) of a society in which the right to vote must be earned. I wouldn't go for it if the only way to earn the vote was by military service, but so long as there are an assortment of choices, and so long as everyone has the right to serve, I think it might just be a good idea. If it had to be earned, maybe it would be valued.

By the way, can anyone sort out for me just what elements in which books are considered to be fascist? Or is the term just being used to mean "something I don't like"?

[Badtz Maru]

In Starship Troopers, it's mentioned that something like 1 in 20 people who choose to serve the government to get to vote actually end up in combat roles. I think it's a great idea.

[Fatwater Fewl]

Originally posted by mbh
I could probably manipulate this major so that I could graduate without ever having read very much Heinlein.

And, when I receive my Degree of Bachelor of Arts in the field of Science Fiction, I will be able to say that I am well-rounded and well-read.
Sorry to post off-topic, but that one gave me a chuckle. In the book Expanded Universe, the nonfiction portion of "The Happy Days Ahead" contains a scathing critique of the American educational system. Heinlein describes how a person can spend four years taking easy classes, and then get a useless degree. His strategy? Major in English literature, and then milk the fine print of the curriculum in the exact manner that tclouie describes. Heinlein was not very fond of ivory-tower academia.

tclouie, you may have more in common with Heinlein than you might want to admit. :)

I know I'm getting in here a bit late too, but I just have to point out that in one of first few chapters of hmmmm, "The Number of the Beast", Heinlein had Zeb describe the above scheme... I see an interesting possibilty here...

There's something I say to people every night at work, tclouie... I say, let your conscience be your guide.

[CalMeacham]

While at Arisia (one of the two big Boston area sf conventions) last weekend I picked up a copy of "Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion" by James Gifford (Nitrosyncretic Press, Sacramento CA 2000). It had some interesting things to say:

Of Farnham's Freehold (p. 84):

"This controversial novel raised arguments inside and outside the science fiction community with its brutal depiction of racism. Unlike the controversies over "Stranger in a Strange Land" and "Starship Troopers", few critics have been willing to defend "Farnham's Freehold" because of the aggressive and touchy nature of its issues"

He also notes that "There is not a single black woman character in the entire novel." This had completely escaped my notice. I'll bet I'd have noticed if I were female.

Of "Sixth Column" it says:

"He [Heinlein][says] also reslanted the story to remove "certain racist aspects". After reading the Campbell version ["All", which was at long last published in "The Space Beyond" by Pyramid books in 1976], it is hard to know exactly what he meant by these comments." According to Gifford, Heinlein didn't read Campbell's story, but was given the outline verbally. Maybe it seemed more racist as Campbell told it.Gifford also thinks that the name of hero "Whitey" Ardmore has racial connotations that cannot have been entirely coincidental.

[GSV Consolation of Dreams]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
In Starship Troopers, it's mentioned that something like 1 in 20 people who choose to serve the government to get to vote actually end up in combat roles. I think it's a great idea.

While only 1 in 20 might get combat duty, IIRC all the duties were highly dangerous in some way. The point was to risk your life for the protection/advancement of the society. So very badly disabled people etc. would end up taking part in hazardous medical trials or something of that sort. It's been a long time since I read the book so correct me if I'm wrong.

Back onto the topic: I've read a lot of the Juvenile stories and liked them but gave up on TNotB. I just really couldn't stand the way everyone knew everything. If someone had to speak Russian, or know how to dissect an alien...no problem, one of them seemed always to have the exact skill/experience required. It kind of killed the drama for me.

[Polycarp]

Atarian, you asked for correction. I reread it last year for the first time in some long period, along with the comments on it in Grumbles from the Grave.

Quite simply, in the Starship Troopers society, you volunteer for public service. It's your choice whether to volunteer or not; there's no draft. You're entitled to put in your preferences on what you'd like to do, much as a recruiter today takes your preferences. But once you've volunteered, you go where the government sends you and do what they specify. It might be file clerk in an underground warehouse safe from H-bombs, it might be mobile infantry on the front lines. The 1-in-20 figure was from Heinlein's commentary on the story, indicating that 19 times in 20 you'd end up in civil service. But if you're young, without special skills, and with that particular attitude that can be turned into patriotic combat readiness, it's likely to be the military, though only about 1 in 20 end up with it.

And you earn your franchise by completing a term of voluntary public service -- whatever it is you end up doing. Not necessarily the military. But you need to have put in your time serving your country in some way to earn a share in its governance.

[CalMeacham]

The Gifford book I cite above makes the point that, although Heinlein says in "Expanded Universe" that it is repeatedly stated in "Starship Troopers" how the system works, in fact the book does not really emphasize it all that much. For the full explanation you should read EU and "Grumbles from the Grave". It seemed to me pretty clear how the system works in the book just from reading ST, but it could be that a lot of people didn't get the message simply BECAUSE it wasn't drilled into their heads, despite what Heinlein says.

[Sam Stone]

One thing to remember about Heinlein: He despised the draft. He was strongly against it during the Vietnam war. He believed that a government never has the right to force its citizens into combat for any reason.

Not the sentiment of a fascist.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by atarian
While only 1 in 20 might get combat duty, IIRC all the duties were highly dangerous in some way. The point was to risk your life for the protection/advancement of the society. So very badly disabled people etc. would end up taking part in hazardous medical trials or something of that sort. It's been a long time since I read the book so correct me if I'm wrong.
me.

The only thing we heard about disabled folks is during the scare speech that Juan and friends were given. I don't have the book at hand but there's a line to the effect of "Everyone is allowed to join up. Even if you're blind, legless and only have one arm, you can still join and we'll find something for you to do. Even if it's counting the fuzz on a caterpiller by touch." (approx. quote)

By the way, I've read the HeinleinL A Reader's Companion book that CalMeachum's mentioned and it's very well done. There're some excerpts from it on the author's homepage (http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/index.htm)

Fenris