Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-30-2007, 08:08 AM
CalMeacham's Avatar
CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 43,928

Why did Heinlein report incorrectly about Cox in Starship Troopers?


In Starship Troopers, Heinlein has the commander at OCS scare his charges (who have just received their Third Lieutenant "commissions" and are about to ship out) by telling them the story of William Sitgreaves Cox, Third Lieutenant on the Shannon, who carried the wounded captain James Lawrence down belowdecks without being ordered to. While he was away, four levels of command above him were wiped out on deck, and Cox was charged with derelictioon of duty, since he left his post (and, effectively, command) without orders. According to ST, the family tried for over 150 years to have that conviction reversed. That would've been up to 1963, since the battle took place in 1813. ST came out in 1959, and is set much farther in the future.


Only it's not true. Cox's great-grandson campaigned for twenty years to have the conviction overturned, and in 1952 President Truman did so. That's seven years before ST's publication. The Wikipedia site claims that in Heinlein's Future History, it turned out differently. But that smacks of retconning. This was already in the past when Heinlein was writing, and doesn't materially affect any of his Future History for ST (Which isn't connected with his formal "Future History" series).


So did Heinlein not know about this? (Seems unlikely) Forget about this? Or was he rewriting reality the way HE'D run it, if he were God?

It's not as if he had to do this -- the story of Cox is correct up to that point (as far as I've been able to check), and it's already an effective story to tell for impressing his budding officers without any embellishment. Did Heinlein require that extra cherry of military justice absolutism to make his universe balanced, or something?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sitgreaves_Cox
  #2  
Old 11-30-2007, 08:33 AM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,423
Because Heinlein recognized the need for "Truthiness" well before Colbert coined the term.

Or, (fan-wank alert) perhaps the Commander's memory was faulty, and he "remembered" details that would make more of an impression on a shave-tail than the bald truth would.
  #3  
Old 11-30-2007, 08:36 AM
Tristan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: leaffan for president!
Posts: 5,848
It's entirely possible that he had written it before the case was resolved.

Several of RAH's books were written, and then languished for a while before they were picked up for publishing, due to an inconstant market.

I'll do a bit more research tonite and see what I can come up with.
  #4  
Old 11-30-2007, 08:39 AM
CalMeacham's Avatar
CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 43,928
Quote:
Or, (fan-wank alert) perhaps the Commander's memory was faulty, and he "remembered" details that would make more of an impression on a shave-tail than the bald truth would.
Yeah, but, as I point out, it's pretty impressive without it. "He was never rehabilitated" has a catchy, easy-to-remember awfuklness about it, but, in truth, none of this made any difference to Cox or the next couple of generations of his descendants -- he was cashiered and disgraced for their entire lives, as Juan well knew. It's a gnat's eyelash of difference between that and being rehabilitated almost 140 years later.
  #5  
Old 11-30-2007, 09:07 AM
Hellestal is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Storyland
Posts: 2,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalMeacham
Yeah, but, as I point out, it's pretty impressive without it. "He was never rehabilitated" has a catchy, easy-to-remember awfuklness about it, but, in truth, none of this made any difference to Cox or the next couple of generations of his descendants -- he was cashiered and disgraced for their entire lives, as Juan well knew. It's a gnat's eyelash of difference between that and being rehabilitated almost 140 years later.
I disagree.

There's something almost mythically deranged and harrowing about a system that continues its willful disregard for correcting the record for literally centuries because said system cares so much more about its own authority than about an injustice that has been done. Practically speaking, I think it's true that, for the dude who was himself unceremoniously given the boot from the service, the stain of a lifetime of dishonor with a posthumous pardon is no different than eternal dishonor. But we operate beyond practical concerns much of the time, and I think the lure of remembrance changes the situation.

Most all of us prolly have some hopes that memories of our lives will be an immortality of a sort, and despite the practical insignificance within our lifetime of a pardon a hundred years after our death, it would come as some relief to think that the heart of the system has some kindness in it somewhere that gives it a chance to reconsider when it's given enough time to reflect. There's the possibility that the system will correct itself, set the correct straight, and absolve those who were wrongly judged.

Heinlein takes all that away with the altered story. If you're perceived as a fuck-up once, you'll be known as a fuck-up forever and ever amen. And that's just scary.
  #6  
Old 11-30-2007, 09:19 AM
smiling bandit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 16,948
Such things do happen in the military, though. The Civil War has several instances of open insubordination or dereliction of duty or sheer incompetence never being punished, while some perfectly ordinary actions were punished ludicrously heavily because the senior officer felt like it.
  #7  
Old 11-30-2007, 09:20 AM
Quercus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: temperate forest
Posts: 7,074
All I can say is, I'd much rather have a description of the original event by O'Brian than by Heinlein.
  #8  
Old 11-30-2007, 09:32 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan
It's entirely possible that he had written it before the case was resolved.

Several of RAH's books were written, and then languished for a while before they were picked up for publishing, due to an inconstant market.

I'll do a bit more research tonite and see what I can come up with.
As I recall, he wrote the book in 1958 as part of his being against the unilateral ending of nuclear testing by the US. Therefore, he wrote the book after the 1952 decision.

What I conjecture happened, is young Anson learned this very interesting piece of history while in the Naval Academy and had no clue about the obscure 1952 decision to overturn it. It is not like there was a wikipedia back then and the chances are neither he nor the editor bothered to fact check the case.

I would guess this was a minor news item and might be in an encyclopedia annual but not in any encyclopedia that Heinlein had.

Jim (I only learned this story from the book and I never bothered checking it, thanks Cal, interesting tidbit)
  #9  
Old 11-30-2007, 09:41 AM
silenus's Avatar
silenus is online now
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 51,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kendall Jackson
I disagree.

<snip>

Heinlein takes all that away with the altered story. If you're perceived as a fuck-up once, you'll be known as a fuck-up forever and ever amen. And that's just scary.
I disagree. The story was told to the "third LTs" as an object lesson. Saying "But eventually he was rehabilitated." lessens the impact tremendously.

Also, what Jim said.
  #10  
Old 11-30-2007, 09:56 AM
CalMeacham's Avatar
CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 43,928
Quote:
I disagree. The story was told to the "third LTs" as an object lesson. Saying "But eventually he was rehabilitated." lessens the impact tremendously.
Satying "But eventually he was rehabilitated", while technically true, givves entirely the wrong impression of realiity, though.

Saying "His descendants worked for twenty years to try to reverse the ruling a century later" conveys the facts without lessening the blow.




I'm pretty sure there are other cases of Heinlein fudging the truth to make a point, but I can't think of one right now.
  #11  
Old 11-30-2007, 10:03 AM
Finagle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Somewhere near Boston
Posts: 9,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalMeacham
So did Heinlein not know about this? (Seems unlikely) Forget about this? Or was he rewriting reality the way HE'D run it, if he were God?
Why unlikely? This was way before Google. If Heinlein had read the story about Cox in a history book but hadn't seen a newspaper article on the rehabilitation proclamation, it's unlikely he would have known about it.
  #12  
Old 11-30-2007, 10:23 AM
DanBlather is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Portland, O-bamagon
Posts: 7,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finagle
Why unlikely? This was way before Google. If Heinlein had read the story about Cox in a history book but hadn't seen a newspaper article on the rehabilitation proclamation, it's unlikely he would have known about it.
I wonder if a thousand years from now dates will be in the form of AG and BG?
  #13  
Old 11-30-2007, 10:43 AM
CalMeacham's Avatar
CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 43,928
Quote:
Why unlikely? This was way before Google. If Heinlein had read the story about Cox in a history book but hadn't seen a newspaper article on the rehabilitation proclamation, it's unlikely he would have known about it.
Because I get the impression that Heinlein kept in touch with what was going on his his old service (He was a Navy vet), and because that 1952 reversal was by no means a quiet correction. It was a presidential action, and was an interesting historical incident. It's hard to keep that quiet, and most people don't want to. The wiki article links to a contemporary Time magazine report on it. This would've made all the papers -- Heinlein couldn't have missed it.
  #14  
Old 11-30-2007, 10:57 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalMeacham
Because I get the impression that Heinlein kept in touch with what was going on his his old service (He was a Navy vet), and because that 1952 reversal was by no means a quiet correction. It was a presidential action, and was an interesting historical incident. It's hard to keep that quiet, and most people don't want to. The wiki article links to a contemporary Time magazine report on it. This would've made all the papers -- Heinlein couldn't have missed it.
I don't know if I buy that he could not miss it. We need our resident newspaper archivists attention drawn here now.

Jim
  #15  
Old 11-30-2007, 11:36 AM
RealityChuck's Avatar
RealityChuck is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 42,370
It's quite probable Heinlein missed it. News wasn't as ubiquitous as it is today. If Heinlein hadn't subscribed to Time when the article was printed, then there was a good chance he never would have seen it. Even if he subscribed, he may have skipped over the article.

Same for his newspaper. If it didn't cover the event, or if he just didn't see the article, then he wouldn't have known.

You're assuming Heinlein was living in 2007. In 1952, things were different, and people thought differently. The simplest explanation is that he happened to miss the article (easy to do when you only get one or two shots) and wrote the incident based what they taught him as a cadet.
__________________
"If a person saying he was something was all there was to it, this country'd be full of rich men and good-looking women. Too bad it isn't that easy.... In short, when someone else says you're a writer, that's when you're a writer... not before."
Purveyor of fine science fiction since 1982.
  #16  
Old 11-30-2007, 11:48 AM
CalMeacham's Avatar
CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 43,928
Quote:
You're assuming Heinlein was living in 2007.
Please don't assume that you know what I'm thinking. You don't




This was not as obscure an item as you folks are making it out to be, and it was right up Heinlein's alley of interest. I think he would've known of it. Certainly if I were making a prediction about the future (Heinlein said that "his family has been fighting for 150 years to reverse that decision", when 150 years had not yet passed), I'd want to do a quick check on my facts. One of Heinlein's trademarks was getting his facts straight. Be boasted about doing hours of orbital dynamics for a throwaway line in Space Cadet.

It's possible he missed this, but I'm not convinced.
  #17  
Old 11-30-2007, 11:57 AM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Isn't it obvious? Heinlein hated America.
  #18  
Old 11-30-2007, 12:47 PM
Darth Sensitive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A
Posts: 2,537
I'm rereading this book right now, and had wondered how real the story was.

But I took it as a moral story anyway. "You three, don't fuck it up. People will live and die by your decisions." Which is essentially what her repeats several times.


Side note: The scenes with him and his dad are dang touching. Crossing paths, then in the drop room. Wow.
  #19  
Old 11-30-2007, 12:59 PM
CalMeacham's Avatar
CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 43,928
I've got the book on audio, and have listened to it several times on my current long commute. You hear things that your eyes missed in previous readings. (I've got Stranger in a Strange Land on audio, too. Dang, I wish they'd release more classic SF on audio.)
  #20  
Old 11-30-2007, 01:52 PM
RealityChuck's Avatar
RealityChuck is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 42,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalMeacham
Please don't assume that you know what I'm thinking. You don't.
Yes, but I know what you're saying, and your words show your assumptions, just as mine show mine.

Quote:
This was not as obscure an item as you folks are making it out to be, and it was right up Heinlein's alley of interest. I think he would've known of it.
Cite? What evidence do you have that he did?

Quote:
Certainly if I were making a prediction about the future (Heinlein said that "his family has been fighting for 150 years to reverse that decision", when 150 years had not yet passed), I'd want to do a quick check on my facts.
On Wikipedia? A "quick check" in 1958" was not exactly quick -- it would require going to the library and researching indexes (without knowing what date to look for). Is is worth going through 15+ years of the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature or the New York Times Index for something as trivial as this? Especially something that would ruin the entire point of the story?

(By using the words "a quick check," you are proving my point: by using the phrase, you are assuming Heinlein had access to Wikipedia or the equivalent.)

Quote:
One of Heinlein's trademarks was getting his facts straight. Be boasted about doing hours of orbital dynamics for a throwaway line in Space Cadet.
But, at the same time, he gladly ignored the facts if they got in the way of the story. For instance, Heinlein wrote several stories set on Venus that were contradicted by known scientific facts of the time. So even if he was aware of this (and all there is as "proof" is your unsupported belief that "I think he would have known of it."), he might simply have chosen to ignore it, since it got in the way of a good story.

So, ultimately, all you have is your unsupported belief, and not a single fact.
  #21  
Old 11-30-2007, 01:58 PM
CalMeacham's Avatar
CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 43,928
Quote:
Yes, but I know what you're saying, and your words show your assumptions
No, they don't. I don't assume that he had anything like full internet access. Your assumption isimply wrong.

Quote:
By using the words "a quick check," you are proving my point: by using the phrase, you are assuming Heinlein had access to Wikipedia or the equivalent
It's not that difficult -- I grew up pre-internet and did all my research using libraries. It's not as ptrimitive as you think, and it would not have been that long a deal. But I've suggested that Heinlein probably would've heard of it when it happened, and he or his associates would probably have recalled it.



Quote:
Cite? What evidence do you have that he did?
Quote:
So, ultimately, all you have is your unsupported belief, and not a single fact.
yes, indeedy -- I'm ot trying to prove that Heinlein, in fact, knew this -- I'm giving my reasons for thinking that he did. This isn't an attempt to thrust out a belief and slap down anyone who dares disagree with me. I'm looking for what people think might be the cause. And if something seems less likely to me, I saty so, and say why.
  #22  
Old 11-30-2007, 02:52 PM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalMeacham
yes, indeedy -- I'm ot trying to prove that Heinlein, in fact, knew this -- I'm giving my reasons for thinking that he did. This isn't an attempt to thrust out a belief and slap down anyone who dares disagree with me. I'm looking for what people think might be the cause. And if something seems less likely to me, I saty so, and say why.
No, but you start with an assumption that is not yet in evidence. Your assumption is made on the basis of other assumptions that are also not particularly supported by evidence.

Ockham would offer you some advice, if you'd only do a quick check.
  #23  
Old 11-30-2007, 02:56 PM
CalMeacham's Avatar
CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 43,928
Quote:
No, but you start with an assumption that is not yet in evidence. Your assumption is made on the basis of other assumptions that are also not particularly supported by evidence.
What's the assumption? I asked why Heinlein did this -- that makes no assumptions.

I told you something of wh9ch way muy feelings lie. That makes assumptions, which I state (and which aren't what Reality thinks they are), but none of that affects the question I ask in the OP.
  #24  
Old 11-30-2007, 03:25 PM
Terrifel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The left side of the door
Posts: 5,397
I expect that Heinlein didn't know about the reversed conviction, for the simple reason that if he had, the Colonel would have gone on for another half-page about how the reversal of Cox's conviction 140-plus years later was a clear harbinger of the decay that led to their civilization's downfall, etc., etc.
  #25  
Old 11-30-2007, 04:10 PM
Gorsnak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saskaboom
Posts: 9,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanBlather
I wonder if a thousand years from now dates will be in the form of AG and BG?
Surely it should be GE and BGE, to avoid offending the devotees of other search engines!
  #26  
Old 11-30-2007, 04:48 PM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,374
What was the moral the commander was supposed to be conveying? Don't leave your station for any reason or something?
  #27  
Old 11-30-2007, 05:02 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,373
That even if you make the best decisions possible with the best intentions possible, you can still screw up in totally unforseen and unforseeable ways...and you still will be held responsible for those decisions, regardless of how unforseeable the bad consequences might have been.

Of course, the more realistic scenario is that you get yourself and your men killed because you made a correct decision based on the best possible information, yet because of unforseen circumstance X, you're still all dead. But because these MI officer candidates (and the reader along with them) arre pretty much desensitized to the idea that people die due to random shit during war, hitting them with the notion that their honor could be besmirched due to random shit during the war is even more frightening than the possibility of death.
  #28  
Old 11-30-2007, 08:00 PM
E-Sabbath is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Up The River
Posts: 13,944
It's entirely possible Heinlein knew it. He just felt the character either wouldn't, or the character felt the story was better the way it was.

Starship Troopers is an interestingly subversive book. Try to figure out what's going on from the perspective of the other characters, rather than through the barely-adult main character. It becomes a lot more interesting.
  #29  
Old 12-01-2007, 02:07 PM
Lust4Life is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: perfidious albion
Posts: 6,422
Alternative time line perhaps?
  #30  
Old 12-01-2007, 09:32 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Sabbath
It's entirely possible Heinlein knew it. He just felt the character either wouldn't, or the character felt the story was better the way it was.
Y'know, I was thinking the same thing going through this thread... what if RH is portraying the sort of a character who believes in "don't let the facts get in the way of the point"?
  #31  
Old 12-01-2007, 11:38 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 82,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious
Y'know, I was thinking the same thing going through this thread... what if RH is portraying the sort of a character who believes in "don't let the facts get in the way of the point"?
I guess that's how I took it (and I hadn't known of Truman's decision until I read this thread - thanks, CalMeacham!). Remember that the Earth government of Starship Troopers is much more militaristic/harsh than contemporary American society (yes, even since 9-11), with voting restricted to veterans, public floggings, etc., and if the Cox story scared some young officers into being particularly committed to doing their duty, then so much the better, by their CO's lights. (Cox served aboard the USS Chesapeake, not her adversary the HMS Shannon, BTW).

"Don't Give Up the Ship!"
  #32  
Old 12-01-2007, 11:44 PM
Tuckerfan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Gallatin, TN
Posts: 21,676
It's highly likely that Heinlein did know it. Heinlein was a voracious reader and read several newspapers a day, as well as a regular subscriber to numerous scientific journals (later on in life, Heinlein went back to college [at age 60, IIRC] to bone up one the new developments in physics). Also, in Expanded Universe, Heinlein rails against Time magazine at least once (saying that they never could get a story straight). So I don't think that he would have missed it.

We are talking about a man who got bounced out of the Navy on a medical discharge, but kept as close as he could to the Navy. He worked, as a civilian, for the Navy during WWII, and not once spoke of the classified projects he was involved with. And now, that I think about it, one of Heinlein's brothers made admiral and Heinlein mentioned this when he was given a Grand Master Award, so the odds of him not knowing it, are, IMHO, nil.

As to why he presented it wrongly, well, even Heinlein admitted that sometimes fiction made a better story than the truth.

Anyone wanting as definative an answer to the matter as can be had without asking ol' Bob, could probably find it here.
__________________
***Don't ask me, I don't post here any more, and I'm probably not even reading this now.***
  #33  
Old 12-02-2007, 09:45 PM
Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: is french for rental
Posts: 5,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalMeacham
... awfuklness ...
This is my new favourite typo.

Carry on.
  #34  
Old 12-02-2007, 10:07 PM
asterion is offline
Just Some Guy
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 11,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalMeacham
I've got the book on audio, and have listened to it several times on my current long commute. You hear things that your eyes missed in previous readings. (I've got Stranger in a Strange Land on audio, too. Dang, I wish they'd release more classic SF on audio.)
Have you tried Audible? Great if you have an Audible-compatible MP3 player (which is most of them but especially the iPod) as it's just one or two or three files for an entire book instead of like 15 CDs. Pretty good classic sci-fi selection too.
  #35  
Old 03-28-2008, 10:30 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 82,785
Pardon the zombie thread....

Just read an interesting article in the August 2007 issue of Naval History magazine, Robert E. Cray Jr.'s "Explaining Defeat: The Loss of the USS Chesapeake," which mentions the Cox controversy in passing. Doesn't mention his 1952 vindication, though.

There were several other Navy disciplinary actions after the battle, according to the article. A midshipman was dismissed for drunkenness, an acting midshipman was reprimanded for "assuming an alias to win parole from the British," a seaman lost his wages for gross misconduct, and "a black bugler... was sentenced to 300 lashes plus loss of pay for cowardice, for failing to blow his bugle at a crucial moment. President James Madison mitigated the penalty to 100 lashes."
  #36  
Old 03-28-2008, 06:33 PM
Tristan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: leaffan for president!
Posts: 5,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir
I guess that's how I took it (and I hadn't known of Truman's decision until I read this thread - thanks, CalMeacham!). Remember that the Earth government of Starship Troopers is much more militaristic/harsh than contemporary American society (yes, even since 9-11), with voting restricted to veterans, public floggings, etc., and if the Cox story scared some young officers into being particularly committed to doing their duty, then so much the better, by their CO's lights. (Cox served aboard the USS Chesapeake, not her adversary the HMS Shannon, BTW).

"Don't Give Up the Ship!"
I don't necessarily know if it was militaristic. A stratified society, yes, wherein the franchise needed to be earned by civil service (not always military duty, but the story was about a soldier, and thus focused on that).

Rico's parents were wealthy (despite not being citizens) and in fact were unhappy about his decision to join up. It appears the only rights a citizen has beyond the norm would be the right to vote and hold public office (plus a few jobs, such as police, which fits the mold there).

Harsh, yes, but I seemto recall a comment made that crime and such were MUCH lower beacuse of it.
  #37  
Old 03-28-2008, 07:57 PM
mlees is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 7,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan
I don't necessarily know if it was militaristic. A stratified society, yes, wherein the franchise needed to be earned by civil service (not always military duty, but the story was about a soldier, and thus focused on that).

Rico's parents were wealthy (despite not being citizens) and in fact were unhappy about his decision to join up. It appears the only rights a citizen has beyond the norm would be the right to vote and hold public office (plus a few jobs, such as police, which fits the mold there).

Harsh, yes, but I seemto recall a comment made that crime and such were MUCH lower beacuse of it.
Pardon me for being dense, but did Heinlein explain how losing the right to vote greatly reduced crime? (I haven't read the book in over 30 years.)
  #38  
Old 03-28-2008, 09:03 PM
Zakalwe's Avatar
Zakalwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlees
Pardon me for being dense, but did Heinlein explain how losing the right to vote greatly reduced crime? (I haven't read the book in over 30 years.)
It didn't. The incredibly harsh punishments meted out for even minor infractions reduced crime. Mostly by eliminating criminals.
  #39  
Old 03-28-2008, 09:19 PM
mlees is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 7,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zakalwe
It didn't. The incredibly harsh punishments meted out for even minor infractions reduced crime. Mostly by eliminating criminals.
Ah. Thanks!
  #40  
Old 03-28-2008, 11:10 PM
OttoDaFe's Avatar
OttoDaFe is online now
Sluice Gate Tender, FCD #3
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 2,665
At the risk of sounding like I disagree with Zakalwe's analysis, it was just a tad more involved than that. My recollection is that the culture had developed a morality that was rooted in philosophy rather than theology (hence the high-school level course called "History and Moral Philosophy" which Juan is taking at the beginning of the book a course which must be taught by a veteran). Rather than being based on the edicts of an invisible being, it started with an individual's self-interest and worked its way up through the duties owed to one's family, friends, community, and society. As such, it could be taught much more effectively, and produced citizens (and legal residents such as Juan's parents) who were much more aware of what they owed to those around them and were therefore much less inclined toward crime.

And for those who simply couldn't absorb the message, there remained twenty lashes in the public square, as well as the "short drop and quick stop."
  #41  
Old 03-29-2008, 10:24 AM
Richard Pearse is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 10,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir
Pardon the zombie thread....
You're loving the reinstatement of the search function aren't you?
  #42  
Old 03-29-2008, 12:00 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 82,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1920s Style "Death Ray"
You're loving the reinstatement of the search function aren't you?
Like a fish loves the water, baby.
  #43  
Old 03-29-2008, 08:41 PM
Darth Nader is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Deep blue Tejas
Posts: 3,167
Heinlein wrote a story before WW2, "If this goes on..." that contained almost exactly the same sort of battlefield assumption of command that Cox (unknowingly) went through. Sounds like the sort of tale that all naval cadets would have learned by heart.
  #44  
Old 03-30-2008, 07:29 AM
Lust4Life is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: perfidious albion
Posts: 6,422
In the British forces of that time, though I dont know if it was the rule in other armed forces going below decks when in action was considered cowardice and a marine sentry was posted to prevent this happening.
The only people allowed below were the "Powder monkeys",kids who resupplied the guns with powder etc and who had to show an empty container.

Likewise I recall reading somewhere though I dont have a cite that a Brit commanding officer (I think in the Crimean war) as he led his infantry forward said words to the effect that if your mate is wounded keep going forward dont drop out to take him to the rear.

So it was pretty much considered a strategem by the majority to get out of danger.
Slightly OT but relevant I think.
  #45  
Old 03-30-2008, 09:26 AM
chrisk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Southern ontario
Posts: 6,588
Not rereading the thread because I don't want to get freshly spoiled at all, just commenting on how interesting it is that this popped up again while I'm listening to the unabridged reading of ST from audible.com
  #46  
Old 03-30-2008, 02:43 PM
Skald the Rhymer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 27,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Nader
Heinlein wrote a story before WW2, "If this goes on..." that contained almost exactly the same sort of battlefield assumption of command that Cox (unknowingly) went through. Sounds like the sort of tale that all naval cadets would have learned by heart.

John Lyle's taking of command in "If This Goes On" wasn't legal, though; it was usurpation and probably mutinous, as he himself notes in his narration. He decides, correctly, that if he follows the chain of command, he will set in motion a chain of events that will lead to his side losing the battle.
  #47  
Old 03-30-2008, 03:31 PM
Bookkeeper's Avatar
Bookkeeper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ottawa, Canuckistan
Posts: 2,767
It's also possible that it all fits the ST storyline for the minor information of the reinstatement to be forgotten in the post-war turmoil and other troubles of the 100-odd years between 1952 and the present time of the book, while the main story was remembered because of its message.
  #48  
Old 03-30-2008, 03:32 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus is online now
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 51,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lust4Life
Likewise I recall reading somewhere though I dont have a cite that a Brit commanding officer (I think in the Crimean war) as he led his infantry forward said words to the effect that if your mate is wounded keep going forward dont drop out to take him to the rear.
Kipling said it best:

When first under fire an' you're wishful to duck,
Don't look nor take 'eed at the man that is struck,
Be thankful you're livin', and trust to your luck
And march to your front like a soldier.
  #49  
Old 03-31-2008, 12:03 AM
Billdo's Avatar
Billdo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Delectable City of Gotham
Posts: 4,930
My objection to the Heinlein anecdote is that a Third Lieutenant on a frigate in the age of sail is a very, very different rank from the land forces temporary Third Lieutenant commissions the cadets were getting.

A naval frigate at that time would have been commanded by a Post Captain, a rank equivalent to today's Captain in the navy. His junior commissioned officers would be Lieutenants, but each Lieutenant would be designated by an ordinal number identifying his relative position, with the First Lieutenant being senior, the Second Lieutenant being next, going down the line, with ships of the line having Sixth or more Lieutenants.

As such, Cox was the fourth-ranking officer of the ship, and it would not be extraordinary for the three senior officers aboard a ship to be incapacitated in a naval battle of the time. Further, the Chesapeake was one of the top U.S. warships of the time, and an equivalent billet in today's navy would probably be filled by a Lieutenant Commander, or at the very least, a "full" Lieutenant -- the equivalent of an army Captain.

Moreover, at the time, there were substantial numbers of Midshipman aboard ships, who were not commissioned but had full rank, status and command authority over the enlisted crew. The Midshipmen served as junior officers, more or less like the ranks of Ensign and Lieutenant (J.G.) today. If Midshipmen successfully completed years at sea along with other requirements, they would be commissioned as full Lieutenants.

Thus, the story of command devolving on a Third Lieutenant is not one of ranks of officers being wiped so that command fell upon a junior officer just out of training, but rather the fourth in command of a substantial warship leaving his assigned post in the middle of a battle when he knew the captain was incapacitated and did not know the status of his two senior officers.
  #50  
Old 05-15-2019, 09:34 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 82,785
Bumped.

Just finished The Fortune of War (1979), part of Patrick O'Brian's masterful series of Napoleonic naval adventures, and it includes a lightly-fictionalized version of the battle between the Chesapeake and the Shannon. No reference to Lt. Cox, though.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017