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
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.
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…
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
Argh!! Damn you people for typing so fast and stealing all my points 
. I agree fully with the last several posters.
- Tamerlane
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.
Tamerlane, you’ve just got to get Captain Keyboard’s Typing Tutor™
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.
Half of SFWA, tclouie.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.