Troll voterigging in moderation elections?
William December Starr
In article <1entg9n.900lkc11kwq9oN%ski...@greenend.org.uk>,
ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) said:
>>> Ah, 'Starship Troopers'. A very important novel, because it let sf
>>> fandom know once and for all that their guiding light, Robert A
>>> Heinlein, had finally gone completely and utterly bonkers.
>>> [Steven Kitson]
>>
>> Completely and utterly bonkers because he wrote a novel which was set
>> in a future society that had somewhat different rules than did his
>> and his readers' society? Um, okay... [wdstarr]
>
> No; because he portrayed a faschistic military-based society as a Good
> Thing.
No he didn't. He didn't portray a fascistic military-based society at
all. He did portray a military-based society within the military, but I
find that somewhat forgivable.
> The film makes this point beautifully.
The film, as I understand it, is not very faithful to the novel. Citing
events in the film as evidence pertaining to the novel, therefore, seems
an exercise in futility.
> Heinlein's future is not a nice place, but he seems to think it's a
> good society: witness his reproducing verbatim civics lessons where
> his point of view is argued at great length. Oh, and of course the
> way in which every character comes to realise that actually only
> giving the vote to those who have served in the military is the way
> things should be, like the main character's father.
>
> Heinlein by the end of his life was a raving right-wing looney.
And your evidence for this is...? (Incidentally: Publication of
_Starship Troopers_: 1959. Publication of _The Moon is a Harsh
Mistress_: 1966. Death of Robert Heinlein: 1988.)
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Dave Stone
> The film, as I understand it, is not very faithful to the novel. Citing
> events in the film as evidence pertaining to the novel, therefore, seems
> an exercise in futility.
The film, as I saw it, was about as faithful as a film can be to a
polemical novel with two and a half chapters of filmable *action*. Even
so, for right or wrong, a lot of the polemics make it onto the screen.
One thing both the film and the novel share spot-on is the central point
that Grant Morrison mentions as an aside in his very fine _Invisibles_,
which is that the War never ends. The point of ST - book and film - is
that a society which is not necessarily Fascist (which means an entirely
specific thing) but certainly harsh, draconian and brutally pragmatic,
needs a perpetual War going on somewhere or other to sustain it.
All in all, one could make a case for ST being one of *the* finest movie
adaptations of an SF book (name a point-to-point *adaptation* that's
better; something like _Blade Runner_ or _2001_ doesn't count) despite
or even because of it's politically problematical nature. At the very
least, the movie deserves more consideration than the facile level of
whether they could get the monkey-suits to work or not.
--
Take care. Have fun. Bring your own Banjo.
http://www.sgloomi.demon.co.uk
Buy the FREE THE FATAL FIVE shirt from:
http://www.cafepress.com/sgloomi/
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> All in all, one could make a case for ST being one of *the*
> finest movie adaptations of an SF book (name a point-to-point
> *adaptation* that's better; something like _Blade Runner_ or
> _2001_ doesn't count) despite or even because of it's
> politically problematical nature.
I'm one of the rare individuals who loves the film version, but I don't
think it's fair to call it a faithful adaptation -- what it really is is
a satire of Heinlein's story.
> At the very least, the movie deserves more consideration than
> the facile level of whether they could get the monkey-suits to
> work or not.
While there are a few too many complaints about the missing power armor,
I think most people who criticize the film do so because they feel --
correctly, IMHO -- that Verhoeven subverts and in some ways mocks
Heinlein's earnestly pro-military story. Not that that's any surprise,
given that Verhoeven grew up in Nazi-occupied Holland. But I think most
ST fans wanted the film version that John Milius would have done; for
myself, I think there's still room for a Tom Hanks version.
-- M. Ruff
James C. Ellis
>
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > The film, as I understand it, is not very faithful to the novel.
> > Citing events in the film as evidence pertaining to the novel,
> > therefore, seems an exercise in futility.
>
> The film, as I saw it, was about as faithful as a film can be to a
> polemical novel with two and a half chapters of filmable *action*.
> Even so, for right or wrong, a lot of the polemics make it onto the
> screen.
You're trolling right? Not only did none of the "filmable *action*"
make it on-screen, but the polemics that were presented were twisted 180
degrees from that in the book.
> All in all, one could make a case for ST being one of *the* finest
> movie adaptations of an SF book (name a point-to-point *adaptation*
> that's better; something like _Blade Runner_ or _2001_ doesn't count)
> despite or even because of it's politically problematical nature.
Now I _know_ you're trolling. Or have never read the book. One of
the two.
Biff
--
Temporarily .sigless courtesy of Bill Gates
Walter R. Strapps
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold wrote:
> Dave Stone wrote:
> >
> > All in all, one could make a case for ST being one of *the*
> > finest movie adaptations of an SF book (name a point-to-point
> > *adaptation* that's better; something like _Blade Runner_ or
> > _2001_ doesn't count) despite or even because of it's
> > politically problematical nature.
>
> I'm one of the rare individuals who loves the film version, but I don't
> think it's fair to call it a faithful adaptation -- what it really is is
> a satire of Heinlein's story.
You mean Heinlein's story isn't a satire in it's own right? If it's not
Heinlein was a raving right-wing reactionary loony, IMHO.
Cheers,
Walter R. Strapps
tirion
and I love the film too.
Admitedly, it took the heart of the story (or Heinleins politics, whatever)
and twisted it around a drain pipe, but that's
why it's so cool!
Neill "Do you wanna live forever!!"
Jordan S. Bassior
>You mean Heinlein's story isn't a satire in it's own right? If it's not
>Heinlein was a raving right-wing reactionary loony, IMHO.
Why?
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
"To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On
the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too
late." (Churchill, 1934)
--
Jordan S. Bassior
>While there are a few too many complaints about the missing power armor,
>I think most people who criticize the film do so because they feel --
>correctly, IMHO -- that Verhoeven subverts and in some ways mocks
>Heinlein's earnestly pro-military story. Not that that's any surprise,
>given that Verhoeven grew up in Nazi-occupied Holland.
Does this mean that Verhoeven is sorry that the evil militaristic Allies
expelled the Germans by force? Or is he of the belief that America (with which
he probably identifies the Terran Federation) was "good" during World War II
and became "bad" when she chose to resist the poor peaceloving Communists?
Dave Stone
> Now I _know_ you're trolling. Or have never read the book. One of
> the two.
1) If your definition of 'trolling' encompasses leaving in WD Starr's
entirely relevant crosspost, then yeah, sure. And can I just take the
opportunity to say 'YOUR ALL DRWHO LUSERS AN SHOLD GET A LIFE'. Insert
smiley.
2) Having indeed read the book, I still say that the through-line
elements of story and polemic are in there, and far more so than any
similar adaptation I can name off the top of my head. I mentioned _Blade
Runner_ earlier, and the only elements retained there, of course, are
the basic idea of replicants and the Voight Kampf (sp?) test.
As to whether those elements are used *ironically*, that's another
question entirely. In the Heinlein original, the protagonist is a
patently unreliable narrator. The text, in context, being obviously the
sort of cleaned-up promotional matter that would have those in the world
of the story wanting to rush out and join the MI. Note how troopers on
leave go to what are basically tea-dances, for example, rather than the
sort of establishments off-duty squaddies are notoriously more likely to
frequent ...
It would be absurd to suggest that ST wasn't, at base, an outing for
Heinlein's pro-military sensibilities. What I'm saying is that the old
boy very carefuly left in room for interpretation other than the
completely and immediately obvious As such, the irony of the movie is at
the very least a valid if left-field reading.
Jordan S. Bassior
>One thing both the film and the novel share spot-on is the central point
>that Grant Morrison mentions as an aside in his very fine _Invisibles_,
>which is that the War never ends. The point of ST - book and film - is
>that a society which is not necessarily Fascist (which means an entirely
>specific thing) but certainly harsh, draconian and brutally pragmatic,
>needs a perpetual War going on somewhere or other to sustain it.
Except, of course, that the book makes clear that the Terran Federation is
normally at peace. Also, aside from the fact that the Federation has flogging
and capital punishment, we don't know that it's "harsh, draconian and brutally
prgagmatic" _in peacetime_.
>All in all, one could make a case for ST being one of *the* finest movie
>adaptations of an SF book (name a point-to-point *adaptation* that's
>better; something like _Blade Runner_ or _2001_ doesn't count) despite
>or even because of it's politically problematical nature.
Verhoeven deliberately subverted the message of the original book, which makes
it an _intentionally_ bad adaptation.
>At the very
>least, the movie deserves more consideration than the facile level of
>whether they could get the monkey-suits to work or not.
The powered armor was one of the main points of the book, and without it, most
of the action scenes made no sense. For that matter, why did Verhoeven depict
the soldiers using tactics which would have gotten them slaughtered on any
_real_ battlefield? He could afford millions of dollars for special effects --
if he wanted to have the soldiers use real-world as opposed to Heinlein's
tactics, didn't it occur to him to talk to someone who knew something about
real military tactics?
Bill Snyder
>Walter R. Strapps said:
>
>>You mean Heinlein's story isn't a satire in it's own right? If it's not
>>Heinlein was a raving right-wing reactionary loony, IMHO.
>
>Why?
Oh, gawd. _Must_ you encourage him?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Walter R. Strapps
Bill Snyder wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2001 18:39:28 GMT, jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
>
> >Walter R. Strapps said:
> >
> >>You mean Heinlein's story isn't a satire in it's own right? If it's not
> >>Heinlein was a raving right-wing reactionary loony, IMHO.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Oh, gawd. _Must_ you encourage him?
>
No, I won't encourage him, I have him my ignore file.
Cheers,
Walter R. Strapps
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>
>As to whether those elements are used *ironically*, that's another
>question entirely. In the Heinlein original, the protagonist is a
>patently unreliable narrator. The text, in context, being obviously the
>sort of cleaned-up promotional matter that would have those in the world
>of the story wanting to rush out and join the MI. Note how troopers on
>leave go to what are basically tea-dances, for example, rather than the
>sort of establishments off-duty squaddies are notoriously more likely to
>frequent ...
The pseudo-Victorianism is probably due to the fact that ST was written on
a contract for a yearly juvenile SF book. In _Grumbles From the Grave_
Heinlein refers several times to both self-censorship and editorial changes
on these books, designed to avoid upsetting the 'library ladies,' public
libraries apparently being a big market for Scribner's then.
>It would be absurd to suggest that ST wasn't, at base, an outing for
>Heinlein's pro-military sensibilities. What I'm saying is that the old
>boy very carefuly left in room for interpretation other than the
>completely and immediately obvious As such, the irony of the movie is at
>the very least a valid if left-field reading.
Unless you disbelieve RAH's own testimony in _Expanded Universe_, this is
just not a valid interpretation. (I personally think memory and/or
wishful thinking played him false on one or two specifics, notably the
'civil service' business, but that there's no reason to doubt his general
recollection of the intended thrust of the book.)
Jeff Walther
Dave Stone wrote:
>
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > The film, as I understand it, is not very faithful to the novel. Citing
> > events in the film as evidence pertaining to the novel, therefore, seems
> > an exercise in futility.
>
> The film, as I saw it, was about as faithful as a film can be to a
> polemical novel with two and a half chapters of filmable *action*. Even
> so, for right or wrong, a lot of the polemics make it onto the screen.
Have you READ the book???!! Or did you do like Verhoeven and just read
the blurb on the back?
Chris Rednour
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:40:04 +0000, da...@sgloomi.demon.co.uk (Dave Stone)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >As to whether those elements are used *ironically*, that's another
> >question entirely. In the Heinlein original, the protagonist is a
> >patently unreliable narrator. The text, in context, being obviously the
> >sort of cleaned-up promotional matter that would have those in the world
> >of the story wanting to rush out and join the MI. Note how troopers on
> >leave go to what are basically tea-dances, for example, rather than the
> >sort of establishments off-duty squaddies are notoriously more likely to
> >frequent ...
>
> The pseudo-Victorianism is probably due to the fact that ST was written on
> a contract for a yearly juvenile SF book. In _Grumbles From the Grave_
> Heinlein refers several times to both self-censorship and editorial changes
> on these books, designed to avoid upsetting the 'library ladies,' public
> libraries apparently being a big market for Scribner's then.
Which was fairly common [and probably still around...]
> >It would be absurd to suggest that ST wasn't, at base, an outing for
> >Heinlein's pro-military sensibilities. What I'm saying is that the old
> >boy very carefuly left in room for interpretation other than the
> >completely and immediately obvious As such, the irony of the movie is at
> >the very least a valid if left-field reading.
>
> Unless you disbelieve RAH's own testimony in _Expanded Universe_, this is
> just not a valid interpretation. (I personally think memory and/or
> wishful thinking played him false on one or two specifics, notably the
> 'civil service' business, but that there's no reason to doubt his general
> recollection of the intended thrust of the book.)
Ah, but his intended thrust doesn't really matter. While it may be
informative to read about, his intentions don't matter to what's actually
on the page; therefore both of your opinions are equally valid, Dave
Stone's from his point of view, and you from yours. That your opinion
reflects the authors stated intentions doesn't change the validity of
Dave's interpretation.
-Chris Rednour
_________________________________________________________________
Dave Stone
> Have you READ the book???!! Or did you do like Verhoeven and just read
> the blurb on the back?
I've said overtly that I've read it. See subthread above.
(Incidentally: posting a comparison between book and movie might just
tend to imply that one has read the book in any case. Just a small and
friendly hint as opposed to a clue with a capital C. Appropriate
emoticon.)
Dave Stone
(This is slightly weird, participating in a disjointed discussion on two
groups, both of which I'm on, but some of the subthreads of which aren't
talking to each other. Twice the work and half the fun. Oh well ...)
> Except, of course, that the book makes clear that the Terran Federation is
> normally at peace. Also, aside from the fact that the Federation has flogging
> and capital punishment, we don't know that it's "harsh, draconian and brutally
> prgagmatic" _in peacetime_.
Possibly you don't think that the blanket acceptance of flogging and
capital punishment, and corporal punishment for kids, isn't at best
pragmatically draconian and at worst barbarity. (I'll possibly give you
the 'brutally pragmatic'.) Let's just say that some people get a squick
out of the idea, and some cultures have more of that type of person than
others.
> Verhoeven deliberately subverted the message of the original book, which makes
> it an _intentionally_ bad adaptation.
I just don't think he *subverted* it. See my reasons for thinking so on
some other subthread.
> He could afford millions of dollars for special effects --
> if he wanted to have the soldiers use real-world as opposed to Heinlein's
> tactics, didn't it occur to him to talk to someone who knew something about
> real military tactics?
Might as well ask why shit-hot, cutting-edge Hollywood computer systems
still tend to have readouts red-and-whited-out on black ...
'Coming soon, the adventures of an elite Camoflage Unit who sneak up on
the enemy unobserved - just like it happens in real life!!!' (90 minutes
of on-screen leafy countryside, unchanged except for the occasional
leafy rustle.)
Dave Stone
> The pseudo-Victorianism is probably due to the fact that ST was written on
> a contract for a yearly juvenile SF book. In _Grumbles From the Grave_
> Heinlein refers several times to both self-censorship and editorial changes
> on these books, designed to avoid upsetting the 'library ladies,' public
> libraries apparently being a big market for Scribner's then.
This is what writerly-types call making a virtue out of a limitation.
If I can say something personal without it coming across as touting
(what the hell, most people reading this know me anyway) I once did
something for a shared-world in comics where, because it was comics, you
couldn't say 'fuck' and had to have the guy saying 'drokk'.
The fun we had, not to put too fine a point on it, playing with the
constructions so that anyone who knew, knew precisely what we were
talking about. 'I drokk, you drokk, he's a drokker' etc.
In the 'tea-room' stuff I was talking about earlier, it's quite clear
that Heinlein was doing something similar - as he did in Space Cadet
(was it?) where there's a space-station sequence that can very easily be
read as an encounter with a prostitute.
If he hadn't made the ST reading to be clear, I'm sure it wouldn't have
been so pointedly easy to read that interpretation.
> Unless you disbelieve RAH's own testimony in _Expanded Universe_ ...
On which I can't comment, seeing as I'm not supposed to have read it.
Publishing it exclusively in the US of A, though, tends to leave us
Urpeeans with the disquietening idea that someone's talking behind our
backs ...
Del Cotter
>[ originated in rec.arts.drwho, x-posted to rasfw for obvious reasons ]
Goodness me yes, let's have another "Starship Troopers is fascist"
thread, and this time make it one that's *crossposted to another group*.
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:ptureTheCastle:LarryNiven&JerryPournelleTheBurningCity:StevenB
rustJhereg:HomerHHickhamRocketBoys:GKChestertonTheNapoleonofNottingHill
ToRead:NealStephensonCryptonomicon:RudyardKiplingCaptainsCourageous:Art
Dorothy J Heydt
Dave Stone <da...@sgloomi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Unless you disbelieve RAH's own testimony in _Expanded Universe_ ...
>
>On which I can't comment, seeing as I'm not supposed to have read it.
>Publishing it exclusively in the US of A, though, tends to leave us
>Urpeeans with the disquietening idea that someone's talking behind our
>backs ...
Well, perhaps. But not *about* you.
The idea was that he was going to go on about what was wrong with
the US (which he did to tiresome length) and didn't care to air
the family's dirty laundry in front of the neighbors.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Jordan S. Bassior
>Possibly you don't think that the blanket acceptance of flogging and
>capital punishment, and corporal punishment for kids, isn't at best
>pragmatically draconian and at worst barbarity.
No, I don't think it's "pragmatically draconian". Flogging doesn't strike me as
being as bad as what we _really_ do to minor criminals, which is to put them in
a prison environment where the weaker ones are severely victimized, including
beatings, robberies, rapes, and murders, by the stronger criminals.
Both "capital punishment" and "corporal punishment for kids" were widely,
indeed almost unanimously, accepted in America _at the time that Heinlein wrote
the book_. There was almost _no_ opposition against these two practices during
Heinlein's formative years. You're basically asking Heinlein to, in the early
60's, have anticipated the moral currents of the early 21st century, and to
have written his book to assuage our modern prejudices.
>Let's just say that some people get a squick
>out of the idea, and some cultures have more of that type of person than
others.
I'm personally _terribly_ "squicked" by the condition of our real-world prison
system. I'd much rather be flogged than sent to prison the way prisons are run
today.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Ah, but his intended thrust doesn't really matter. While it may be
>informative to read about, his intentions don't matter to what's actually
>on the page; therefore both of your opinions are equally valid,
LOL!!
Deconstructionist babble! OBVIOUSLY the author's own intent should count
heavily in any analysis of the work. If not, you're just playing word games,
not really trying to comprehend the author's message.
Jordan S. Bassior
>> On 26 Jan 2001 18:39:28 GMT, jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
>>
>> >Walter R. Strapps said:
>> >
>> >>You mean Heinlein's story isn't a satire in it's own right? If it's not
>> >>Heinlein was a raving right-wing reactionary loony, IMHO.
>> >
>> >Why?
>>
>> Oh, gawd. _Must_ you encourage him?
>
>No, I won't encourage him, I have him my ignore file.
Translation: "I have no reason for what I said, but this way I can make it look
like I'm too superior to have to defend my position."
Thank you for your gracious concession of defeat. I trust that we won't hear
any more nonsense about Starship Troopers from you, then?
Walter R. Strapps
Dave Stone wrote:
> Jordan S. Bassior <jsba...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> (This is slightly weird, participating in a disjointed discussion on two
> groups, both of which I'm on, but some of the subthreads of which aren't
> talking to each other. Twice the work and half the fun. Oh well ...)
>
> > Except, of course, that the book makes clear that the Terran Federation is
> > normally at peace. Also, aside from the fact that the Federation has flogging
> > and capital punishment, we don't know that it's "harsh, draconian and brutally
> > prgagmatic" _in peacetime_.
>
> Possibly you don't think that the blanket acceptance of flogging and
> capital punishment, and corporal punishment for kids, isn't at best
> pragmatically draconian and at worst barbarity. (I'll possibly give you
> the 'brutally pragmatic'.) Let's just say that some people get a squick
> out of the idea, and some cultures have more of that type of person than
> others.
>
You are now learning why the word 'Bassiorverse' exists... Save the energy you use
responding to search deja.com. Try the word 'Palestinian' along with his name...
Cheers,
Walter R. Strapps
Nancy Lebovitz
>
>>Possibly you don't think that the blanket acceptance of flogging and
>>capital punishment, and corporal punishment for kids, isn't at best
>>pragmatically draconian and at worst barbarity.
>
>No, I don't think it's "pragmatically draconian". Flogging doesn't strike me as
>being as bad as what we _really_ do to minor criminals, which is to put them in
>a prison environment where the weaker ones are severely victimized, including
>beatings, robberies, rapes, and murders, by the stronger criminals.
And if the prisoner doesn't have a pretty good support system, even
a sentence of moderate length can lead to them losing their job,
home, marriage, and/or custody of their children.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Pete McCutchen
<Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>While there are a few too many complaints about the missing power armor,
>I think most people who criticize the film do so because they feel --
>correctly, IMHO -- that Verhoeven subverts and in some ways mocks
>Heinlein's earnestly pro-military story. Not that that's any surprise,
>given that Verhoeven grew up in Nazi-occupied Holland.
Why would one who grew up in Nazi-occupied Holland necessarily hate
the military? Might such a person _like_ the US, British, Canadian
and Russian military? After all, it was the military that freed
Holland.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<wr...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>> I'm one of the rare individuals who loves the film version, but I don't
>> think it's fair to call it a faithful adaptation -- what it really is is
>> a satire of Heinlein's story.
>
>You mean Heinlein's story isn't a satire in it's own right? If it's not
>Heinlein was a raving right-wing reactionary loony, IMHO.
Well, gee, Walt, you're living proof that the admissions committee at
Columbia is really on the ball. I mean, to be able to formulate such
an argument -- you're obviously a genius.
Or are you on the faculty? I'd give you a doctorate for this post
alone.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>Deconstructionist babble! OBVIOUSLY the author's own intent should count
>heavily in any analysis of the work. If not, you're just playing word games,
>not really trying to comprehend the author's message.
It's not "deconstructionist babble" to say that an author's reading of
a text might not be privileged under certain circumstances. The
author knows what he meant to say, but a disinterested reader might
have a better handle on what is actually there, on paper. I have no
problem at all with saying that an author might be wrong about what he
wrote.
--
Pete McCutchen
Walter R. Strapps
Pete McCutchen wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:05:22 -0500, "Walter R. Strapps"
> <wr...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> >> I'm one of the rare individuals who loves the film version, but I don't
> >> think it's fair to call it a faithful adaptation -- what it really is is
> >> a satire of Heinlein's story.
> >
> >You mean Heinlein's story isn't a satire in it's own right? If it's not
> >Heinlein was a raving right-wing reactionary loony, IMHO.
>
> Well, gee, Walt, you're living proof that the admissions committee at
> Columbia is really on the ball. I mean, to be able to formulate such
> an argument -- you're obviously a genius.
Gee, Pete, you're obviously much smarter than me to be able to tell me that my
OPINION is wrong. You must be very intelligent indeed. I bow to your superior
opinions about Heinlein. I mean, how could I POSSIBLY hold an opinion that
differs from yours based on my own reading and life experience. Good God, what
was I thinking? Thank God people like you are around to tell lowly people like
me what the correct things to believe are.
>
> Or are you on the faculty? I'd give you a doctorate for this post
> alone.
I'd give you a position on a Ministry of Propoganda simply for feeling that
your opinion is so much more relevant than that of others. Oh, and welcome to
my ignore file.
Cheers,
Walter R. Strapps
>
> --
>
> Pete McCutchen
Jason Bontrager
>
> Both "capital punishment" and "corporal punishment for kids" were widely,
> indeed almost unanimously, accepted in America _at the time that Heinlein wrote
> the book_. There was almost _no_ opposition against these two practices during
> Heinlein's formative years. You're basically asking Heinlein to, in the early
> 60's, have anticipated the moral currents of the early 21st century, and to
> have written his book to assuage our modern prejudices.
The most amusing part of the above is that Heinlein *did* accurately
predict the "moral currents" of the late 20th century. Consider
Dubois' lecture on the concept of an inherent "moral sense" and
his description of the wild packs of children roaming parks at
night and robbing/raping/killing innocent victims. Now consider
the current concern with gangs and the "wilding" packs of the
80's. I always have to remind myself that Heinlein was writing
about these things *before* they became commonplace whenever I
re-read his discussion of "juvenile delinquents". Food for thought.
Jason B.
--
Please respond to the group if you must respond at all. I will no
longer be replying to personal emails from Usenet posters.
Bill Snyder
Yes, but . . . the original point seems to have mutated as I watched. I
understood Dave Stone's opinion to be that Heinlein had _deliberately_
inserted a subtext that subverts the surface reading of ST. The "we all
have to go by what's on the printed page, not what the author intended to
write" line came along later. The author's stated intent -- unless you
simply disbelieve him -- contradicts the former argument. (Obviously,
there's not much you can do with the latter one except mutter "YMMV.")
Dave Stone
> Jordan S. Bassior <jsba...@aol.com> wrote:
> >No, I don't think it's "pragmatically draconian". Flogging doesn't strike
> >me as being as bad as what we _really_ do to minor criminals, which is to
> >put them in a prison environment where the weaker ones are severely
> >victimized, including beatings, robberies, rapes, and murders, by the
> >stronger criminals.
>
> And if the prisoner doesn't have a pretty good support system, even
> a sentence of moderate length can lead to them losing their job,
> home, marriage, and/or custody of their children.
Without wishing to fan the flames of anything, a couple of random
thoughts:
1) Flogging. People tend to think of it as Billy Budd having the stripes
on his back treated with salt. In historical truth, flogging flayed the
kidneys and other applicable organs out of the back in a bloody, gory
mess. It was a death-sentence, and a particularly grisly one at that,
plain and simple. Just like caning in Singapore sounds like a bit of a
larf - until you see the guidance-racks that direct the blows, and what
that does to human flesh.
2) Custodial sentences. Chris Morris (a Brit TV prankster) almost sold a
couple of politicians on the idea that if you simply *give*
poverty-related criminals half of what it would cost to imprison them
(tens of thousands of dollarponds per year) on the condition that they
don't do it again, it would all work out best for everybody. Of course,
it wouldn't exactly punish them, and nobody would get any Revenge out of
it - thing is, overall, it would probably *work* ...
Jason Bontrager
>
> Without wishing to fan the flames of anything, a couple of random
> thoughts:
>
> 1) Flogging. People tend to think of it as Billy Budd having the stripes
> on his back treated with salt. In historical truth, flogging flayed the
> kidneys and other applicable organs out of the back in a bloody, gory
> mess. It was a death-sentence, and a particularly grisly one at that,
> plain and simple. Just like caning in Singapore sounds like a bit of a
> larf - until you see the guidance-racks that direct the blows, and what
> that does to human flesh.
Yes, but...That's not the degree of flogging (or caning) that
would be used nowadays if the punishment were still being used.
At least not in the U.S. (legally anyway). The idea here is
to punish someone in a way such that they will be painfully
aware of the consequences of commiting their crime, but not
to kill or maim them for a relatively minor offense, and
especially not to visit upon them the indignities and
terrors of imprisonment. Theoretically it'd be much cheaper
too.
> 2) Custodial sentences. Chris Morris (a Brit TV prankster) almost sold a
> couple of politicians on the idea that if you simply *give*
> poverty-related criminals half of what it would cost to imprison them
> (tens of thousands of dollarponds per year) on the condition that they
> don't do it again, it would all work out best for everybody. Of course,
> it wouldn't exactly punish them, and nobody would get any Revenge out of
> it - thing is, overall, it would probably *work* ...
It would only work if by "work" you mean create an incentive for
people to start committing crimes right and left in order to get
a free handout from the gov't. Judicial punishment isn't about
"Revenge", it's about trying to pound into some brainless git's
head that if he hurts others or robs them he's going to suffer
for it and therefore shouldn't do it. Morris' idea amount to
rewarding criminal behavior! Talk about your perverse incentives.
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> Matt Ruff said:
>
>> While there are a few too many complaints about the missing
>> power armor, I think most people who criticize the film do so
>> because they feel -- correctly, IMHO -- that Verhoeven subverts
>> and in some ways mocks Heinlein's earnestly pro-military story.
>> Not that that's any surprise, given that Verhoeven grew up in
>> Nazi-occupied Holland.
>
> militaristic Allies expelled the Germans by force?
> Or is he of the belief that America (with which he probably
> identifies the Terran Federation) was "good" during World War II
> and became "bad" when she chose to resist the poor peaceloving
> Communists?
What the hell are you talking about?
-- M. Ruff
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> Why would one who grew up in Nazi-occupied Holland necessarily
> hate the military?
You wouldn't, necessarily. But I have a feeling it would give you issues
with pro-military propaganda. Didn't you notice how some of the shots in
ST look like outtakes from "Triumph of the Will"?
-- M. Ruff
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> Verhoeven deliberately subverted the message of the original
> book, which makes it an _intentionally_ bad adaptation.
Well, no, it makes it an intentionally *subversive* adaptation.
> The powered armor was one of the main points of the book,
But it's still just a cool bit of business, not really essential to
Heinlein's larger message.
> For that matter, why did Verhoeven depict the soldiers using
> tactics which would have gotten them slaughtered on any _real_
> battlefield?
Because he wasn't interested in making a realistic war movie. It's meant
to be somewhat campy.
-- M. Ruff
Anton Sherwood
: > 2) Custodial sentences. Chris Morris (a Brit TV prankster) almost
: > sold a couple of politicians on the idea that if you simply *give*
: > poverty-related criminals half of what it would cost to imprison
: > them (tens of thousands of dollarponds per year) on the condition
: > that they don't do it again, it would all work out best for everybody.
: > Of course, it wouldn't exactly punish them, and nobody would get any
: > Revenge out of it - thing is, overall, it would probably *work* ...
Jason Bontrager <jas...@gslis.utexas.edu> writes
: It would only work if by "work" you mean create an incentive for
: people to start committing crimes right and left in order to get
: a free handout from the gov't. . . .
Has the movie been done already?
--
Anton Sherwood -- br0...@p0b0x.com -- http://ogre.nu/
LPPCQ Snarky
>Dave Stone wrote:
>
>>> Unless you disbelieve RAH's own testimony in _Expanded Universe_ ...
>>
>>On which I can't comment, seeing as I'm not supposed to have read it.
>>Publishing it exclusively in the US of A, though, tends to leave us
>>Urpeeans with the disquietening idea that someone's talking behind our
>>backs ...
>
>Well, perhaps. But not *about* you.
>
>The idea was that he was going to go on about what was wrong with
>the US (which he did to tiresome length) and didn't care to air
>the family's dirty laundry in front of the neighbors.
Hmmm. He obviously didn't mind if it reached Canada, then -- I read a
considerable portion of it quite a long time ago, while standing in a
bookstore...I found it almost _completely_ irresistible -- not quite,
else I'd've finished it -- and very, very good. Though I'm a sucker for
late-era RAH anyway -- not that I didn't like his earlier stuff, but the
later stuff I _adore_....
--
========================================================================
Dark & Moody Sissy-Bear Nancy-Boy
For Action! Adventure! Excitement! with the Callahanian Army o'
Light, go to: http://silver-gateway.com/caol/
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." -- Lazarus Long
Larry M Headlund
Jason Bontrager <jas...@gslis.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>The most amusing part of the above is that Heinlein *did* accurately
>predict the "moral currents" of the late 20th century. Consider
>Dubois' lecture on the concept of an inherent "moral sense" and
>his description of the wild packs of children roaming parks at
>night and robbing/raping/killing innocent victims. Now consider
>the current concern with gangs and the "wilding" packs of the
>80's. I always have to remind myself that Heinlein was writing
>about these things *before* they became commonplace whenever I
>re-read his discussion of "juvenile delinquents". Food for thought.
This notion that the "juvenile delinquents" of ST are a successful
prediction by RAH is both common and, IMO, wrong.
ST was published in 1959. Its descriptions of JD's and dangerous
parks could be lifted from any number of contemporary magazine articles.
It was such a common theme that mass market movies of the period,
for example _Blackboard Jungle_ and _West Side Story_, could be
based on the it. Harlan Ellison wrote a non-SF book based on
youth gangs. Other literary works around the same time include
_Cool World_, _Manchild in the Promised Land_, and _The Wanderers_.
Movies and television shows with this background were so common
that Jerry Lewis could mock the genre in the opening to one
of his movies.
Any contemporary reader of ST would see it as describing his own
society. This is significant because in ST these descriptions
are revealed to be of society just before the collapse. RAH in
the novel was saying that mid-century America was suffering
from a fatal disease and the reader could see the symptoms
around him right now. The decay was not on the horizon, it
was here now.
--
--
Larry Headlund l...@world.std.com Mathematical Engineering, Inc.
(617) 242 7741
Unix, X and Motif Consulting
Speaking for myself at most.
Glenn W. Heintzelman
LPPCQ Snarky <loprip...@nobecker.com> wrote in message
news:3a729e0c.906410391@news...
> In rec.arts.drwho, Eris Kallisti Discordia spoke through Dorothy J Heydt:
> >
> >the US (which he did to tiresome length) and didn't care to air
> >the family's dirty laundry in front of the neighbors.
>
> Hmmm. He obviously didn't mind if it reached Canada, then -- I read a
> considerable portion of it quite a long time ago, while standing in a
> bookstore...I found it almost _completely_ irresistible -- not quite,
> else I'd've finished it -- and very, very good. Though I'm a sucker for
> late-era RAH anyway -- not that I didn't like his earlier stuff, but the
> later stuff I _adore_....
>
As Spider Robinson pointed out, the U.S. and Canada are joined at the hip.
There's not much point in hiding your dirty laundry from your brother (or
roommate, at least).
--
Glenn W. Heintzelman
"The Truth is out there- but lies are in your head.
-- Terry Pratchett
Joe Slater
>> events in the film as evidence pertaining to the novel, therefore, seems
>> an exercise in futility.
da...@sgloomi.demon.co.uk (Dave Stone) wrote:
>The film, as I saw it, was about as faithful as a film can be to a
>polemical novel with two and a half chapters of filmable *action*. Even
>so, for right or wrong, a lot of the polemics make it onto the screen.
I didn't think the film was very realistic, until I re-read the novel
today. The part that most people say is the *least* realistic - the
bit where bugs kill everybody and spaceships crash together - is quite
a faithful translation of the first landing on Klendathu (sp?).
You can't translate the book faithfully without including Heinlein's
lectures, one of which is six pages long. There's no way you can make
a movie like that. Once you delete the lectures you delete a lot of
the basis of the story and you get a movie very much like the one we
received.
jds
--
I die. The rasfw posters all ask "Where are Joe's entertaining messages?"
Frustration builds among the posters until they get coronary aneurisms.
All die.
O, the embarrassment.
Joe Slater
>The most amusing part of the above is that Heinlein *did* accurately
>predict the "moral currents" of the late 20th century. Consider
>Dubois' lecture on the concept of an inherent "moral sense" and
>his description of the wild packs of children roaming parks at
>night and robbing/raping/killing innocent victims. Now consider
>the current concern with gangs and the "wilding" packs of the
>80's. I always have to remind myself that Heinlein was writing
Um, when exactly was that? I think they are as common today as they
have always been.
Nancy Lebovitz
Joe Slater <joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>Jason Bontrager <jas...@gslis.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>The most amusing part of the above is that Heinlein *did* accurately
>>predict the "moral currents" of the late 20th century. Consider
>>Dubois' lecture on the concept of an inherent "moral sense" and
>>his description of the wild packs of children roaming parks at
>>night and robbing/raping/killing innocent victims. Now consider
>>the current concern with gangs and the "wilding" packs of the
>>80's. I always have to remind myself that Heinlein was writing
>>about these things *before* they became commonplace [...]
>
>Um, when exactly was that? I think they are as common today as they
>have always been.
>
Lois Tilton
> Without wishing to fan the flames of anything, a couple of random
> thoughts:
> 1) Flogging. People tend to think of it as Billy Budd having the stripes
> on his back treated with salt. In historical truth, flogging flayed the
> kidneys and other applicable organs out of the back in a bloody, gory
> mess. It was a death-sentence, and a particularly grisly one at that,
Now there is an overgeneralization! The history of flogging in the
military records average sentences of varying severity, yet most victims
did recover and return to active duty. Your description certainly applies
to that sentence called "flogging around the fleet" in the British navy,
which was indeed intended to be a death sentence, and flogging to death
was hardly unknown, but you exaggerate grossly in saying it occured
routinely.
--
LT
www.darkspawn.com
DARKSPAWN: the vampire fantasy
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> You can't translate the book faithfully without including
> Heinlein's lectures, one of which is six pages long.
You can't translate it *literally* without including the lectures, but I
believe a good screenwriter and director could stay true to the spirit
of the book while downplaying the soapbox.
> Once you delete the lectures you delete a lot of the basis of
> the story and you get a movie very much like the one we received.
Superficially you do, but the tone and subtext of the film are very
different from the novel. In the book, Johnny and the rest of the MI are
presented straightforwardly as good guys; in the film, you don't really
know whether to cheer them on, laugh at them, or just say "Sieg heil,
baby!" (I ended up doing all three.)
-- M. Ruff
Dan Swartzendruber
says...
> Jason Bontrager <jas...@gslis.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >The most amusing part of the above is that Heinlein *did* accurately
> >predict the "moral currents" of the late 20th century. Consider
> >Dubois' lecture on the concept of an inherent "moral sense" and
> >his description of the wild packs of children roaming parks at
> >night and robbing/raping/killing innocent victims. Now consider
> >the current concern with gangs and the "wilding" packs of the
> >80's. I always have to remind myself that Heinlein was writing
> >about these things *before* they became commonplace [...]
>
> Um, when exactly was that? I think they are as common today as they
> have always been.
Really? I don't know where you grew up, but when I was (in the 60's), when kids got into
trouble, it was for fistfights, not shooting and/or stabbing someone. This is certainly not a
simple black&white comparison, but something like Columbine would have been unimaginable back
then.
Phil Fraering
You didn't get the octopus, did you?
--
Phil Fraering
p...@globalreach.net
Debian Sid PowerPC Crash Test Dummy
Phil Fraering
I didn't see ST the Movie, but Star Wars has similar scenes, doesn't it?
James Nicoll
two cases of kids going to school, killing some school mates and
then committing suicide. One seemed to have been a copycat of the
first.
When was "I Don't Like Mondays" written?
Come to think of it, didn't a school board member evaporate
a school in the 1930s?
Nancy Lebovitz
there, on paper" rather than a collaboration between the text and
the reader.
Ross TenEyck
>1) Flogging. People tend to think of it as Billy Budd having the stripes
>on his back treated with salt. In historical truth, flogging flayed the
>kidneys and other applicable organs out of the back in a bloody, gory
>mess. It was a death-sentence, and a particularly grisly one at that,
>plain and simple. Just like caning in Singapore sounds like a bit of a
>larf - until you see the guidance-racks that direct the blows, and what
>that does to human flesh.
There's flogging and flogging. Certainly the kind you describe
existed, but there were also milder forms. And, in fact, the
protagonist in ST gets flogged, so we know how it worked, as
practiced in that society: it hurt like hell, but there was
a doctor standing by to make sure that there was no permanent
injury. Johnny walked away from his flogging. In fact, he
makes it clear that the physical pain was less important than
the shame.
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
Jason Bontrager
>
> Jason Bontrager <jas...@gslis.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >The most amusing part of the above is that Heinlein *did* accurately
> >predict the "moral currents" of the late 20th century.
>
> have always been.
It's been my impression (based on media reports, so I'm probaby
wrong) that juvenile violent crime has escalated over the past
thirty years in certain parts of the country. California, New York,
and D.C. being the primary villains. I've also heard that violent
crime is decreasing nationwide and has been for a long time. I
guess RAH's take on JD's just struck a chord and probably always
has and will.
John Schilling
>Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix3.netaxs.com> wrote:
>> Jordan S. Bassior <jsba...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >No, I don't think it's "pragmatically draconian". Flogging doesn't strike
>> >me as being as bad as what we _really_ do to minor criminals, which is to
>> >put them in a prison environment where the weaker ones are severely
>> >victimized, including beatings, robberies, rapes, and murders, by the
>> >stronger criminals.
>>
>> And if the prisoner doesn't have a pretty good support system, even
>> a sentence of moderate length can lead to them losing their job,
>> home, marriage, and/or custody of their children.
>Without wishing to fan the flames of anything, a couple of random
>thoughts:
>1) Flogging. People tend to think of it as Billy Budd having the stripes
>on his back treated with salt. In historical truth, flogging flayed the
>kidneys and other applicable organs out of the back in a bloody, gory
>mess. It was a death-sentence, and a particularly grisly one at that,
>plain and simple.
Oh, please. Whether deliberately or otherwise, you are misrepresenting
a very small and extreme minority of floggings as the norm. People who
wanted to execute people in a grisly way, or a denaible way, did in some
cultures and institutions use grossly-exaggerated floggings, either
literally to the death or to some unsurvivable number of strokes. Even
there, "flayed the kidneys out of the back" is hyperbolic exaggeration,
though the victim was still dead of course.
But the vast majority of historical floggings really were "Billy Budd having
the stripes on his back treated with salt", in your terms. Most authority
figures found obedient servants to be rather more useful than mutilated
corpses with angry relatives, and understood full well the difference
between a painful flogging and a lethal one. As did the laws surrounding
the institution.
>2) Custodial sentences. Chris Morris (a Brit TV prankster) almost sold a
>couple of politicians on the idea that if you simply *give*
>poverty-related criminals half of what it would cost to imprison them
>(tens of thousands of dollarponds per year) on the condition that they
>don't do it again, it would all work out best for everybody. Of course,
>it wouldn't exactly punish them, and nobody would get any Revenge out of
>it - thing is, overall, it would probably *work* ...
I am confused as to what you see as the motive for people to refrain from
criminal activity under this system. As you describe it, If I hunt you
down and beat the crap out of you, making sure to steal your wallet in
the process, the government pays me lots of money for my trouble and I
suffer no adverse consequences whatsoever.
Oh, yes. I'll promise to only beat the crap out of you once. Trust me.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Steinn Sigurdsson
> When was "I Don't Like Mondays" written?
1979
http://www.postalnauts.com/newwave/97-10-04/boomtown.html
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>> Didn't you notice how some of the shots in ST look like
>> outtakes from "Triumph of the Will"?
>
> I didn't see ST the Movie, but Star Wars has similar scenes,
> doesn't it?
Still my favorite joke about Verhoeven's ST: it's the movie Star Wars
would have been if the Germans had won WWII.
-- M. Ruff
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> Really? I don't know where you grew up, but when I was (in
> the 60's), when kids got into trouble, it was for fistfights,
> not shooting and/or stabbing someone. This is certainly not a
> simple black&white comparison, but something like Columbine
> would have been unimaginable back then.
It might be nice to think so, but just off the top of my head, there's
Charles Whitman's famous shooting spree at the University of Texas in
1966 (something like 15 dead, another 30 wounded), and I'm sure a check
of the true-crime section of your local library or bookstore would turn
up other examples.
-- M. Ruff
Jordan S. Bassior
>Pete McCutchen wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:05:22 -0500, "Walter R. Strapps"
>> <wr...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >> I'm one of the rare individuals who loves the film version, but I don't
>> >> think it's fair to call it a faithful adaptation -- what it really is is
>> >> a satire of Heinlein's story.
>> >
>> >You mean Heinlein's story isn't a satire in it's own right? If it's not
>> >Heinlein was a raving right-wing reactionary loony, IMHO.
>>
>> Well, gee, Walt, you're living proof that the admissions committee at
>> Columbia is really on the ball. I mean, to be able to formulate such
>> an argument -- you're obviously a genius.
>
>Gee, Pete, you're obviously much smarter than me to be able to tell me that my
>OPINION is wrong. You must be very intelligent indeed. I bow to your
superior
>opinions about Heinlein. I mean, how could I POSSIBLY hold an opinion that
>differs from yours based on my own reading and life experience. Good God,
what
>was I thinking? Thank God people like you are around to tell lowly people
like
>me what the correct things to believe are.
And note, Pete -- with all that, he still hasn't given a single coherent
_reason_ for his belief.
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
"To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On
the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too
late." (Churchill, 1934)
--
Neil
> You wouldn't, necessarily. But I have a feeling it would give you issues
> with pro-military propaganda. Didn't you notice how some of the shots in
> ST look like outtakes from "Triumph of the Will"?
In the movie I did not see a blindly pro milliteristic bent. Sure, it was
pro millitary but not milliteristic (war mongering). War was something
you did to defend humankind, not as a means of conquest.
For example, The new U.S. secretary of state, Colin Powell, is clearly pro
millitary. However I would not characterize him as pro war or, especially, pro
war in the name of conquest. In fact, his defining philosophy on the subject is
that a nation should be *very* reluctant to go to war. But once you make the decision
to go to war, go in with a clear objective and overwhelming force.
It seemed that given the forces that threatened the very survival of the human
species, their society perhaps needed to be somewhat pro-millitary.
I have not yet read ST the book, though today I will go to the bookstore and look
for it. I saw only the movie and I did not get a pro war message from it.
--
Neil Anuskiewicz
ne...@pacifier.com
Neil
> Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> Pete McCutchen wrote:
>> >
>> > Why would one who grew up in Nazi-occupied Holland necessarily
>> > hate the military?
>>
>> You wouldn't, necessarily. But I have a feeling it would give you issues
>> with pro-military propaganda. Didn't you notice how some of the shots in
>> ST look like outtakes from "Triumph of the Will"?
> I didn't see ST the Movie, but Star Wars has similar scenes, doesn't it?
The Empire, I think, is modeled somewhat after Nazi Germany. In Star Wars
the Empire is not only pro millitary but also pro war and conquest.
--
Neil Anuskiewicz
ne...@pacifier.com
Richard Harter
"The Digital Home of the Mass-Murdering Serial Killer" located at
http://www.mayhem.net/index1.html is enlightening.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
Economists are people who work with numbers
but don't have the personality to be accountants.
Mark Atwood
>
> I am confused as to what you see as the motive for people to refrain from
> criminal activity under this system. As you describe it, If I hunt you
> down and beat the crap out of you, making sure to steal your wallet in
> the process, the government pays me lots of money for my trouble and I
> suffer no adverse consequences whatsoever.
>
> Oh, yes. I'll promise to only beat the crap out of you once. Trust me.
Well, y'know, thugs are all just somebody's children who we just need
to wait till they see the error of their ways and settle down to have
a nice family...
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Jordan S. Bassior
>1) Flogging. People tend to think of it as Billy Budd having the stripes
>on his back treated with salt. In historical truth, flogging flayed the
>kidneys and other applicable organs out of the back in a bloody, gory
>mess. It was a death-sentence, and a particularly grisly one at that,
>plain and simple.
Depends how many blows are administered, with what implement, with what force,
and to what locations. Most people survived most floggings, and with
near-complete recoveries, _and with 18th-19th century medical treatments_. I
would imagine that the Terran Federation employs better medical techniques than
those of the 18th-century British Navy!
>2) Custodial sentences. Chris Morris (a Brit TV prankster) almost sold a
>couple of politicians on the idea that if you simply *give*
>poverty-related criminals half of what it would cost to imprison them
>(tens of thousands of dollarponds per year) on the condition that they
>don't do it again, it would all work out best for everybody. Of course,
>it wouldn't exactly punish them, and nobody would get any Revenge out of
>it - thing is, overall, it would probably *work* ...
"Work" in what sense of the word? It would create a positive incentive to
commit crimes, and if the crimes were resented by the victims, to get revenge
on the criminals. Unless you _do_ punish "revenge-related" crimes against
criminals more severely than you punish the initial "poverty-related" crimes --
which makes the incentives even more perverse and socially disruptive.
Joel Rosenberg
> Dave Stone said:
>
> >1) Flogging. People tend to think of it as Billy Budd having the stripes
> >on his back treated with salt. In historical truth, flogging flayed the
> >kidneys and other applicable organs out of the back in a bloody, gory
> >mess. It was a death-sentence, and a particularly grisly one at that,
> >plain and simple.
>
> Depends how many blows are administered, with what implement, with what force,
> and to what locations. Most people survived most floggings, and with
> near-complete recoveries, _and with 18th-19th century medical treatments_. I
> would imagine that the Terran Federation employs better medical techniques than
> those of the 18th-century British Navy!
>
> >2) Custodial sentences. Chris Morris (a Brit TV prankster) almost sold a
> >couple of politicians on the idea that if you simply *give*
> >poverty-related criminals half of what it would cost to imprison them
> >(tens of thousands of dollarponds per year) on the condition that they
> >don't do it again, it would all work out best for everybody. Of course,
> >it wouldn't exactly punish them, and nobody would get any Revenge out of
> >it - thing is, overall, it would probably *work* ...
>
> "Work" in what sense of the word? It would create a positive incentive to
> commit crimes,
If somebody is willing to pay me half of the yearly cost of putting
somebody up in a maximum security prison for doing so, I'm sure I
could find a felony I wouldn't mind doing once, and only once.
Chris Sutor
: All in all, one could make a case for ST being one of *the* finest movie
: adaptations of an SF book (name a point-to-point *adaptation* that's
: better; something like _Blade Runner_ or _2001_ doesn't count) despite
: or even because of it's politically problematical nature. At the very
: least, the movie deserves more consideration than the facile level of
: whether they could get the monkey-suits to work or not.
Battlefield Earth was almost entirely faithful to the original book - not
that tht's a good thing.
--
COBALTatTIGERDENdotCOM I'd really like a New World Order, but
----==============---- I can only afford a slightly used one.
now with 10% real *****************************************
fruit juice! Don't blame me, I voted for Richard Dangerous
Jason Bontrager
>
> schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) writes:
> >
> > Oh, yes. I'll promise to only beat the crap out of you once. Trust me.
>
> Well, y'know, thugs are all just somebody's children who we just need
> to wait till they see the error of their ways and settle down to have
> a nice family...
Maybe we should try to appeal to their better natures...
J.B. Moreno
> jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) writes:
>
> > Dave Stone said:
-snip-
> > >2) Custodial sentences. Chris Morris (a Brit TV prankster) almost sold a
> > >couple of politicians on the idea that if you simply *give*
> > >poverty-related criminals half of what it would cost to imprison them
> > >(tens of thousands of dollarponds per year) on the condition that they
> > >don't do it again, it would all work out best for everybody. Of course,
> > >it wouldn't exactly punish them, and nobody would get any Revenge out of
> > >it - thing is, overall, it would probably *work* ...
> >
> > "Work" in what sense of the word? It would create a positive incentive to
> > commit crimes,
>
>
> If somebody is willing to pay me half of the yearly cost of putting
> somebody up in a maximum security prison for doing so, I'm sure I
> could find a felony I wouldn't mind doing once, and only once.
The interesting question is can you collect for more than one felony?
I think I could find lots of crimes I'd be willing to promise to do only
once...
--
JBM
"Moebius strippers only show you their back side." -- Unknown
Phil Fraering
Think of the very last scene in Star Wars. After the destruction of
the Death Star.
Dan Swartzendruber
> Joe Slater wrote:
> >
> > Jason Bontrager <jas...@gslis.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > >The most amusing part of the above is that Heinlein *did* accurately
> > >predict the "moral currents" of the late 20th century.
> >
> > Um, when exactly was that? I think they are as common today as they
> > have always been.
>
> It's been my impression (based on media reports, so I'm probaby
> wrong) that juvenile violent crime has escalated over the past
> thirty years in certain parts of the country. California, New York,
It's not just the quantity, but the level of violence (and the casualness).
Dan Swartzendruber
Well, sure. I can also mention Jack the Ripper, to point out there was a problem even farther
back. An anecdotal example like the UT shooting hardly disproves what I said. On top of
that, Charles Whitman was hardly a juvenile.
Peter Meilinger
: Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
:>
:> If somebody is willing to pay me half of the yearly cost of putting
:> somebody up in a maximum security prison for doing so, I'm sure I
:> could find a felony I wouldn't mind doing once, and only once.
: The interesting question is can you collect for more than one felony?
: I think I could find lots of crimes I'd be willing to promise to do only
: once...
How much money ya think I could get for ripping the tag off
my mattress?
Pete
Joel Rosenberg
I don't think I could only rip mattress tags off just once more,
though. Their presence make my fingers itch ...
Paul F Austin
"Nancy Lebovitz" wrote ...
> Joe Slater wrote:
> >Jason Bontrager wrote:
> >>The most amusing part of the above is that Heinlein *did* accurately
> >>Dubois' lecture on the concept of an inherent "moral sense" and
> >>his description of the wild packs of children roaming parks at
> >>night and robbing/raping/killing innocent victims. Now consider
> >>the current concern with gangs and the "wilding" packs of the
> >>80's. I always have to remind myself that Heinlein was writing
> >>about these things *before* they became commonplace [...]
> >
> >have always been.
> >
But they are still sky high with respect to the crime rates of the fifties.
I think the RAH of 1959 would say that we were close to the abyss and so
would most citizens of that era.
Americans (can't speak for Aussies) have adapted to high crime rates in ways
that my grandparents would be amazed and appalled by. I grew up in a medium
sized city and all through the fifties and sixties, we not only didn't lock
our house, we didn't know where the keys were.
--
Eat a live toad in the morning
and nothing worse will happen to you all day.
-------------------------------------
Paul F Austin
pau...@digital.net
Mark Atwood
> Mark Atwood wrote:
> > schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) writes:
> > > Oh, yes. I'll promise to only beat the crap out of you once. Trust me.
> >
> > Well, y'know, thugs are all just somebody's children who we just need
> > to wait till they see the error of their ways and settle down to have
> > a nice family...
>
> Maybe we should try to appeal to their better natures...
Like paying them half their incarceration cost when they commit a crime?
(And thus we have closure.)
Neil
> Think of the very last scene in Star Wars. After the destruction of
> the Death Star.
Ah, you mean the very large rally. I saw that more of a sense of
celebration. The tone was very different than that of a Nazi rally.
--
Neil Anuskiewicz
ne...@pacifier.com
Jason Bontrager
>
> Neil <ne...@pacifier.com> writes:
>
> > The Empire, I think, is modeled somewhat after Nazi Germany. In Star Wars
> > the Empire is not only pro millitary but also pro war and conquest.
>
> Think of the very last scene in Star Wars. After the destruction of
> the Death Star.
The "medals given to valued heros of the Rebellion" scene? What
about it? You can't seriously be drawing a parallel between a
generic military honor and Nazi Germany can you? *All* nations
give out medals (or equivalent), usually in front of a relevant
audience too.
Richard Harter
<jas...@gslis.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Phil Fraering wrote:
>>
>> Neil <ne...@pacifier.com> writes:
>>
>> > The Empire, I think, is modeled somewhat after Nazi Germany. In Star Wars
>> > the Empire is not only pro millitary but also pro war and conquest.
>>
>> Think of the very last scene in Star Wars. After the destruction of
>> the Death Star.
>
>The "medals given to valued heros of the Rebellion" scene? What
>about it? You can't seriously be drawing a parallel between a
>generic military honor and Nazi Germany can you? *All* nations
>give out medals (or equivalent), usually in front of a relevant
>audience too.
I remember when I saw that scene the first time - my reaction was
"Omigod, Triumph of the Will." It's not a question of being Nazi,
it's a question of using a style of symbolic pomp that the Nazis used
quite effectively in their rallies.
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> Matt Ruff wrote:
>
>> Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
>>>
>>> Really? I don't know where you grew up, but when I was (in
>>> the 60's), when kids got into trouble, it was for fistfights,
>>> not shooting and/or stabbing someone. This is certainly not
>>> a simple black&white comparison, but something like Columbine
>>> would have been unimaginable back then.
>>
>> It might be nice to think so, but just off the top of my head,
>> there's Charles Whitman's famous shooting spree at the
>> University of Texas in 1966 (something like 15 dead, another
>> 30 wounded), and I'm sure a check of the true-crime section
>> of your local library or bookstore would turn up other
>> examples.
>
> Well, sure. I can also mention Jack the Ripper,
But Jack the Ripper wasn't a gun-toting mass murderer, like Whitman and
the Columbine shooters, so he's not as good an analogy.
> An anecdotal example like the UT shooting hardly disproves
> what I said.
You said that an incident like Columbine would have been unimaginable
back in the '60s. But Whitman's shooting spree, which happened in the
'60s, was very much like Columbine.
> On top of that, Charles Whitman was hardly a juvenile.
He was only 25.
-- M. Ruff
Jason Bontrager
>
> I remember when I saw that scene the first time - my reaction was
> "Omigod, Triumph of the Will." It's not a question of being Nazi,
> it's a question of using a style of symbolic pomp that the Nazis used
> quite effectively in their rallies.
OK, I've never seen TofW, so any resemblance between the two
would have been lost on me.
Rachel Brown
> You said that an incident like Columbine would have been unimaginable
> back in the '60s. But Whitman's shooting spree, which happened in the
> '60s, was very much like Columbine.
I read a book of interviews with horror writers that included one with
Whitley Streiber, the guy who also writes books about being abducted in his
sleep and tortured by aliens that he apparently thinks are non-fiction.
The books, that is, though I guess he also thinks the aliens are
non-fiction.
He was there. What's more, he talks in horrifying detail about seeing at
least three people murdered a few yards away, while he crouched helplessly
behind cover.
When I read that, I was not at all surprised that years later, he's still
dreaming about being a helpless torture victim.
I was so intrigued by the interview that I read up on the Whitman case, and
found some odd inconsistencies in Streiber's interview: a map of the
bodies didn't show the distribution he described seeing, and some of the
victims he said he saw die didn't seem to match anyone on a list of the
wounded or the dead. I don't know if his memory was playing tricks on him,
or if my sources were inaccurate, but it was pretty weird.
Rachel
Rachel Brown
> >
> > Think of the very last scene in Star Wars. After the destruction of
> > the Death Star.
>
> The "medals given to valued heros of the Rebellion" scene? What
> about it? You can't seriously be drawing a parallel between a
> generic military honor and Nazi Germany can you? *All* nations
> give out medals (or equivalent), usually in front of a relevant
> audience too.
He was referring to a visual homage more than the content. The composition
of the scene is, I'm told, identical to a famous-among-film-students scene
in Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will.
Rachel
JoatSimeon
> that Verhoeven subverts and in some ways mocks Heinlein's earnestly
pro-military story. Not that that's any surprise, given that Verhoeven grew up
in Nazi-occupied Holland.
-- who does he think got the Nazis _out_ of Holland? The Quakers, or the Red
Cross?
-- S.M. Stirling
Dan Swartzendruber
> > Well, sure. I can also mention Jack the Ripper,
>
> But Jack the Ripper wasn't a gun-toting mass murderer, like Whitman and
> the Columbine shooters, so he's not as good an analogy.
Not that Whitman was either, but I plead to hyperbole.
> > An anecdotal example like the UT shooting hardly disproves
> > what I said.
>
> You said that an incident like Columbine would have been unimaginable
> back in the '60s. But Whitman's shooting spree, which happened in the
> '60s, was very much like Columbine.
Can we try to remember the original point here was "juvenile delinquents"?
> > On top of that, Charles Whitman was hardly a juvenile.
>
> He was only 25.
Precisely my point. A man, by any definition. The incidents that horrify people so much
nowadays is kids under 17 (in many cases, quite a bit younger) committing horrific crimes (not
so much that murder is the issue as the extreme dehumanization of their victims, whether it be
murder, rape, whatever).
JoatSimeon
obviously, did so with hostile and satirical intent.
This explains the general feeling of hostility towards the movie by Heinlein
fans; they think Verhoven is dissing Heinlein, and to a large degree they're
right.
I would have preferred a rendering that did the book "straight", myself.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>you don't really know whether to cheer them on, laugh at them, or just say
"Sieg heil, baby!" (I ended up doing all three.)
-- not to mention "Doogie Hauser, SS"...
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
> is quite a faithful translation of the first landing on Klendathu (sp?).
-- the Bugs in the novel do not shoot down spaceships by farting at them, which
is the method in Verhoven's film.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>I think they are as common today as they
have always been.
-- you really ought to do a little historical research before making statements
like that.
Violent crime rates vary widely over time.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>But they are still sky high with respect to the crime rates of the fifties.
-- which were near an all-time low, by the way.
Until the later Victorian period, the English-speaking countries were (rightly)
regarded as extremely crime-ridden, violent and disorderly.
The criminal gangs of 1850's New York were worse than any posse nowadays --
even worse than the ghetto gangs at the height of the crack epidemic.
-- S.M. Stirling
Jason Bontrager
>
> The incidents that horrify people so much
> nowadays is kids under 17 (in many cases, quite a bit younger)
> committing horrific crimes (not so much that murder is the
> issue as the extreme dehumanization of their victims, whether
> it be murder, rape, whatever).
There was an incident in one of the "news" blurbs in _Stand on
Zanzibar_ that told of a young teenager who executed three victims
in a beauty salon. The incident was based on a real event that
happened around the time SoZ was being written. Of course I
don't recall any names or the URL where I saw the article, so
this has to fall under the heading of "hearsay". Does anyone
else know the incident I'm remembering?
Jordan S. Bassior
>-- the Bugs in the novel do not shoot down spaceships by farting at them,
>which is the method in Verhoven's film.
ObOtherSF Movie -- Mystery Men ;-)
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
"To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On
the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too
late." (Churchill, 1934)
--
Phil Fraering
> He was referring to a visual homage more than the content. The composition
> of the scene is, I'm told, identical to a famous-among-film-students scene
> in Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will.
>
> Rachel
Ah, and it wasn't Olympiad (or whatever). I stand corrected and informed.
Phil Fraering
> In rec.arts.sf.written Phil Fraering <p...@globalreach.net> wrote:
> > Think of the very last scene in Star Wars. After the destruction of
> > the Death Star.
>
> Ah, you mean the very large rally. I saw that more of a sense of
> celebration. The tone was very different than that of a Nazi rally.
I thought the scene was supposed to be a direct steal/reference/whatever
to one in "Olympiad." (I'm trying to remember the filmmaker's name, and
failing).
Phil Fraering
More appropriately, if one is going to write something in response
to _Starship Troopers_, create something separate and give it a
different name, such as _Naked to the Stars_, _The Forever War_,
or _Bill the Galactic Hero_.
Jordan S. Bassior
>I remember when I saw that scene the first time - my reaction was
>"Omigod, Triumph of the Will." It's not a question of being Nazi,
>it's a question of using a style of symbolic pomp that the Nazis used
>quite effectively in their rallies.
The Nazis copied that sort of thing from the pre World War One monarchist
empires.
Phil Fraering
I'm suddenly remembering this crossed with a vaguely remembered scene from
Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Joel Rosenberg
Jordan S. Bassior
>If somebody is willing to pay me half of the yearly cost of putting
>somebody up in a maximum security prison for doing so, I'm sure I
>could find a felony I wouldn't mind doing once, and only once.
I wouldn't want to lose my vote or my right to bear arms, but if I were a bit
more financially desperate, I could agree with you! :)
Joel Rosenberg
Very difficult to do. The heart of the book is the classroom
lectures, and it would be difficult to make them work on the screen.
Jordan S. Bassior
>I was so intrigued by the interview that I read up on the Whitman case, and
>found some odd inconsistencies in Streiber's interview: a map of the
>bodies didn't show the distribution he described seeing, and some of the
>victims he said he saw die didn't seem to match anyone on a list of the
>wounded or the dead. I don't know if his memory was playing tricks on him,
>or if my sources were inaccurate, but it was pretty weird.
It has occurred to me after reading both Streiber's fiction and his non-fiction
that the man isn't entirely sane.
Joel Rosenberg
> Joel Rosenberg said:
>
> >If somebody is willing to pay me half of the yearly cost of putting
> >somebody up in a maximum security prison for doing so, I'm sure I
> >could find a felony I wouldn't mind doing once, and only once.
>
> I wouldn't want to lose my vote or my right to bear arms, but if I were a bit
> more financially desperate, I could agree with you! :)
Well, I wouldn't want to give up my 2nd Amendment rights either, but
it wouldn't take a lot of tens of thousands of dollars per year to buy
me not voting. What's the cost of a year in a maximum security prison
these days? 100K or so?
Jordan S. Bassior
>The criminal gangs of 1850's New York were worse than any posse nowadays --
>even worse than the ghetto gangs at the height of the crack epidemic.
I've heard that some of them murdered immigrants right on the dock, under the
(sadly correct) theory that they never would be missed. They also staged
tremendous riots, the worst of which (in 1863) was essentially a pitched Civil
War battle (they were on the Confederate side, naturally).
There was a huge tenament, converted from a brewery and called the Old Brewery,
that was a den of vice almost beyond belief, like something out of a
combination of H. P. Lovecraft and Joseph Wambaugh. You had incestuous,
multi-generational families growing up, some members of which lived 20 years
without ever setting foot outside the building. It was the headquarters of one
of the worst of the gangs, and the police only travelled into its vicinity in
platoons. Literally.