No, they don’t. I don’t assume that he had anything like full internet access. Your assumption isimply wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
