Tanstaafl (Panshin Speaks on Heinlein)
Gary Farber
Alexei Panshin, to...@epix.net, who is just getting online, with the help
of his son. He has read much, if not all, apparently, of the "A Heinlein
Anecdote" thread, but as he still, in his own words, doesn't "know what
he's doing yet" in online matters, including how to post to Usenet, he
asked me if I would post the following for him.
That seems only fair. However, please direct responses to *his*
e-address, to...@epix.net, not mine, okay? Please alter the attribution
line to *his* address, not mine, when you follow-up to this, okay? Please?
I'm posting this to the original three newsgroups, but follow-ups are
directed to rec.arts.sf.written, and alt.fan.heinlein only. Please be
courteous and do not alter this. People in rec.arts.sf.fandom have, I
think, largely had enough of this discussion, and they know how to read
the other two newsgroups if they wish to follow it. Thank you for
politely following their wishes in this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEREWITH, ALEXEI PANSHIN WRITES:
From to...@epix.netSat Jan 13 11:43:28 1996
Received: from epix.net (grape.epix.net [199.224.64.22])
by mail2.panix.com (8.7.1/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id LAA17131 for
<gfa...@panix.com>; Sat, 13 Jan 1996 11:04:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from .epix.net (frndppp40.epix.net [199.224.79.40]) by
epix.net (8.7.1/8.7) with SMTP id LAA15240 for <gfa...@panix.com>;
Sat, 13 Jan 1996 11:03:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1996011316...@epix.net>
Sender: <to...@epix.net>
From: to...@epix.net
To: gfa...@panix.com
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 10:34:40 +0000
Subject: tanstaafl
X-Confirm-Reading-To: to...@epix.net
X-pmrqc: 1
Return-receipt-to: to...@epix.net
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22)
Dear Gary,
<personal bit snipped>
By all means, tell them I'm new and incompetent and
that you are doing me a favor. I include my e-mail address
at the end, so anyone who wants to comment to me can
do so.
<other personal bit snipped>
Yours,
Alexei Panshin
I've just been following out the threads of discussion that were
set off here in late December by Gary Farber's account of the meeting
between me and Robert Heinlein at the YM-YHWA Poetry Center in New
York in 1974. Apparently, this has stirred up questions about moral
behavior, generational and cultural differences, the ethics of
research, the right of privacy, and the nature of gentlemanly
conduct, among others.
The last essay that I wrote about Heinlein may be relevant to
this discussion. It was called "When the Quest Ended" and it was
published in _The New York Review of Science Fiction_ in 1991. It
begins:
As a youngster, I was a great fan of the stories of Robert
Heinlein. I read them over and over again. My particular
favorites were _Have Spacesuit--Will Travel_ and _Beyond This
Horizon_. Eventually, I became the author of _Heinlein in
Dimension_, not only the first critical study of his fiction,
but the very first book on the work of any modern science
fiction writer.
I loved what was noblest and best in Heinlein as well as
anyone, and more than most. Consequently, watching the
solipsistic self-devouring vampire that Heinlein became in his
later years was particularly painful for me to watch.
It hurt me to hear of him as a World Con Guest of Honor
delivering yet another warning against imminent atomic doom (as
late as 1976!) and being booed from the balcony by people who
had once admired him. It hurt to observe him from a distance as
an old man whose interactions with readers and fans had become
contingent upon their making bloodbank donations, as though this
were their only possible relevance for him. And it hurt to see
Heinlein taking all of his earlier work and redefining it, not
as various parts of a common Future History, as he had when he
was a young writer, but rather as aspects of a state of being in
which Robert Heinlein and his various clones and avatars--
including the villainous Black Beast, Mellrooney--were the only
reality acknowledged to exist.
All of that hurt.
In the days of Heinlein's decline, struck by the immense
disparity between the man that Heinlein might have become and
should have become and the horror story he did become, I
scrawled a line on a scrap of paper and threw it into the
drawer where odd thoughts live. It said:
_the agony of a solipsist living in a world
he neither likes nor understands_
That was as far as I could go toward empathizing with the wreck
and forgiving Heinlein.
But it still didn't answer the question that nagged me most.
How could a man so knowledgeable, so perceptive, so influential
and so well-loved, even to the day he died, ever have ended so
badly? I puzzled over that for years and years and years.
I should tell you frankly that Heinlein didn't love me as well
as I loved him. What were the reasons? That was one more part
of the puzzle.
Well, I offended the man--no doubt many more times than once.
The crucial one was this:
More than twenty-five years ago [now thirty], while I was
researching _Heinlein in Dimension_, the widow of a friend of
Heinlein's wrote to tell me of the existence of correspondence
between Heinlein and her husband, and asked me if I wanted to
have a look at Heinlein's letters. I accepted her offer, but
didn't find anything there that seemed relevant to the critical
examination of his fiction that I was writing. Presuming I had
done nothing improper, I made no secret of the fact I had seen
those letters. But when Heinlein was told of it, his immediate
reaction--before checking the facts, before reading what I had
written--was to accuse Advent, my publisher, of bad faith and
threaten them with a lawsuit, and to terminate his friendship
with Earl Kemp, one of the SF fans who ran Advent, on whose
couch Heinlein was used to sleeping when he visited Chicago.
I met Heinlein for the first and only time on a public occasion
in New York ten years later, and by a substantial margin it was
the oddest meeting I've ever had with another writer. First,
while Heinlein was busy autographing books, I introduced myself
to Mrs. Heinlein. She gave me the cut direct, turning her back
on me and walking away. I _know_ that nobody does that
anymore, but, by golly, she did it.
Then, when I had my opportunity, I introduced myself at last to
the man who had been a stimulus, a model, and a hero to my
younger self. Heinlein stood. His face turned dark red and a
vein throbbed in his temple. (The simulation of extreme rage
was a mode Heinlein could assume at will, and which he was
proud enough of to recommend to others as a device for getting
one's own way.) In a tone that brooked no compromise, he said,
"'Gentlemen do not read each other's mail!'" and pointed the
way to the door.
It was a surreal moment, completely out of proportion to any
offense that I--a non-gentleman, perhaps, like all scholarly
readers of other people's letters, but who had never meant
Heinlein any harm and never done him any--might have
unintentionally committed a decade earlier. And all the odder
it seems, too, when you stop to think that Heinlein was quoting
Henry Stimson, the Secretary of War, who when the U.S. cracked
Japan's most secret code in the days before World War II, had
wanted to hear no more about it. Did he think he was playing
the role of Stimson or of Japan, or somehow both at once?
So continuingly unforgiving (and skittish) was Heinlein where I
was concerned that another dozen years later he would refuse to
read through the relevant pages of _The World Beyond the Hill_
before publication--but via Mrs. Heinlein would threaten the
publisher, Tarcher of Los Angeles, with a lawsuit should there
turn out to be anything in our book to which he took exception.
Two different publishers threatened with lawsuit. Two books
published anyway. [And both of them given Hugo Awards.] And
no actual lawsuits...nor reason for any. It is enough to set
you wondering what Heinlein thought he was trying to
accomplish, and why.
To fill out this account a little:
Heinlein knew that I had said in my first letter to Mrs. Smith,
"I can see that you have a great deal of respect for Mr. Heinlein and
if there is any possibility in your mind that letting me see his
correspondence might be in any way a disservice to him, I would
prefer that you did not send the letters."
Heinlein also knew quite well that I was going to be present
that night in New York. I'd written to tell him, and contrary to the
impression here, the manuscript of _The World Beyond the Hill_ was
the only mail from me he ever returned unopened. The Young
Libertarian who had first informed me of Heinlein's talk was
acquainted with the Heinleins and he also told them. Not only was
Heinlein not surprised by my appearance, but the ground and
conditions under which we met were entirely of his choosing.
It's been suggested in this discussion that I was a fool to
appear in Heinlein's presence. He had his code and was only living
by it. I was lucky he didn't shoot me between the eyes.
But of course this doesn't give me any credit for having my own
code.
In an account of Heinlein's talk at the time, one audience
member would quote him as saying: "To grow old involves a process, if
you're not going to let your mind go into deep freeze, of unlearning
things you used to believe."
That evening, I said to him--stammering, I admit--"I thought I
heard you say tonight that it was necessary to revise your opinions
as you grow older."
He said, "Not on this." And, for a third time, "Good day, sir."
So I left. He had held his ground, and I had seen the elephant.
To this day, many aspects of Heinlein's nature and behavior
retain their mystery for me. But in "When the Quest Ended" I do
try to discuss what seems to me a crucial turning point in his life,
which I stumbled across in his letters. ...The ones published in
_Grumbles from the Grave_, I mean... Copies of the full text are
available from me for the cost of Xeroxing and mailing. Contact me
at to...@epix.net.
Alexei Panshin
--
-- Gary Farber Middlemiss gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1996 for DUFF Brooklyn, NY, USA
Chris Thomas
lei...@ix.netcom.com(Leighton M. Anderson ) wrote:
> Wow. Every once in awhile this business of reading USENET transcends
> the usual B.S. and actually seems to mean something.
What did that mean, though? It sounded like the usual BS to me.
Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but I have a hard time believing that
Heinlein was as nasty as Panshin claims, and it continues to sound
to me that Panshin has a personal hatred for Heinlein. Why else does
Panshin have a pathological need to continually bash RAH in public?
Would Heinlein ever publicly criticize Panshin or anyone else in this
way? No. Panshin has made a *career* out of it. Doesn't this say
everything we need to hear about Panshin (and why this newsgroup is
not called alt.fan.jerks.panshin)?
Bottom line: Panshin is a prevaricator and a bastard, with an axe
of his own carving to grind. Typical of USENET, I must say.
(Is it yet obvious that I don't share RAH's qualms?)
I know I'm not the only one who feels this way - Panshin's pack
of lies has backfired in that dimension. Instead of hating Heinlein,
many of us now realize what an utter fool Panshin is, and will
take great pains to ensure that his name is so recorded in whatever
history books survive the next hundred years.
> And what was all that business about Jack Kennedy,
> brother Robert, and Marilyn Monroe?)
Read Donald Spoto's biography of Marilyn to put that particular
rumor to rest.
> I have read and rereead just about everything Heinlein ever wrote. A
> lot of it I have read with Alexi Panshin's apt criticisms consciously
> in mind.
IMHO, you have thereby consciously filled your mind with crap.
--
Chris Thomas, c...@best.com
Leighton M. Anderson
writes:
>I was surprised yesterday when I received, out of the blue, e-mail
from
>Alexei Panshin, to...@epix.net, who is just getting online, with the
help
>of his son.
[text of Panshin post deleted -- but read it!]
Wow. Every once in awhile this business of reading USENET transcends
the usual B.S. and actually seems to mean something. I thank Mr.
Panshin for his very moving personal statement, and Mr. Farber for his
service as medium.
It seems to me that we as fans tend to idolize those who have the gift
to enrich otherwise idle hours. I have idolized "The Dean of American
Science Fiction," RAH, just as I have (in only slightly lesser degrees)
Isaac Asimov, Poul Anderson, Larry Niven, Keith Laumer and many others
I could name. As we idolize these men (and women, too, though I admit
there are no female writers in my top tier), we often learn things
about them that disappoint and even shock. The old saw about idols
having feet of clay is cliche' but I think meaningful here. I don't
know why, but I think we *imagine* the writers to be wise and
far-seeing, as they present the characters in their stories to be.
When Alexi Panshin first published _Heinlein In Demension_ (or was it
_Heinlien In Dementia_ ?), I read it with relish. It had a flavor of
_lese majeste_, but I perhaps enjoyed it for that reason among others.
But I always thought that in the final analysis, Panshin was a little
hard on the Dean. Don't get me wrong, it was terrific literary
criticism -- the first (and I think still the best) sf criticism I had
ever read. But the later Heinlein has never been as bad -- flawed,
yes, but not as badly flawed -- as Panshin suggested and even now
suggests, not in my humble opinion anyway. What we love about Heinlein
is that he was a man of *ideas* who wnjoyed telling stories, stories
with characters who were themselves quirky but the best of them (the
"Heinlein Individuals" to use Mr. Panshin's term) were men and women of
uncompromising principle. Heinlein's principles and ideas -- again,
speaking of the best of them -- have inspired hundreds of thousands,
perhaps millions of men and women. Among other things, I'd be willing
to bet that libertarians will cite Robert Heinlein as often if not more
so than Ayn Rand or anyone else as an original cause for their own
libertarian "conversion" stories. (I know nothing of Mr. Panshin's own
politics, but that last is very important to me. I recall that David
Freidman's seminal _Machinery of Freedom_ is dedicated in part to RAH.)
I've long ago given up expecting authors to live up to my expectations
of their personal lives. It is still sad and shocking to read just how
offensively *odd* Heinlein turned out to be, although I think that it
was not too much a function of his old age. (I'm interested in the
critical event in RAH's life at which Mr. Panshin's post hinted,
although maybe not to the point of mailing money for Xerox and mailing
costs; it's not that I'm cheap, it's just that the whole point of this
post is that it really doesn't matter.) On the other hand, has anyone
heard any Harlan Ellison anecdotes for god's sake? Are there any
baseball players, entertainment celebrities or politicians whose
personal conduct has not lived up to his or her public image? (For
example, somebody mentioned to me that O.J. Simpson may have murdered
his ex-wife. *grin* And what was all that business about Jack Kennedy,
brother Robert, and Marilyn Monroe?)
I have read and rereead just about everything Heinlein ever wrote. A
lot of it I have read with Alexi Panshin's apt criticisms consciously
in mind. But the reading still fills hours of time with pleasure, and
sends my thoughts down exciting paths, whether they concern the place
of humankind in the Universe or the eternal verities of political
morality. If the mind that originated those stories was or became
petty, self-centered or even cruel, I'm sorry and disappointed. I can
also sympathize with Alexi Panshin or anyone else who were hurt in
their encounters. But the stories are still the stories, and in the
final analysis that's the only thing we have to care about -- perhaps
the only thing we *ought* to care about.
Leighton
Leighton M. Anderson
writes:
>What did that mean, though? It sounded like the usual BS to me.
>Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but I have a hard time believing that
>Heinlein was as nasty as Panshin claims, and it continues to sound
>to me that Panshin has a personal hatred for Heinlein. Why else does
>Panshin have a pathological need to continually bash RAH in public?
Either you are being overly cynical -- or not cynical enough.
Panshin's description of events seem to me to have the ring of truth,
and are not inconsistent with what we know of The Dean from other
sources. (Have you read what Asimov wrote about RAH?)
The whole point of what I was trying to say is that we don't have to
defend the failings of our literary heros in order to affirm our love
for their work. As for Mr. Panshin, I take him at his word that he
approached Heinlein with a measure of reverence -- as well as with the
attitude of the boy who had the courage to say that the Emporer had no
clothes. The part of him that revered Heinein was crushed by
Heinlein's ovely touchy reaction. (Name a famous writer who ever did
respond well to published criticism.)
>Bottom line: Panshin is a prevaricator and a bastard, with an axe
>of his own carving to grind. Typical of USENET, I must say.
A terribly harsh judment IMHO, on the order of RAH's own reported
reaction. (Why would you disbelive Panshin's description of Heinlein's
response to Panshin even while you appear to replicate it?)
Btw, if you find that postings by "prevaricators and bastards with axes
to grind" are "typical of USENET," one wonders why you waste your time
reading USENET articles. ;-)
>> I have read and rereead just about everything Heinlein ever wrote.
A
>> lot of it I have read with Alexi Panshin's apt criticisms
consciously
>> in mind.
>
>IMHO, you have thereby consciously filled your mind with crap.
You seem to be the expert . . . .
Leighton
James Nicoll
Leighton M. Anderson <lei...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
snip
> (Name a famous writer who ever did respond well to published criticism.)
George Orwell (Eric Blair). He even wrote articles criticizing his
own work. One in particular that I remember was a column in which he looked
at predictions he had made and tried to figure out why he was wrong in
some cases.
BTW, in the latest Turtledove, Eric Blair turns up at the BBC
nder the name Eric Blair and I could have sworn he was pretty much going
by George Orwell all the time by then. Time to dig out volume 3 of his
collected papers, I think.
Oh, and Wil McCarthy was very nice about a criticism I made about
the physics in _Flies From the Amber_. That counts if usenet is publication.
James Nicoll
--
" The moral, if you're a scholar don't pick up beautiful babes on deserted
lanes at night. Real Moral, Chinese ghost stories have mostly been written
by scholars who have some pretty strange fantasies about women."
Brian David Phillips
Ken Arromdee
Julian Treadwell <j...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>> And it hurt to see
>> Heinlein taking all of his earlier work and redefining it, not
>> as various parts of a common Future History, as he had when he
>> was a young writer, but rather as aspects of a state of being in
>> which Robert Heinlein and his various clones and avatars--
>> including the villainous Black Beast, Mellrooney--were the only
>> reality acknowledged to exist.
>justify that remark.
It's an anagram of Lyle Monroe, a RAH pseudonym. (Though all that _really_
demonstrates is that Heinlein put inserting in-jokes in his writing.)
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"Snow?" "It's sort of like white, lumpy, rain." --Gilligan's Island
Stevens R. Miller
>lei...@ix.netcom.com(Leighton M. Anderson ) wrote:
>Why... does
>Panshin have a pathological need to continually bash RAH in public?
"Pathological"? What do you mean?
>...many of us now realize what an utter fool Panshin is, and will
>take great pains to ensure that his name is so recorded in whatever
>history books survive the next hundred years.
Oh. I understand, now.
--
Stevens R. Miller http://www.interport.net/~lex/
Lee/Nik Sandlin
James Nicoll <jam...@coulomb.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <4dcgr5$n...@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
>Leighton M. Anderson <lei...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> (Name a famous writer who ever did respond well to published criticism.)
>
> George Orwell (Eric Blair). He even wrote articles criticizing his
>own work. One in particular that I remember was a column in which he looked
>at predictions he had made and tried to figure out why he was wrong in
>some cases.
Joseph Heller is another. He said that most of the negative reviews he got
about Something Happened raised a valid issue -- namely that the central
character wasn't interesting enough to be the subject of such detailed
treatment. He didn't agree with them, obviously, but he said it was a
reasonable position to hold. What mattered to him about reviews was that,
positive or negative, they took seriously what he was trying to do. Would
that all authors (or more pertinently, their fans) were as temperate about
criticism.
>
> BTW, in the latest Turtledove, Eric Blair turns up at the BBC
>nder the name Eric Blair and I could have sworn he was pretty much going
>by George Orwell all the time by then. Time to dig out volume 3 of his
>collected papers, I think.
We're straying off topic here, but given how long this stupid thing has
been going on, who cares? Blair used Orwell as a pen name, and called
himself that on the air; he also used it when he corresponded with
strangers; but I believe during the BBC years he was still Eric Blair in
his daily life. Certainly that was all his long-time friends still called
him.
Richard Lynch
(James Nicoll) wrote:
|In article <4dcgr5$n...@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
|Leighton M. Anderson <lei...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
|
| snip
|
|> (Name a famous writer who ever did respond well to published criticism.)
|
| George Orwell (Eric Blair). He even wrote articles criticizing his
|own work. One in particular that I remember was a column in which he looked
|at predictions he had made and tried to figure out why he was wrong in
|some cases.
I seem to recall Heinlein doing this also... or is that what started this?
--
--
--
-- "TANSTAAFL" Rich ly...@ils.nwu.edu
Julian Treadwell
[passed on following message from Alexei Panshin]
> I loved what was noblest and best in Heinlein as well as
> anyone, and more than most. Consequently, watching the
> solipsistic self-devouring vampire that Heinlein became in his
> later years was particularly painful for me to watch.
To use a phrase such as that hardly bespeaks of an impartial and
objective critic.
> It hurt me to hear of him as a World Con Guest of Honor
> delivering yet another warning against imminent atomic doom (as
> late as 1976!) and being booed from the balcony by people who
> had once admired him.
To warn against a nuclear apocalypse is a sign of what? Bad
judgement? I take it you think there is no such threat. Are you
aware that China has recently launched a massive drive to upgrade
and increase their nuclear and conventional forces, or don't you
watch the news? Are you aware that several of the former republics
of the Soviet Union have very sizable nuclear arsenals and that some
of them have very unstable political situations? Does any of that
worry you?
> It hurt to observe him from a distance as
> an old man whose interactions with readers and fans had become
> contingent upon their making bloodbank donations, as though this
> were their only possible relevance for him.
Even if true (I have no idea) , this would be a mark of eccentricity
(and well-meaning eccentricity at that) rather than 'solipsistic
self-devouring vampirism' imo.
> And it hurt to see
> Heinlein taking all of his earlier work and redefining it, not
> as various parts of a common Future History, as he had when he
> was a young writer, but rather as aspects of a state of being in
> which Robert Heinlein and his various clones and avatars--
> including the villainous Black Beast, Mellrooney--were the only
> reality acknowledged to exist.
Mellrooney is a clone and/or avatar of RAH? I challenge you to
justify that remark.
> All of that hurt.
Yeah, I'm sure.
> In the days of Heinlein's decline, struck by the immense
> disparity between the man that Heinlein might have become and
> should have become and the horror story he did become, I
Horror story? HORROR STORY? Another thoughtful judgement from a fair
and clear-sighted critic, I take it.
> scrawled a line on a scrap of paper and threw it into the
> drawer where odd thoughts live. It said:
> _the agony of a solipsist living in a world
> he neither likes nor understands_
As far as I can see he liked the world as well as most (but was not
blind to its faults) and understood it better than just about anyone I
can think of. And what agony, anyway?
> That was as far as I could go toward empathizing with the wreck
> and forgiving Heinlein.
Wreck? Do you refer to his physical, mental or emotional state? If
it's either of the last two, I've never seen any evidence to suggest
that in his writings or in writings about him (other than yours),
right up to his death.
> But it still didn't answer the question that nagged me most.
> How could a man so knowledgeable, so perceptive, so influential
> and so well-loved, even to the day he died, ever have ended so
> badly? I puzzled over that for years and years and years.
> I should tell you frankly that Heinlein didn't love me as well
> as I loved him. What were the reasons? That was one more part
> of the puzzle.
> Well, I offended the man--no doubt many more times than once.
> The crucial one was this:
[snipped AP's account of the 'incident']
Regardless of whether RAH treated you fairly or not in this instance,
(quite possibly unfairly from the sound of it) I think you've either
let this event utterly twist your view of him or you've taken
such offence at it that you've decided to blacken his name in
revenge. Either way, I completely reject your emotive and
bitter analysis of him in his later days.
Andi Shechter
It's cool. I have more admiration for your works (fictional and critical)
of the last twenty years, than for the sad last works of Our Hero, Ghod in
a tattered Robe of Glory.
Stu Shiffman
ros...@halcyon.com
--
Andi - Ros...@Halcyon.com
Steve Taylor
Thomas) wrote:
> What did that mean, though? It sounded like the usual BS to me.
> Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but I have a hard time believing that
> Heinlein was as nasty as Panshin claims, and it continues to sound
> to me that Panshin has a personal hatred for Heinlein.
You don't sound too cynical to me - quite the reverse. It seems to me that
you're so angry because a man you greatly admire (Heinlein) has been
depicted as less than perfect. If you were more cynical (more realistic?)
you might find it less surprising that basically nice people are sometimes
rude or stiff necked.
> Why else does
> Panshin have a pathological need to continually bash RAH in public?
Does he?
He's written literary criticism of Heinlein. I read _Heinlein in
Dimension_ some years ago, and thought it was reasonably fair minded. I
like Heinleins writing, but don't consider it perfect, and I do think he
fell apart in his later years. If I were to write a book of literary
criticism about my favourite writer, I would have unpleasant as well as
pleasant things to say. I don't consider that either rude or
inappropriate.
What else? He wrote the post above, but that was at the end of a long
thread about the topic, not started by Panshin, so I think he's got a
right of reply.
What else? That's not a rhetorical question - I'm just not aware of
hearing all that much about Panshin and Heinlein, and they're both authors
I'm familiar with and I do read the odd bit of SF criticism.
> Doesn't this say
> everything we need to hear about Panshin (and why this newsgroup is
> not called alt.fan.jerks.panshin)?
That "take this to some.imaginary.newsgroup" line was kind of amusing for
a month or two - a few years ago. It's getting kind of dull.
> I know I'm not the only one who feels this way - Panshin's pack
> of lies has backfired in that dimension. Instead of hating Heinlein,
I just feel weird reading this. I don't think agreeing with Panshins
comments involves "hating Heinlein". Dividing Panshins comments into two
groups - literary criticism and personal comments:
- the literary criticism is a pretty close match to my own opinions: I
think Heinlein was a great writer - for a while, that a rather horrible
sort of rot set in in his later years, and that there were certain flaws
as well as strengths present even in his earliest work. I formed these
opinions without any help from Panshin or Usenet. They seem obvious to me,
and to many others. To others, Heinlein was a uniformly great man who
wrote important and inspiring books throughout his career. To others still
he was a commercial hack beneath their contempt. We will never live in a
world where everyone likes the same books. It's no crime.
- the personal comments I don't think were all that harsh, and what
Panshin has said about Heinlein seems to have been borne out reasonably
well by anecdotal evidence from Clarke, Asimov and others, quoted earlier
in this endless flamewar. All that Heinleins really been accused of is
being stiff necked and unforgiving as an old man. Is that so shocking?
> many of us now realize what an utter fool Panshin is, and will
> take great pains to ensure that his name is so recorded in whatever
> history books survive the next hundred years.
I don't think you'll get your wish. I think Panshin is much better known
for _Rite of Passage_ than for _Heinlein Dimension_.
To end on a silly note: the day I bought my copy of _Heinlein in
Dimension_ I walked into our local SF bookstore and asked the guy behind
the counter "Do you have any criticism of Robert Heinlein?". He replied
"Yeah, I think he's bloody awful."
> Chris Thomas, c...@best.com
Steve
Josh Kaderlan
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>Let's examine the situation. Panshin, when he attempted to analyze
>Heinlein, moved out of the realm of mere writer, and into the territory
>of "investigative journalist". His book on Heinlein shows that he has
>some facility in research.
>
>Yet decades after the incident, he claims that he still has no idea what
>he did that caused RAH to react in the fashion that he did. This strikes
>me as totally unbelievable.
My reading of Panshin's account differs from yours; Panshin says that he
knows why Heinlein stopped speaking to him, that it was because of the
matter of the letters.
>I can tell you one thing: Mr. Panshin's continued insistance that he is but
>an unwilling and unknowing "victim" would almost certainly have infuriated
>RAH as much, if not more, than the initial incident that caused the feud.
>
How would you react, if you were in Panshin's situation? And, out of
curiosity, why do you feel you know what Heinlein's reaction "would. . .almost
certainly have" been? (Were you a friend of his, perhaps?)
Still sounds to me like RAH wanted to have the good points of being a
published author without the criticism.
--Josh
Josh Kaderlan
intervals. But neither case has a whole lot to do with responding well
to published criticism; it's a lot easier to say "I was wrong" on your
own than it is to admit it when someone else has pointed out your error.
Frankly, from everything I've heard (both off-hand comments in his own
work, and these past few threads), it seems to me that Heinlein had a bit
of an unrealistic attitude toward criticism. Did he really expect that
everyone would love his work? IMO, part of being a published author is
accepting the fact that others will critique your work (not necessarily
complimentarily), and that if you can't take the heat, get the hell out
of the kitchen.
--Josh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Kaderlan | "An American? Nobody told me he was an American."
jek...@cac.psu.edu | "Not American -- Canadian." "Well, what's the
| "difference?" "They're touchier, that's what."
| Robertson Davies (rip), *What's Bred in the Bone*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David MacLean
>writes:
>
>>What did that mean, though? It sounded like the usual BS to me.
>>Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but I have a hard time believing that
>>Heinlein was as nasty as Panshin claims, and it continues to sound
>>Panshin have a pathological need to continually bash RAH in public?
>
>Panshin's description of events seem to me to have the ring of truth,
>and are not inconsistent with what we know of The Dean from other
>sources. (Have you read what Asimov wrote about RAH?)
>
Sorry, but when someone says that Panshin's email has "the ring of truth",
I just have to speak up. It does have a ring to it, but it is the ring
of breast beating and whining "poor, poor pitiful me".
Let's examine the situation. Panshin, when he attempted to analyze
Heinlein, moved out of the realm of mere writer, and into the territory
of "investigative journalist". His book on Heinlein shows that he has
some facility in research.
Yet decades after the incident, he claims that he still has no idea what
he did that caused RAH to react in the fashion that he did. This strikes
me as totally unbelievable. Perhaps Robert and Virginia would not talk
to him directly, but the Heinleins did *not* live like hermits. They had
many, many friends, and as is the forte of self-reliant, self-assured
and self-actualized people, their circle of friends was not restricted to
syncophants and "yes" men.
Any man who could put together a working hypothesis on the inner workings
of the psyche of a man with whom he was not intimately acquainted through
research alone should be enough of a researcher to put together a working
hypothesis as to the inner cause of the feud. Unless each and every one
of the Heinleins' friends agreed whole-heartedly with RAH's reasons for
participating in the feud, a hypothesis that I find highly unlikely, the
information is out there, waiting to be pieced together by a competant
researcher. Surely the widow that permitted Panshin access to the letters
between her husband and RAH, the much ballyhooed "cause" of the feud, would
have had at least one conversation, perhaps one-sided, with RAH. Many of
Heinlein's friends, through simple curiosity, would have asked him what the
hell was going on, and not all of them would refuse to talk to Panshin.
I can tell you one thing: Mr. Panshin's continued insistance that he is but
an unwilling and unknowing "victim" would almost certainly have infuriated
RAH as much, if not more, than the initial incident that caused the feud.
Mr. Panshin, if you are reading this, I would suggest you turn your back
on professional "victimhood". If the matter is so important to you, then
put your skills as a researcher on the matter and find out why. If it
is not important (and the guy is dead - nothing is to be gained by
attempting to continue the feud into the afterlife, if one does exist),
then drop the matter, get on with your life, and devote the energy that
you waste on proclaiming your "innocence" into more productive pursuits.
It is obvious that you pissed RAH off. He retaliated by virtually excluding
you from his universe. Accept it, or figure out why. Don't stay trapped
in the limbo of "woe is me, he done me wrong". If there is an afterlife,
RAH laughs uproariously everytime that he thinks of you - which isn't often.
--
***************************************************************************
David E. MacLean dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca
***************************************************************************
Phantom Stryker
>| George Orwell (Eric Blair). He even wrote articles criticizing his
>|own work. One in particular that I remember was a column in which he looked
>|at predictions he had made and tried to figure out why he was wrong in
>|some cases.
>I seem to recall Heinlein doing this also... or is that what started this?
How ironic! Actually, I think what started this was a comment Panshin
had made about Heinlein being upset with him for criticizing his work.
But, I'm with you, I think I remember RAH criticizing his own work
from time to time myself.
Kristie
Julian Treadwell
>David MacLean (dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca) wrote to Alexei Panshin:
><snipped>
>: then drop the matter, get on with your life, and devote the energy that
>: you waste on proclaiming your "innocence" into more productive pursuits.
>: It is obvious that you pissed RAH off. He retaliated by virtually excluding
>: you from his universe. Accept it, or figure out why. Don't stay trapped
>: in the limbo of "woe is me, he done me wrong".
>I hate to get into this, but given that Alexei Panshin has, to the best of
>my knowledge, made two public statements of a few hundred words in a
>twenty-three year period, I find various people's insistence that Panshin
>is conducting a "vendetta" or "out to blacken Heinlein's name" or is stuck
>on this issue, to be well beyond bizarre.
It's not how much he's said, Gary, it's what he's said and the fact
that he's stooped to personal attacks.
>If he said absolutely nothing,
>he'd be accused of being a coward afraid to defend himself.
Defend himself from what? Heinlein never attacked him, to
my knowledge.
>And when he
>writes a couple of hundred words in response to tens of thousands of words
>of attack upon him, most of it intensely personal and abusive
Can I remind you of the phrases 'self-devouring, solipsistic vampire'
and 'horror story'? Who's being abusive?
eber...@delphi.com
I no longer have my copy of Grumbles From the Grave,
but I recall a passage in it in which RAH says he never read literary
criticism of his work, because he was afraid it would make him so
self-conscious about his mental processes that he would be unable to
work. He gave the analogy of the centipede - trying to think of which
leg to move next, and being unable to move at all.
Maybe what RAH was afraid of is that Panshin would be
*too good* a critic - that reading Panshin's analysis would destroy
his magical gift.
Certainly if I were as talented a writer as RAH, I would do
everything I reasonably could to safeguard that talent.
This explanation may well be wrong, but, IMHO, it makes
Heinlein's behavior more understandable.
Phil Ebersole.
Gary Farber
<snipped>
: then drop the matter, get on with your life, and devote the energy that
: you waste on proclaiming your "innocence" into more productive pursuits.
: It is obvious that you pissed RAH off. He retaliated by virtually excluding
: you from his universe. Accept it, or figure out why. Don't stay trapped
: in the limbo of "woe is me, he done me wrong".
I hate to get into this, but given that Alexei Panshin has, to the best of
my knowledge, made two public statements of a few hundred words in a
twenty-three year period, I find various people's insistence that Panshin
is conducting a "vendetta" or "out to blacken Heinlein's name" or is stuck
on this issue, to be well beyond bizarre. If he said absolutely nothing,
he'd be accused of being a coward afraid to defend himself. And when he
writes a couple of hundred words in response to tens of thousands of words
of attack upon him, most of it intensely personal and abusive, after
hundreds upon hundreds of posts attacking him, he is accused of being
"obsessed." What does that say about all the people spending all this
time, wordage, and energy attacking him, then?
Panshin has since written two excellent books of sf criticism. I don't
always agree with him, but I always find him interesting. He's currently
working on a book about ALICE IN WONDERLAND, I believe. Indeed, his time
is much better spent on such a book than joining the rest of us babbling
away on Usenet.
Gary Farber
: How ironic! Actually, I think what started this was a comment Panshin
: had made about Heinlein being upset with him for criticizing his work.
This is completely untrue. This thread started from my relating an
anecdote of how I witnessed Alexei Panshin's encounter with Robert
Heinlein in 1973 when Heinlein spoke at the 92nd St. YMHA in NYC.
Josh Kaderlan
Julian Treadwell <j...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>
>>I hate to get into this, but given that Alexei Panshin has, to the best of
>>my knowledge, made two public statements of a few hundred words in a
>>twenty-three year period, I find various people's insistence that Panshin
>>is conducting a "vendetta" or "out to blacken Heinlein's name" or is stuck
>>on this issue, to be well beyond bizarre.
>
>that he's stooped to personal attacks.
>
still don't think that Panshin said anything particularly insulting about
Heinlein; it's not like he called Heinlein a plagiarist or something. I
saw his comments as expressing sadness at the way he saw Heinlein end up.
>>If he said absolutely nothing,
>>he'd be accused of being a coward afraid to defend himself.
>
>Defend himself from what? Heinlein never attacked him, to
>my knowledge.
>
From the comments made about him in this newsgroup.
>>And when he
>>writes a couple of hundred words in response to tens of thousands of words
>>of attack upon him, most of it intensely personal and abusive
>
>Can I remind you of the phrases 'self-devouring, solipsistic vampire'
>and 'horror story'? Who's being abusive?
>
What's abusive about those phrases? Inaccurate, maybe. But I personally
don't see them as insulting or abusive. (And remember, he described
Heinlein's later life as a horror story, not the man himself.)
--Josh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bubu accidentally fired up the game at 'Level 5: Brian De Palma On A Bad
Day' once, and I got skinned alive by a pack of mutant cannibal Cub
Scouts before I'd made it ten feet."
Bruce Bethke, *Headcrash*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. Sounds kinda like Usenet, dontcha think?
Stevens R. Miller
>Can I remind you of the phrases 'self-devouring, solipsistic vampire'
>and 'horror story'? Who's being abusive?
Julian, attacking the form instead of the substance is the hallmark of weak
argument. Panshin's words may be harsh, but to defeat his accusations you
have to do more than characterize them; you have to meet them on their own
terms.
Panshin's are the most negative words I've yet seen about Heinlein, but they
aren't in any way irreconcilable with the other unflattering observations that
Heinlein's own friends have made. Taken as a whole, those observations are
all we (who didn't know Heinlein personally) have with which to construct any
image of the man who wrote the books. If you shout down or criticize those
who have something unflattering to say, just for *saying* it, you will close
off a source of information. You don't have to take the information as
gospel, but you gain nothing by closing it off.
Kevin B. O'Brien
eber...@delphi.com, wrote:
It explains not reading Panshin's book, but not refusing to listen to
what Panshin had to say. There's lots of writers whose books I haven't
read for any number of reasons, but I have never felt compelled to be
rude to those writers.
Kevin B. O'Brien
ko...@ix.netcom.com
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest." Mark Twain
Matt Hickman
>gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>It's not how much he's said, Gary, it's what he's said and the fact
>that he's stooped to personal attacks.
>>If he said absolutely nothing,
>>he'd be accused of being a coward afraid to defend himself.
>>And when he
>>writes a couple of hundred words in response to tens of thousands of words
>>of attack upon him, most of it intensely personal and abusive
>Can I remind you of the phrases 'self-devouring, solipsistic vampire'
>and 'horror story'? Who's being abusive?
I agree with Julian here. Panshin stepped over the line
into the realm of abusive personal attacks
by using the phrases cited above.
If Panshin wishes to respond to the "tens of thousands of words of
attack upon him", let Panshin respond to those attacks and the
people who made them. Attacks on Heinlein do not speak to
that issue.
Matt Hickman bh...@chevron.com TANSTAAFL!
OS/2 Systems Specialist, Chevron Information Technologies Co.
Is it wrong to lie and fake and bribe to get what you
want? It's worse than wrong, it's undignified! (Dr. Hendrix)
- Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)
_Starman Jones_ (c. 1953)
Kateri/Mary Anne
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
>Panshin has since written two excellent books of sf criticism. I don't
>always agree with him, but I always find him interesting. He's currently
>working on a book about ALICE IN WONDERLAND, I believe. Indeed, his time
>is much better spent on such a book than joining the rest of us babbling
>away on Usenet.
Or another novel. His "Rite of Passage" (winner of the Nebula, I
believe?), is still one of my all-time favorite books, handling
several crucial adolescent issues with care, as well as adressing some
interesting political and philosophical points.
Btw, for what it's worth, I met Mr. Panshin briefly at PhilCon and
found him to be both courteous and friendly.
- Mary Anne, who also loves Heinlein's work
--
"When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal
drugs. When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent.
When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun.
Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet." -Rick Kelly
Julian Treadwell
>In article <4dikmc$f...@news.express.co.nz> j...@iprolink.co.nz (Julian Treadwell) writes:
>>Can I remind you of the phrases 'self-devouring, solipsistic vampire'
>>and 'horror story'? Who's being abusive?
>Julian, attacking the form instead of the substance is the hallmark of weak
>argument.
What form? Panshin's essay which Gary published here gave only slight
supporting evidence for his extremely insulting and childish
name-calling which I cited above. What arguments he did make (RAH
insisting fans who wanted interviews make blood donations, his warning
against a possible nuclear holocaust etc) I addressed in the post I
made in reply to AP's essay. So your accusation is quite unwarranted.
> Panshin's words may be harsh, but to defeat his accusations you
>have to do more than characterize them; you have to meet them on their own
>terms.
I'd rather not sink to his level, thanks. I'll try to confine myself
to rational argument.
>Panshin's are the most negative words I've yet seen about Heinlein, but they
>aren't in any way irreconcilable with the other unflattering observations that
>Heinlein's own friends have made.
Nobody said RAH was perfect. But I'm aware of noone besides AP who
assaulted him with such vitriol. And could you please cite your
sources for that last remark?
>Taken as a whole, those observations are
>all we (who didn't know Heinlein personally) have with which to construct any
>image of the man who wrote the books. If you shout down or criticize those
>who have something unflattering to say, just for *saying* it, you will close
>off a source of information. You don't have to take the information as
>gospel, but you gain nothing by closing it off.
Your points in this last paragraph are all valid. Or would be if I
thought AP's comments were simply 'unflattering'. But they were far
worse than that. And I don't wish to 'shout him down' - I simply wish
to express my view that he is a biased and unobjective critic.
Furthermore, I believe his personal acquaintance with RAH was somewhat
slight, and his statements about him conflict dramatically with what
people who knew him better (Spider Robinson, Larry Niven, Jerry
Pournelle and Neil Schumann for instance) have written.
Josh Kaderlan
Phantom Stryker <pstr...@atlcom.net> wrote:
>
>How ironic! Actually, I think what started this was a comment Panshin
>had made about Heinlein being upset with him for criticizing his work.
>from time to time myself.
>
intervals. But I don't remember him ever criticizing any of his own
fiction; and in any event, that's much different than having your work
criticized by someone else.
--Josh
Christopher J. Watkins
>Panshin have a pathological need to continually bash RAH in public?
>take great pains to ensure that his name is so recorded in whatever
>history books survive the next hundred years.
>
I would have to disagree here. I believe that Panshin should have
asked Heinlein's permission directly to even glance at his mail,
but I also see why Panshin wrote what he did and why he would be
let down by the man that Heinlein really was. I don't much respect
Heinlein as a man, but I do respect the ideals that he wrote about.
I think Panshin felt (feels?) much the same way, but considers RAH's
later works to be reflective of a kind of cynicism and loss of
direction that (Panshin believes) RAH succumbed to in later life.
I like all of RAH's work, but stories such as _Citizen of the Galaxy_
and _Time Enough for Love_ are words apart. They are both great novels,
IMO, but they are completely different in style and content.
--
Christopher J. Watkins
(watk...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu)
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>>lei...@ix.netcom.com(Leighton M. Anderson ) wrote:
>>
>>Why... does
>>Panshin have a pathological need to continually bash RAH in public?
Pathological? I see nothing unhealthy about Panshin's response.
Continually? Twice in twenty-three years?
In public? Say rather, in the forum where Panshin himself came under attack
on this subject.
--
For information on Lawrence Watt-Evans, finger -l lawr...@clark.net
or see The Misenchanted Page at http://www.greyware.com/authors/LWE/
The Horror Writers Association Page is at http://www.horror.org/HWA/
Phantom Stryker
>Phantom Stryker (pstr...@atlcom.net) wrote:
>: How ironic! Actually, I think what started this was a comment Panshin
>: had made about Heinlein being upset with him for criticizing his work.
>This is completely untrue. This thread started from my relating an
>anecdote of how I witnessed Alexei Panshin's encounter with Robert
>Heinlein in 1973 when Heinlein spoke at the 92nd St. YMHA in NYC.
I was not refering to this whole thread, simply the side issue that
has evolved about Heinlein's accepctance, or lack thereof, of
critizism.
In the future I will endeavor to be more specific in posting.
Kristie
Alexandra Haropulos
1) When Panshin wrote his book, substantive SF criticism
was very new. *NO* SF author had much experience of
anything other than book reviews and editorial comment.
So, the process would very likely have been uncomfortable
for *any* SF author, not just Heinlein.
2) As I stated before, despite Panshin's hurt tone, if he was
any kind of a serious scholar, he should have known that
the rule in academic circles for securing the full cooperation
of a subject under study is to GET PRIOR PERMISSION FOR
OBTAINING, READING, AND USING PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE
BETWEEN THE SUBJECT AND OTHERS. Otherwise, the scholar
can expect to be treated with varying degrees of uncooperation
and hostility.
3) The "cut direct" is a lot more civil than its predecessors, the
duel at dawn and the horsewhipping on the steps of your club.
We seem to be awfully judgemental of Heinlein based on one
incident. Personally, I find his published personality in letters and
books preferable to that of Panshin. So, evidently, does the
book-buying public at large.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Adventure can be defined as someone else having a hard time
very far away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stevens R. Miller
>l...@interport.net (Stevens R. Miller) wrote:
>>In article <4dikmc$f...@news.express.co.nz> j...@iprolink.co.nz (Julian
>Treadwell) writes:
>>>Can I remind you of the phrases 'self-devouring, solipsistic vampire'
>>>and 'horror story'? Who's being abusive?
>>Julian, attacking the form instead of the substance is the hallmark of weak
>>argument.
>What form? Panshin's essay which Gary published here gave only slight
>supporting evidence for his extremely insulting and childish
>name-calling which I cited above.
If you can make the claim that it's name-calling, how can you not see that you
are attacking the form, and not the substance?
>> Panshin's words may be harsh, but to defeat his accusations you
>>have to do more than characterize them; you have to meet them on their own
>>terms.
>I'd rather not sink to his level, thanks. I'll try to confine myself
>to rational argument.
Again, you are avoiding what has been said. Panshin has made statements. You
are free to disagree and, I would hope, give reasons. That's how dispute is
resolved. To sidestep his statements by talking about the level from which
they come is like saying you won't defend your southern border because only a
bum attacks from the south.
>>Panshin's are the most negative words I've yet seen about Heinlein, but they
>>aren't in any way irreconcilable with the other unflattering observations that
>>Heinlein's own friends have made.
>Nobody said RAH was perfect. But I'm aware of noone besides AP who
>assaulted him with such vitriol. And could you please cite your
>sources for that last remark?
I have, again, and again, and again. One more time: Asimov's remarks in "I.
Asimov," Clarke's remarks in "Requiem," Campbell's exchanges as commented upon
by Mrs. Heinlein in "Grumbles," Heinlein's own remarks about Campbell in EU.
>>Taken as a whole, those observations are
>>all we (who didn't know Heinlein personally) have with which to construct any
>>image of the man who wrote the books. If you shout down or criticize those
>>who have something unflattering to say, just for *saying* it, you will close
>>off a source of information. You don't have to take the information as
>>gospel, but you gain nothing by closing it off.
>Your points in this last paragraph are all valid. Or would be if I
>thought AP's comments were simply 'unflattering'. But they were far
>worse than that. And I don't wish to 'shout him down' - I simply wish
>to express my view that he is a biased and unobjective critic.
Well, this is not the same thing as saying that he speaks from a level
unworthy of rebuttal. To suggest he has a bias is a fair point; to say he is
to be ignored because his words are extreme is not.
>Furthermore, I believe his personal acquaintance with RAH was somewhat
>slight, and his statements about him conflict dramatically with what
>people who knew him better (Spider Robinson, Larry Niven, Jerry
>Pournelle and Neil Schumann for instance) have written.
No one has ever said, TMK, that Heinlein was always one way or the other. The
authors you name are sources (with biases of their own, I'd wager). Panshin,
Asimov, Clark, Cambell are sources too. I merely suggest we give an ear to
each of them.
Josh Kaderlan
Julian Treadwell <j...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>
>Your points in this last paragraph are all valid. Or would be if I
>thought AP's comments were simply 'unflattering'. But they were far
>worse than that. And I don't wish to 'shout him down' - I simply wish
>to express my view that he is a biased and unobjective critic.
>
>slight, and his statements about him conflict dramatically with what
>people who knew him better (Spider Robinson, Larry Niven, Jerry
>Pournelle and Neil Schumann for instance) have written.
>
there's a new one on me. All the people you mention were younger than
Heinlein, and I would guess that they regarded him as a bit of an elder
statesman. I would think that the comments of those who were closer to
being Heinlein's peers (such as Asimov and Clarke) might come closer to
being accurate. (I am, of course, always prepared to be proven wrong.)
--Josh
jgar...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
> David MacLean (dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca) wrote to Alexei Panshin:
> <snipped>
>
> my knowledge, made two public statements of a few hundred words in a
> twenty-three year period, I find various people's insistence that Panshin
> is conducting a "vendetta" or "out to blacken Heinlein's name" or is stuck
> he'd be accused of being a coward afraid to defend himself. And when he
> writes a couple of hundred words in response to tens of thousands of words
> hundreds upon hundreds of posts attacking him, he is accused of being
> "obsessed." What does that say about all the people spending all this
> time, wordage, and energy attacking him, then?
>
> always agree with him, but I always find him interesting. He's currently
> working on a book about ALICE IN WONDERLAND, I believe. Indeed, his time
> is much better spent on such a book than joining the rest of us babbling
> away on Usenet.
>
Here, here.
RAH was a damn good writer especially in his early career. This did not
in any way make him a damn good person. If I were to interpret his
wishes from his many sources, I would say that in general he wanted to say,
do and write what he wanted to say, do, and write when he wanted to say, do
and write and, if you didn't like it, to hell with you.
If this bothers some fans who want him to be something else, well, I can be
like RAH too :-) .
John Garland
Stevens R. Miller
>We wrote a politely worded letter to Heinlein, stating that
>this kind of requirement this late in the game was a tad unfair to
>those of us who gave blood on a regular basis and who had done so just
>prior to get the notice.
>Heinlein's response was a two page letter, claiming that our saying
>that the policy was in any way unfair was an insult to both him and
>Mrs. Heinlein. He got very nasty in spots.
Jim, that's a great anecdote. I'd ask to see the letter, but then you'd have
to kill me. 1/2 8-).
John Paul Vrolyk
>>>argument.
>
>>What form? Panshin's essay which Gary published here gave only slight
>>supporting evidence for his extremely insulting and childish
>>name-calling which I cited above.
>
>If you can make the claim that it's name-calling, how can you not see that you
>are attacking the form, and not the substance?
Now, I haven't been closely following this whole thread, but assume, just
for the sake of argument, that whatever is being referred to actually
was name-calling. Name-calling typically doesn't *have* any substance.
You can't very well rationally and logically counter the substance
of a message if it consists only of the empty form of name-calling.
You'd just, as this person seems to have done, point out the fact
that it's empty, "childish" name-calling. Of course, if the original
statement *did* have real substance, and was not just name-callling,
then the act of calling it name-calling would itself be mere
name-calling.
/===================================================================\
" John Paul Vrolyk " 48 Key's Way, Ottawa, ON " (613)247-0267 "
" 3A- CS @ UWaterloo " jpvr...@napier.uwaterloo.ca " Shad 92M "
#====================#==============================#===============#
" "YOUR REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE DARK SIDE OF HUMANITY MAKES YOU "
" PREY TO THAT DARK SIDE" -- from _Shampoo_Planet_, by D. Coupland "
\===================================================================/
Stevens R. Miller
>>>>Julian, attacking the form instead of the substance is the hallmark of weak
>>>>argument.
>>
>>>What form? Panshin's essay which Gary published here gave only slight
>>>supporting evidence for his extremely insulting and childish
>>>name-calling which I cited above.
>>
>>If you can make the claim that it's name-calling, how can you not see that you
>>are attacking the form, and not the substance?
>You can't very well rationally and logically counter the substance
>of a message if it consists only of the empty form of name-calling.
A very well-reasoned analysis, John. Note that Julian's first question,
however, is "[w]hat form?" If he can't see form, he must not think he's
attacking form, and therefore must see and believe to be attacking something
of substance; yet, as you point out, to label an expression as "name-calling"
only makes sense if one is criticizing that expression's form. It's a
contradiction.
In any case, there is rarely a complete lack of both form and
substance; I'd think Panshin's remarks could be addressed for their substance,
even if one found them formally disgusting and substantially thin (neither of
which I do, but Julian is certainly entitled to another finding).
Julian Treadwell
>In article <4dmc1s$i...@news.express.co.nz>,
>Julian Treadwell <j...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>Your points in this last paragraph are all valid. Or would be if I
>>thought AP's comments were simply 'unflattering'. But they were far
>>worse than that. And I don't wish to 'shout him down' - I simply wish
>>to express my view that he is a biased and unobjective critic.
>>
>>Furthermore, I believe his personal acquaintance with RAH was somewhat
>>slight, and his statements about him conflict dramatically with what
>>people who knew him better (Spider Robinson, Larry Niven, Jerry
>>Pournelle and Neil Schumann for instance) have written.
>>
>Heh. Spider Robinson as unbiased and objective when it comes to RAH;
>there's a new one on me.
Um, I don't think I said he was (or wasn't).
> All the people you mention were younger than
>Heinlein, and I would guess that they regarded him as a bit of an elder
>statesman.
I'm not sure about that - I wouldn't say any of the four I mentioned
are the easily-impressed type, from what I've read and heard about
them.
> I would think that the comments of those who were closer to
>being Heinlein's peers (such as Asimov and Clarke) might come closer to
>being accurate.
You're possibly right. But they haven't said very much, just the odd
comment here and there. And what they have said is worlds away from
what Panshin said, imo.
jgar...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
In article <4dgjo4$k...@alterdial.UU.NET>, pstr...@atlcom.net (Phantom Stryker) writes:
>
>>| George Orwell (Eric Blair). He even wrote articles criticizing his
>>|own work. One in particular that I remember was a column in which he looked
>>|at predictions he had made and tried to figure out why he was wrong in
>>|some cases.
>
>>I seem to recall Heinlein doing this also... or is that what started this?
>
>
> had made about Heinlein being upset with him for criticizing his work.
> from time to time myself.
>
>
He criticized his _predictions_ in an article whose name I forget but which
has been mentioned in this thread.
I do not ever remember him engaging in literary criticism. Seems to me, in
fact (or maybe just in my own mind!), that he specifically denounced the
whole process of criticism on a number of occasions.
A phrase which comes to mind went something like
...in terms that could only be misunderstood by a professor of English...
or some such. I think he was talking about Starship Troopers.
John Garland
P Nielsen Hayden
aharo.mc...@xerox.com (Alexandra Haropulos) wrote:
>1) When Panshin wrote his book, substantive SF criticism
>was very new. *NO* SF author had much experience of
>anything other than book reviews and editorial comment.
>So, the process would very likely have been uncomfortable
>for *any* SF author, not just Heinlein.
Overstated. Panshin's HEINLEIN IN DIMENSION appeared in 1968. Damon
Knight's critical survey IN SEARCH OF WONDER, which devotes an entire chapter
to an appreciative but not uncritical look at Heinlein, appeared in 1956. THE
ISSUE AT HAND by "William Atheling" (James Blish), which also treats with
Heinlein's work, appeared in 1964. These are just two of several works of
in-depth criticism published in book form before HEINLEIN IN DIMENSION, many
of which dealt at least in part with the work of Robert A. Heinlein.
It would be more to the point to say that "*NO* SF author" had more experience
dealing with detailed criticism than Robert A. Heinlein.
Incidentally, HEINLEIN IN DIMENSION was published by a fan press, just like
almost all of its predecessors in SF criticism.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
P Nielsen Hayden
Robert A. Heinlein):
>I do not ever remember him engaging in literary criticism. Seems to me, in
>fact (or maybe just in my own mind!), that he specifically denounced the
>whole process of criticism on a number of occasions.
Heinlein, Robert A. "Science Fiction: Its Nature, Faults, and Virtues." In
THE SCIENCE FICTION NOVEL: IMAGINATION AND SOCIAL CRITICISM. Chicago: Advent,
1959.
Heinlein discusses and cites the work of dozens of his predecessors and
contemporaries, making a wide variety of generalizations and specific
observations.
At the end of the essay, he remarks on his indebtedness to the SF criticism of
Reginald Bretnor.
The essay was based on a lecture Heinlein delivered at the University of
Chicago in 1957; the volume in which it appeared was published by Advent, the
same fan-run house that later published Panshin's HEINLEIN IN DIMENSION.
So while it is certainly true that Heinlein "specifically denounced the whole
process of criticism on a number of occasions," it can't be claimed that he
never engaged in it.
Leighton M. Anderson
just
>for the sake of argument, that whatever is being referred to actually
>was name-calling. Name-calling typically doesn't *have* any
substance.
>of a message if it consists only of the empty form of name-calling.
>that it's empty, "childish" name-calling. Of course, if the original
>statement *did* have real substance, and was not just name-callling,
>then the act of calling it name-calling would itself be mere
>name-calling.
Quite true. Just as any allegation of "hypocracy" is almost always
made by a hypocrite.
Btw, the original Panshin-forwarded article was far from name-calling.
It was unflattering to the memory of the late Dean of American Science
Fiction, but that doesn't make it name calling. It was a personal
reminiscence by someone -- a notable someone! -- who had a point of
view which was relevant to a current thread. It's too bad so many
net.yahoos have their nerve endings *outside* their skin and therefore
react so badly to a point of view which may not be one at which they
would naturally or easily arrive.
Leighton
Gary Farber
: And I don't wish to 'shout him down' - I simply wish
: to express my view that he is a biased and unobjective critic.
I think you've done that.
By the way, could you introduce me to an unbiased and objective critic,
please? What planet is this creature from? :-)
David MacLean
gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>David MacLean (dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca) wrote to Alexei Panshin:
><snipped>
>: you waste on proclaiming your "innocence" into more productive pursuits.
>
>: It is obvious that you pissed RAH off. He retaliated by virtually excluding
>: you from his universe. Accept it, or figure out why. Don't stay trapped
>: in the limbo of "woe is me, he done me wrong".
>
>my knowledge, made two public statements of a few hundred words in a
>twenty-three year period, I find various people's insistence that Panshin
>is conducting a "vendetta" or "out to blacken Heinlein's name" or is stuck
>on this issue, to be well beyond bizarre. If he said absolutely nothing,
>he'd be accused of being a coward afraid to defend himself.
Point one: I have never accused him of conducting a vendetta, nor of being
"out to blacken Heinlein's name". Unlike some, I can accept that my tastes
and beliefs are not universal, and that there is room in this world for
those who disagree with me. As for what I might say about him being
a coward afraid to defend himself, it seems that he has read access to
Usenet news, and he has email facilities, but rather than post through
a mail-to-news server (and I will send him a list if he requests one),
he chooses to email through a person that he found supportive in the
debate. He is not defending himself at all.
However, your criticism's can hardly apply to my post, so I take it that
you are responding to others via a reply.
>And when he
>writes a couple of hundred words in response to tens of thousands of words
>of attack upon him, most of it intensely personal and abusive, after
>hundreds upon hundreds of posts attacking him, he is accused of being
>"obsessed." What does that say about all the people spending all this
>time, wordage, and energy attacking him, then?
>
"hundreds upon hundreds of posts attacking him"? Hardly. While there
may have been "hundreds upon hundreds" of posts in this thread, the
thread divided a long time ago, and discussion of the Panshin/Heinlein
contratemps took a backseat to discussion of Luna society a long time
ago. In addition, those that did discuss the Heinlein/Panshin situation
were hardly universally condemning of Panshin.
In fact, I stayed out of the debate until Mr. Panshin chose to enter the
debate in the fashion that he did - email through a supporter, rather
than posting directly. And then, I found his words to be hollow and those
of a "victim". My point (which critics have ignored) was and is that the
quarrel has only been described from Panshin's point of view, and I pointed
out how I find that point of view wanting. Alexei Panshin is invited, nay,
encouraged to respond to those criticisms.
>Panshin has since written two excellent books of sf criticism. I don't
>always agree with him, but I always find him interesting. He's currently
>working on a book about ALICE IN WONDERLAND, I believe. Indeed, his time
>is much better spent on such a book than joining the rest of us babbling
>away on Usenet.
Ah, but is this not exactly what I said? With the death of RAH, any
hope of resolution of the conflict in this lifetime vanished. If, indeed,
his time is much better spent on writing rather than "joining the rest of
us babbling away on Usenet" then why did he choose to do so, and more
importantly from my perspective, in the manner in which he chose to
do it?
--
***************************************************************************
David E. MacLean dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca
***************************************************************************
David MacLean
jek...@cac.psu.edu (Josh Kaderlan) wrote:
>In article <4dikmc$f...@news.express.co.nz>,
>Julian Treadwell <j...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>>gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>>
>>>I hate to get into this, but given that Alexei Panshin has, to the best of
>>>my knowledge, made two public statements of a few hundred words in a
>>>twenty-three year period, I find various people's insistence that Panshin
>>>is conducting a "vendetta" or "out to blacken Heinlein's name" or is stuck
>>>on this issue, to be well beyond bizarre.
>>
>>that he's stooped to personal attacks.
>>
>still don't think that Panshin said anything particularly insulting about
>Heinlein; it's not like he called Heinlein a plagiarist or something. I
>saw his comments as expressing sadness at the way he saw Heinlein end up.
>
The "more in sorrow than in anger" approach?
>>>If he said absolutely nothing,
>>>he'd be accused of being a coward afraid to defend himself.
>>
>>Defend himself from what? Heinlein never attacked him, to
>>my knowledge.
>>
>From the comments made about him in this newsgroup.
>
But he did NOT defend himself. He wrote email to another, claiming that
he did not know how to post, and allowed others to defend himself.
>>>And when he
>>>writes a couple of hundred words in response to tens of thousands of words
>>>of attack upon him, most of it intensely personal and abusive
>>
>>Can I remind you of the phrases 'self-devouring, solipsistic vampire'
>>and 'horror story'? Who's being abusive?
>>
>What's abusive about those phrases? Inaccurate, maybe. But I personally
>don't see them as insulting or abusive. (And remember, he described
>Heinlein's later life as a horror story, not the man himself.)
If someone called you a self-devouring, solipsistic vampire, am I to assume
that you would not find the words insulting and abusive?
How about if I called you a canabalistic, selfish blood-sucker?
Julian Treadwell
[snip]
>Combined with Julian Treadwell's previous nonsensical theory about
>Panshin's "vendetta" and using this event to "make himself famous" (I
>think that was Julian; if I have the attribution wrong, I apologize)
I didn't use either of those phrases as I recall, but you're probably
thinking of a idea I offered that the public venue for the apology AP
tried to make perhaps indicated that publicity was his motivation.
Your reply showed that this probably wasn't the case, and I
retracted the theory immediately. But I think 'nonsensical' is
a bit hard - it was an obvious interpretaion to make without
more details of the incident, I thought.
>, I
>find the willingess of people to attribute such a string of dire
>motivations to Alexei Panshin, whose only crime is that he said some
>negative things about Robert Heinlein that some people don't like, to be
>quite striking.
No, Gary. People say negative things about RAH in this newsgroup all
the time. AP went way beyond that, into a vicious personal attack.
And in print.
>This is why many experienced sf hands stay away from many long-time topics
>in public discussions, such as Robert Heinlein or Harlan Ellison, no
>matter how strong our own opinions and knowledge of the gentlemen: it's
>just impossible to discuss some people and topics in public without being
>set upon by, um, enthusiastic partisans.
Yes, well, I'd say 'enthusiastic setting upon' would be an
understatement in describing AP's attack on RAH.
If he can dish it out, he should be able to take it, imho.
Julian Treadwell
>In article <DLG1F...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> jpvr...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (John Paul Vrolyk) writes:
>>>>>Julian, attacking the form instead of the substance is the hallmark of weak
>>>>>argument.
>>>
>>>>What form? Panshin's essay which Gary published here gave only slight
>>>>supporting evidence for his extremely insulting and childish
>>>>name-calling which I cited above.
>>>
>>>If you can make the claim that it's name-calling, how can you not see that you
>>>are attacking the form, and not the substance?
>>You can't very well rationally and logically counter the substance
>>of a message if it consists only of the empty form of name-calling.
>A very well-reasoned analysis, John. Note that Julian's first question,
>however, is "[w]hat form?" If he can't see form, he must not think he's
>attacking form, and therefore must see and believe to be attacking something
>of substance; yet, as you point out, to label an expression as "name-calling"
>only makes sense if one is criticizing that expression's form. It's a
>contradiction.
Excellent point, I meant to say 'What substance?' not 'What form?'.
Shows you what comes of posting in the wee small hours.
However, I stand behind the remainder of my post.
>In any case, there is rarely a complete lack of both form and
>substance; I'd think Panshin's remarks could be addressed for their substance,
>even if one found them formally disgusting and substantially thin (neither of
>which I do, but Julian is certainly entitled to another finding).
I have addressed what little substance they contained in my original
post in response to AP's essay posted by gary Farber.
Btw, please don't put words in my mouth (you seem to have a habit of
that). I referred to AP's remarks as neither 'disgusting' nor 'thin'.
David MacLean
jek...@cac.psu.edu (Josh Kaderlan) wrote:
>In article <4dg9ka$d...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>Let's examine the situation. Panshin, when he attempted to analyze
>>Heinlein, moved out of the realm of mere writer, and into the territory
>>of "investigative journalist". His book on Heinlein shows that he has
>>some facility in research.
>>
>>Yet decades after the incident, he claims that he still has no idea what
>>he did that caused RAH to react in the fashion that he did. This strikes
>>me as totally unbelievable.
>
>My reading of Panshin's account differs from yours; Panshin says that he
>knows why Heinlein stopped speaking to him, that it was because of the
>matter of the letters.
>
Yet at the same time implying that the penalty imposed was way out of
proportion to the crime. There are two possible explanations for this.
Explanation one is that Heinlein was insane, and explanation two is that
the crime was NOT what Panshin believes it to be. Given the lack of
evidence of this type of insanity showing in Heinlein's behaviour toward
others, explanation one wears a little thin.
>>I can tell you one thing: Mr. Panshin's continued insistance that he is but
>>an unwilling and unknowing "victim" would almost certainly have infuriated
>>RAH as much, if not more, than the initial incident that caused the feud.
>>
>How would you react, if you were in Panshin's situation? And, out of
>curiosity, why do you feel you know what Heinlein's reaction "would. . .almost
>certainly have" been? (Were you a friend of his, perhaps?)
>
If I were in Panshin's situation (and we really know only what Panshin
tells us, since Heinlein did not explain his actions - nor did he feel
the need to explain his actions), I would, if I felt that I was in the
wrong, attempted to apologize, and if rebuffed, would have moved on.
If, on the other hand, I did not feel that I was in the wrong, I would have
offerred no apology, and *still* moved on.
And I base my supposition of his reaction on his writing about slavery;
nobody freed any slave save the slave freeing himself. It seems to mark
Heinlein's philosophy as that of intolerance to intolerable situations.
Heinlein expressed little sympathy for those who meekly accepted their
lot when they desired something better.
>Still sounds to me like RAH wanted to have the good points of being a
>published author without the criticism.
You imply that the reason for RAH's reaction to Panshin was NOT the "matter
of the letters" but something else - Heinlein's distaste for criticism.
However, Panshin was not the only person who wrote criticism about
Heinlein, yet he is the only one that was treated in the manner being
discussed.
If even you do not believe that Panshin's profferred "reason" for Heinlein's
behaviour is in fact correct, then why is it that you seem upset when I
point this out?
Julian Treadwell
>Our correspondent in Tierra del Fuego reports that j...@iprolink.co.nz
>(Julian Treadwell), wrote:
>>It's not how much he's said, Gary, it's what he's said and the fact
>>that he's stooped to personal attacks.
>Whereas the things said about Panshin previously were purely
>objective, scholarly assessment without even a hint of personal
>attacks.
I was only replying to remarks about *my* posts.
>It must have been in some alternate universe that I read
>those things about Panshin being some no-talent hack trying to climb
>to fame over the body of Robert Heinlein.
See above.
> I know I couldn't have read
>it in a.f.h., since as Mr. Treadwell so persuasively points out, we
>*never* do that sort of thing around here. Nope. Not a bit of it.
I didn't say that. Or anything like it. But actually there is a
difference between posting to Usenet and putting your views in print,
(as AP did at least twice). The latter action implies you expect
to be taken as a serious critic and you've done careful research
and you're being highly objective and fair to your subject. The
former just implies you have an opinion to express. Had AP
only made his comments on Usenet or in casual conversation,
my reaction would have been much milder.
P Nielsen Hayden
gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>This is why many experienced sf hands stay away from many long-time topics
>in public discussions, such as Robert Heinlein or Harlan Ellison, no
>matter how strong our own opinions and knowledge of the gentlemen: it's
>just impossible to discuss some people and topics in public without being
>set upon by, um, enthusiastic partisans.
What Gary said, with bells on. Put even more plainly, it's nearly impossible
to have an interesting public conversation about certain authors, because if
what you have to say isn't 100% worshipful, you'll be shouted down by the
nuts.
Branden Robinson
: You can't very well rationally and logically counter the substance
: of a message if it consists only of the empty form of name-calling.
: You'd just, as this person seems to have done, point out the fact
: that it's empty, "childish" name-calling. Of course, if the original
: statement *did* have real substance, and was not just name-callling,
: then the act of calling it name-calling would itself be mere
: name-calling.
This whole thing is starting to sound like a Monty Python sketch...
--
Murphy's Guide to Science: | G. Branden Robinson
"If it's green or squirms, it's biology. | Aerospace Engineering
If it stinks, it's chemistry. | Purdue University
If it doesn't work, it's physics." | bra...@ecn.purdue.edu
John Paul Vrolyk
Branden Robinson <bra...@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>: You can't very well rationally and logically counter the substance
>: of a message if it consists only of the empty form of name-calling.
>: You'd just, as this person seems to have done, point out the fact
>: that it's empty, "childish" name-calling. Of course, if the original
>: statement *did* have real substance, and was not just name-callling,
>: then the act of calling it name-calling would itself be mere
>: name-calling.
>
>This whole thing is starting to sound like a Monty Python sketch...
Thank you! <humble bow> Glad to have brought a smile to this
tiresome, ponderous, flame-laden thread.
Chris Thomas
> I hate to get into this, but given that Alexei Panshin has, to the best of
> my knowledge, made two public statements of a few hundred words in a
> twenty-three year period, I find various people's insistence that Panshin
> is conducting a "vendetta" or "out to blacken Heinlein's name" or is stuck
> on this issue, to be well beyond bizarre.
I think you're being a little unrealistic here. A book is a fairly
permanent way to set down thoughts in writing, and is certainly more
than a few hundred words in length. Why should he need to do more
damage than he's done? Yet he does feel the need. Why? Because we're
trying to fix the damage, perhaps?
>If he said absolutely nothing,
> he'd be accused of being a coward afraid to defend himself. And when he
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a reason to say something when you're twelve. Grown-ups
should know better, and I'm sure Panshin does (if he didn't he'd
have to produce much more wordage than he currently does...)
> writes a couple of hundred words in response to tens of thousands of words
> of attack upon him, most of it intensely personal and abusive, after
> hundreds upon hundreds of posts attacking him, he is accused of being
> "obsessed." What does that say about all the people spending all this
> time, wordage, and energy attacking him, then?
It says that many more people respect Heinlein than Panshin, really.
If one man argues that Panshin is a jackass, it may be assumed that
one man dislikes Panshin intensely. If many people argue that Panshin
is a jackass, it is entirely within reason that many people dislike
Panshin. What more or less can you derive? What does it say about
you that you spend so much time defending him?
> Panshin has since written two excellent books of sf criticism. I don't
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
Be serious!
> always agree with him, but I always find him interesting. He's currently
> working on a book about ALICE IN WONDERLAND, I believe. Indeed, his time
> is much better spent on such a book than joining the rest of us babbling
> away on Usenet.
Why? Is he out to prove that Lewis Carroll was a lesbian named Queen Anne?
That would be interesting reading, indeed.
--
Chris Thomas, c...@best.com
Leighton M. Anderson
writes:
>I'm not sure why you find this to be so important. Do you not believe
>Panshin when he says he hasn't yet figured out how to post?
I didn't (don't) believe it. I think that the forwarded-mail technique
was a way to avoid giving out his email address. Based on the
hostility of some of the responsive posts, it's not hard to understand
why.
Leighton
Leighton M. Anderson
Robinson) writes:
>This whole thing is starting to sound like a Monty Python sketch...
Yeah, well, that's just the kind of Philistine pig ignorance we've come
to expect from you noncreative garbage.
(Architect's Sketch.) :-)
Leighton
Stevens R. Miller
> lei...@ix.netcom.com(Leighton M. Anderson ) wrote:
>>In <4du3hb$1k...@hearst.cac.psu.edu> jek...@cac.psu.edu (Josh Kaderlan)
>>
>>>Panshin when he says he hasn't yet figured out how to post?
>>
>>I didn't (don't) believe it. I think that the forwarded-mail technique
>>was a way to avoid giving out his email address.
>I'm sorry, I just have to laugh at this. Yes, it's all a conspiracy.
It's particularly funny when you look at the fact that Gary also posted
Panshin's e-mail address (I've used it, and received a note in reply).
Josh Kaderlan
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>In article <4djnr9$1p...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>
>jek...@cac.psu.edu (Josh Kaderlan) wrote:
>>Yes, but consider the way he was talked about in this thread. And I
>>still don't think that Panshin said anything particularly insulting about
>>Heinlein; it's not like he called Heinlein a plagiarist or something. I
>>saw his comments as expressing sadness at the way he saw Heinlein end up.
>>
>The "more in sorrow than in anger" approach?
>
approach. Why not?
>>>Defend himself from what? Heinlein never attacked him, to
>>>my knowledge.
>>>
>>From the comments made about him in this newsgroup.
>>
>But he did NOT defend himself. He wrote email to another, claiming that
>he did not know how to post, and allowed others to defend himself.
>
I'm not sure why you find this to be so important. Do you not believe
Panshin when he says he hasn't yet figured out how to post?
>>What's abusive about those phrases? Inaccurate, maybe. But I personally
>>don't see them as insulting or abusive. (And remember, he described
>>Heinlein's later life as a horror story, not the man himself.)
>
>If someone called you a self-devouring, solipsistic vampire, am I to assume
>that you would not find the words insulting and abusive?
>
No, I don't think I would. I'd be more likely to guffaw.
>How about if I called you a canabalistic, selfish blood-sucker?
>
There's a difference there. I still think I'd be more likely to guffaw
(and I certainly don't think Heinlein would have objected to being called
"selfish;" remember, this is the man who repeatedly said, "Altruism is
just selfishness.").
--Josh
Julian Treadwell
>In article <4dsi2r$n...@panix2.panix.com>,
> gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>>This is why many experienced sf hands stay away from many long-time topics
>>in public discussions, such as Robert Heinlein or Harlan Ellison, no
>>matter how strong our own opinions and knowledge of the gentlemen: it's
>>just impossible to discuss some people and topics in public without being
>>set upon by, um, enthusiastic partisans.
>What Gary said, with bells on. Put even more plainly, it's nearly impossible
>to have an interesting public conversation about certain authors, because if
>what you have to say isn't 100% worshipful, you'll be shouted down by the
>nuts.
Oh, come on. People post criticisms of RAH in alt.fan.heinlein all
the time without being 'shouted down' by anyone at all. Panshin's
attacks are a completely different kettle of fish, in a class all
their own.
I think the arguments arising here are more to do with opinions of
Panshin, not Heinlein. Some think he's a literary scholar whose
opinions are valuable and edifying. Others do not. The flames seem
to be between Panshin-worshippers and Panshin-rubbishers, nothing to
do with RAH directly at all.
In any case, calling one camp 'nuts' is hardly a way of helping the
argument to stay rational and civilised, is it Mr Hayden.
Gary Farber
be sent to Alexei Panshin at to...@epix.net, not to me, please. Thank you.
From to...@epix.netMon Jan 22 15:23:52 1996
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 11:43:14 +0000
From: to...@epix.net
To: gfa...@panix.com
Subject: TANSTAAFL
Dear Gary,
Thanks to you and to several others for sending info and a book
recommendation to study . Given some learning time and access
to the computer, and in a few weeks I may learn how to walk
the Neb. In the meantime, would you post this for me:
As I read through the discussion, it would seem that the negative
reaction to the essay portion I posted here on Heinlein centers
around my having suggested that he became a solipsistic self-
devouring vampire as he grew old, and that this struck me as
a horror story.
A number of people here seem to think that this was a descent
by me into name-calling. I didn't intend it to be that, but rather
a description in so many words of an aspect of Heinlein's career
trajectory that was dismaying to many of those who had found
reason to love his work in an earlier day.
Solipsistic? By this, I mean that there is a strong solipsistic
streak in Heinlein's stories from early days, as evidenced by
"They" and _Beyond This Horizon_. But it came to dominate
three of his large late novels--_I Will Fear No Evil_, _Time Enough
for Love_ and _The Number of the Beast_.
Self-devouring? I mean the redefinition of earlier Heinlein
stories so that they became trivialized aspects of later ones.
Vampire? Someone in this discussion has confirmed that
Heinlein demanded blood as a price of interaction in his latter
days, and could be unpleasant to those who couldn't or wouldn't
give it.
This trend in life to me is a horror story that demands more
explanation than I have to give. But you can't "shoot the
messenger" for pointing out that there are some difficult facts
here that must be taken account of. Particularly if you want
to adopt RAH as a hero and as a role model.
If the Heinlein way of knowing all, mastering everything and
being in charge is to be given credence as the example of mature
human behavior, then we also have to factor in everything that
Heinlein imagines from spreading Limburger cheese on cold
radiators to an autobiographical time traveler having a sexual
relationship with his mother. And when a Heinlein character
whom RAH specifically identified to his editor as autobiographical
describes himself as "indifferent honest," and Heinlein himself
says of him: "His morals were strictly pragmatic, and conformed
to accepted code as closely as they did only through a shrewd
and imaginative self-interest," we need to pay attention.
I'm available for comment--after my wife and two sons have their
own turns on-line--at to...@epix.com.
Alexei Panshin
P Nielsen Hayden
lei...@ix.netcom.com(Leighton M. Anderson ) wrote:
>In <4du3hb$1k...@hearst.cac.psu.edu> jek...@cac.psu.edu (Josh Kaderlan)
>>I'm not sure why you find this to be so important. Do you not believe
>>Panshin when he says he hasn't yet figured out how to post?
>
>hostility of some of the responsive posts, it's not hard to understand
>why.
I'm sorry, I just have to laugh at this. Yes, it's all a conspiracy. Alexei
Panshin is in cahoots with Gary Farber to cleverly deceive you all on the very
important issue of whether he is adept with email or not. Bwa ha ha.
Is there something in the water in this thread?
Julian Treadwell
>Julian Treadwell (j...@iprolink.co.nz) wrote:
>: And I don't wish to 'shout him down' - I simply wish
>: to express my view that he is a biased and unobjective critic.
>I think you've done that.
>By the way, could you introduce me to an unbiased and objective critic,
>please? What planet is this creature from? :-)
I suppose it's an ideal which some come closer to attaining than
others. And some don't even try to attain.
Mark Bernstein
: Forwarded without comment, save to again repeat my request that comments
: From to...@epix.netMon Jan 22 15:23:52 1996
: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 11:43:14 +0000
: Vampire? Someone in this discussion has confirmed that
: Heinlein demanded blood as a price of interaction in his latter
: days, and could be unpleasant to those who couldn't or wouldn't
^^^^^^^^
: give it.
I will dispute, albeit anecdotally, this last point. I was at MidAmeriCon
in 1976, where Heinlein held an autograph session for blood donors only.
I tried to donate, and was turned down (I think for medication I was on
at the time--I don't recall exactly.) The fact that I had tried was
good enough. I was admitted to the autograph session, wearing my "I
Tried" sticker, and was treated politely. Naturally, I still have the
book he autographed.
--
Mark Bernstein
ma...@erim.org
Steve Taylor
> I didn't (don't) believe it. I think that the forwarded-mail technique
> was a way to avoid giving out his email address. Based on the
> hostility of some of the responsive posts, it's not hard to understand
> why.
Nice theory, except that...
The concluding words of Panshin's post are:
"Contact me at to...@epix.net.
Alexei Panshin"
> Leighton
Steve
Walker on Earth
c...@best.com (Chris Thomas) writes:
>I think you're being a little unrealistic here. A book is a fairly
>permanent way to set down thoughts in writing, and is certainly more
>than a few hundred words in length. Why should he need to do more
>damage than he's done? Yet he does feel the need. Why? Because we're
>trying to fix the damage, perhaps?
character. His response seemed to be designed to correct some presum-
tions made on this thread.
>>If he said absolutely nothing,
>> he'd be accused of being a coward afraid to defend himself. And when he
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>This is a reason to say something when you're twelve. Grown-ups
>should know better, and I'm sure Panshin does (if he didn't he'd
>have to produce much more wordage than he currently does...)
he is, rather than the way you would have it, how would you have him
phrase his thoughts? Something specific, please.
>> "obsessed." What does that say about all the people spending all this
>> time, wordage, and energy attacking him, then?
>It says that many more people respect Heinlein than Panshin, really.
>If one man argues that Panshin is a jackass, it may be assumed that
>one man dislikes Panshin intensely. If many people argue that Panshin
>is a jackass, it is entirely within reason that many people dislike
>Panshin. What more or less can you derive? What does it say about
partisanship, a symptom of willingness to follow the right man on
a white horse.
>you that you spend so much time defending him?
>> Panshin has since written two excellent books of sf criticism. I don't
> ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
> Be serious!
Panshin is proof of his unlikeability. Why not apply the same logic here/
Can you say, 'Partisan?'
FWIW, reread the section In Asimov's last autobiography on Heinlein, esp.
that part about grumbles from the grave and meanness.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. And many die that deserve life. Is it in
your power to give it to them? Then do not be so quick to deal out death in
judgement, for even the very wise may not see all ends."
Gary Farber
: In <4du3hb$1k...@hearst.cac.psu.edu> jek...@cac.psu.edu (Josh Kaderlan)
: writes:
: >I'm not sure why you find this to be so important. Do you not believe
: >Panshin when he says he hasn't yet figured out how to post?
: I didn't (don't) believe it. I think that the forwarded-mail technique
: was a way to avoid giving out his email address. Based on the
: hostility of some of the responsive posts, it's not hard to understand
: why.
From my post which began this thread (4d8pb2$7...@panix2.panix.com.
1/13/96)) -- I began:
: I was surprised yesterday when I received, out of the blue, e-mail from
: Alexei Panshin, to...@epix.net, who is just getting online, with the help
: of his son. He has read much, if not all, apparently, of the "A Heinlein
: Anecdote" thread, but as he still, in his own words, doesn't "know what
: he's doing yet" in online matters, including how to post to Usenet, he
: asked me if I would post the following for him.
: That seems only fair. However, please direct responses to *his*
: e-address, to...@epix.net, not mine, okay? Please alter the attribution
: line to *his* address, not mine, when you follow-up to this, okay?
: Please?
That was a fiendishly clever way of me to conceal Alexei's e-mail
address, wasn't it?
Thanks for calling me a liar, though.
Stevens R. Miller
>l...@interport.net (Stevens R. Miller) wrote:
>>In any case, there is rarely a complete lack of both form and
>>substance; I'd think Panshin's remarks could be addressed for their substance,
>>even if one found them formally disgusting and substantially thin (neither of
>>which I do, but Julian is certainly entitled to another finding).
>Btw, please don't put words in my mouth (you seem to have a habit of
>that). I referred to AP's remarks as neither 'disgusting' nor 'thin'.
I dispute your charge and demand that you back it up. I quoted your post at
length so that people would know what I was responding to, exactly. The words
I added were not put in your mouth. They are from mine and no one would
reasonably think otherwise. Indeed, to accuse me of this is virtually to
commit the offense itself; you don't like my words, but then sidestep them by
saying that I am suggesting they are your words, when I've done no such thing.
Back it up, or take it back.
W$
>> Vampire? Someone in this discussion has confirmed that
>> Heinlein demanded blood as a price of interaction in his latter
>> days, and could be unpleasant to those who couldn't or wouldn't
>> give it.
This is a bit overblown and foolish. RAH had many operations himself, and was
privy to the problems of finding matching blood for rare blood types, and a
decent supply. He was often offerred pay for giving talks and interviews; but
chose on "some" occassions to defer cash payment to donations to the blood
bank. This is typical of many personalities that give their time to different
charities, or support them in some way or another.
It's hardly unpleasant to state your terms and then not "perform" as it were
when your terms aren't met. If you wanted to see him ... donate blood ... if
not forget it!
Ask any artist of RAH's stature for an interview sometime; I think you'll get
the point.
Rick Cook
>Panshin's description of events seem to me to have the ring of truth,
Truth? Well I'm sure Panshin believes it. But he sounds to me like someone
who is blowing something utterly out of proportion.
>and are not inconsistent with what we know of The Dean from other
>sources. (Have you read what Asimov wrote about RAH?)
Uh, Asimov is not exactly an unbiased source. He and Heinlein did not agree
on a number of things and their personalities clashed rather badly.
>The whole point of what I was trying to say is that we don't have to
>defend the failings of our literary heros in order to affirm our love
>for their work.
This of course is absolutely correct. What Heinlein was or wasn't -- or
what Panshin is or isn't -- is ultimately immaterial to what they wrote.
--RC
Rick Cook
>I think Panshin felt (feels?) much the same way, but considers RAH's
>later works to be reflective of a kind of cynicism and loss of
>direction that (Panshin believes) RAH succumbed to in later life.
Hmm. Interesting point here. As I recall, Panshin was much more accurate on
Heinlein's earlier works than his later ones. As I recall some of his
comments about "semi-late" (say 1959 to 1970) Heinlein were pretty far
off.
I wonder if it wasn't Panshin's abilities that slipped on the later books,
even before Heinlein's prose?
--RC
Jim_...@transarc.com
> ma...@sipl4330a.erim.org (Mark Bernstein) writes:
>
> Am I mistaken in my concept of the word "anecdote"? It seems to me that
> the above statement is genuine, first-hand, stand-up-in-court evidence,
> not an anecdote.
>
Nope, "anecdotal evidence" means evidence based on a particular
incident or a few incidents. In general, you can't use anecdotal
evidence, unless there is an overwhelming amount of it, to establish a
general pattern or a general case. (For example, the fact that Joe X
once did nice thing Z can't (alone) be used to make the general
statement "Joe X is a nice guy.")
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
WWW Homepage: http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/Home.html
David MacLean
jek...@cac.psu.edu (Josh Kaderlan) wrote:
>In article <4dr55k$o...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>In article <4dh3ol$11...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>
>>jek...@cac.psu.edu (Josh Kaderlan) wrote:
>>>My reading of Panshin's account differs from yours; Panshin says that he
>>>knows why Heinlein stopped speaking to him, that it was because of the
>>>matter of the letters.
>>>
>>Yet at the same time implying that the penalty imposed was way out of
>>proportion to the crime. There are two possible explanations for this.
>>Explanation one is that Heinlein was insane, and explanation two is that
>>the crime was NOT what Panshin believes it to be. Given the lack of
>>evidence of this type of insanity showing in Heinlein's behaviour toward
>>others, explanation one wears a little thin.
>>
>overreacted; he doesn't say that he was "insane."
>
Hiding behind semantics. Panshin not only implied that Heinlein overreacted,
but that he overreacted in a fashion that no normal person could understand.
If I said that you ranted and raved and fumed and screamed and behaved in
a manner that nobody could possibly expect in response to a slight error
on my part, I would not have to say that you acted insanely; my description
would imply that.
>>>>I can tell you one thing: Mr. Panshin's continued insistance that he is but
>>>>an unwilling and unknowing "victim" would almost certainly have infuriated
>>>>RAH as much, if not more, than the initial incident that caused the feud.
>>>>
>>>How would you react, if you were in Panshin's situation? And, out of
>>>curiosity, why do you feel you know what Heinlein's reaction "would. . .
>>>almost certainly have" been? (Were you a friend of his, perhaps?)
>>>
>>If I were in Panshin's situation (and we really know only what Panshin
>>tells us, since Heinlein did not explain his actions - nor did he feel
>>the need to explain his actions), I would, if I felt that I was in the
>>wrong, attempted to apologize, and if rebuffed, would have moved on.
>>
>>If, on the other hand, I did not feel that I was in the wrong, I would have
>>offerred no apology, and *still* moved on.
>>
>So if you and another person have a genuine miscommunication, you feel no
>need to apologize? Not even if it's a relationship you value?
>
What relationship? Panshin did not know Heinlein, so what "relationship"
existed.
And yes, if I felt that I were in the right, I would offer no apology. That
does not mean that I would not attempt to correct a "genuine
miscommunication". But this is not an apology by any stretch of the
imagination. And if my attempts were rebuffed, I would still move on.
>>And I base my supposition of his reaction on his writing about slavery;
>>nobody freed any slave save the slave freeing himself. It seems to mark
>>Heinlein's philosophy as that of intolerance to intolerable situations.
>>Heinlein expressed little sympathy for those who meekly accepted their
>>lot when they desired something better.
>>
>I don't see how this relates to Panshin. Panshin didn't "meekly accept
>[his] lot;" he tried to make amends with RAH. The man rebuffed him. So
>now, when he tries to tell his side of the story, in response to a
>long-running thread (that he didn't even start), you say he's playing the
>victim. What should he have said?
Correct me if I am wrong, but since Heinlein never spoke of the matter,
there was no need whatsoever for Panshin to "tell his side of the story".
Telling his side of the story implies that he is rebutting, but there was
nothing to rebut. Heinlein treated the matter as private, and to the
best of my knowledge, never tried to "tell his side of the story" in
response to rumours and speculations.
To my way of thinking, Panshin should have responded with "That was in
the past, but let me tell you about what I am working on now."
Trying to drum up sympathy for "his side of the story", when, of the
two principals involved, his is the only side of the story extant,
reeks of "victimhood" and "he done me wrong".
Hans Rancke-Madsen
>: From to...@epix.netMon Jan 22 15:23:52 1996
>: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 11:43:14 +0000
>: Vampire? Someone in this discussion has confirmed that
>: Heinlein demanded blood as a price of interaction in his latter
>: days, and could be unpleasant to those who couldn't or wouldn't
> ^^^^^^^^
>: give it.
>I will dispute, albeit anecdotally, this last point. I was at MidAmeriCon
>in 1976, where Heinlein held an autograph session for blood donors only.
>I tried to donate, and was turned down (I think for medication I was on
>at the time--I don't recall exactly.) The fact that I had tried was
>good enough. I was admitted to the autograph session, wearing my "I
>Tried" sticker, and was treated politely. Naturally, I still have the
>book he autographed.
Am I mistaken in my concept of the word "anecdote"? It seems to me that
the above statement is genuine, first-hand, stand-up-in-court evidence,
not an anecdote.
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
ran...@diku.dk
------------
'There was a man,' remarked Captain Eliot, 'who was sentenced
to death for stealing a horse from a common. He said to the judge,
that he thought it hard to be hanged for stealing a horse from a
common and the judge answered, "You are not to be hanged for
stealing a horse from a common, but that others may not steal
horses from commons." '
'And do you find,' asked Stephen, 'that in fact horses are not
daily stolen from commons? You do not!'
--- "The Mauritius Command" by Patrick O'Brian
David MacLean
jek...@cac.psu.edu (Josh Kaderlan) wrote:
>In article <4dr56u$o...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca>,
>David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>>In article <4djnr9$1p...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>
>>jek...@cac.psu.edu (Josh Kaderlan) wrote:
>>>Yes, but consider the way he was talked about in this thread. And I
>>>still don't think that Panshin said anything particularly insulting about
>>>Heinlein; it's not like he called Heinlein a plagiarist or something. I
>>>saw his comments as expressing sadness at the way he saw Heinlein end up.
>>>
>>The "more in sorrow than in anger" approach?
>>
>Sure, and what's wrong with that? I get the feeling you don't like that
>approach. Why not?
>
Because all to often that approach is used to insult while to deflect
any criticism. The difference between the "honest" approach and the
"more in sorrow than in anger" approach can be illustrated by the
following two statements:
"You're an asshole!"
"I'm sorry that you're an asshole."
Both are equally insulting, but the purveyor of the second can cowardly
hunker down behind the claim that he didn't insult directly.
>>>>Defend himself from what? Heinlein never attacked him, to
>>>>my knowledge.
>>>>
>>>From the comments made about him in this newsgroup.
>>>
>>But he did NOT defend himself. He wrote email to another, claiming that
>>he did not know how to post, and allowed others to defend himself.
>>
>I'm not sure why you find this to be so important. Do you not believe
>Panshin when he says he hasn't yet figured out how to post?
>
Again, I come back to my comments about Panshin being a "researcher".
Information about mail-to-news servers is easily come by. If he cannot
come by information that is readily available, how much faith can we have
in his research abilities?
>>>What's abusive about those phrases? Inaccurate, maybe. But I personally
>>>don't see them as insulting or abusive. (And remember, he described
>>>Heinlein's later life as a horror story, not the man himself.)
>>
>>If someone called you a self-devouring, solipsistic vampire, am I to assume
>>that you would not find the words insulting and abusive?
>>
>No, I don't think I would. I'd be more likely to guffaw.
>
>>How about if I called you a canabalistic, selfish blood-sucker?
>>
>There's a difference there. I still think I'd be more likely to guffaw
>(and I certainly don't think Heinlein would have objected to being called
>"selfish;" remember, this is the man who repeatedly said, "Altruism is
>just selfishness.").
"You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din."
Unless, of course, you've just backed yourself into a corner that you
do not want to admit to.
It occurs to me that the degree of perceived insult is in inverse relation
to the amount of agreement with the notion expressed. If, for example,
I called you a lout, and you had a self-image of being a lout, you would
be less insulted than if your self-image included *not* being a lout.
Rick Cook
>My reading of Panshin's account differs from yours; Panshin says that he
>knows why Heinlein stopped speaking to him, that it was because of the
>matter of the letters.
If that's Panshin's understanding, it differs rather radically from the
understanding of those of Heinlein's friends I have spoken to about it. The
letters were only a small part of it.
>>>I can tell you one thing: Mr. Panshin's continued insistance that he is
>but an unwilling and unknowing "victim" would almost certainly have infuriated
>>RAH as much, if not more, than the initial incident that caused the feud.
>>
>How would you react, if you were in Panshin's situation?
By recognizing that I'd offended Heinlein and that he wasn't likely to
reconcile to what I'd done. Then I would have shrugged sadly and gone one.
I tell you what I _wouldn't_ have done. I wouldn't have forced a
confrontation in a public place with someone who was at best going to cut
me socially.
> And, out of curiosity, why do you feel you know what Heinlein's
reaction >"would. . .almost certainly have" been? (Were you a friend of
his, perhaps?)
>
Heinlein and I have a number of mutual friends. This is what they tell me.
--RC
Josh Kaderlan
>Josh Kaderlan wrote:
>>My reading of Panshin's account differs from yours; Panshin says that he
>>knows why Heinlein stopped speaking to him, that it was because of the
>>matter of the letters.
>
>If that's Panshin's understanding, it differs rather radically from the
>understanding of those of Heinlein's friends I have spoken to about it. The
>letters were only a small part of it.
>
work -- are his books still in print?) This entire thread has been about
the letters, and this is the first concrete statement I've seen that
Heinlein's reaction was *not* in response to Panshin having read the letters.
--Josh
Doug O'Morain
>HEREWITH, ALEXEI PANSHIN WRITES:
>From to...@epix.netSat Jan 13 11:43:28 1996
>
> It hurt me to hear of him as a World Con Guest of Honor
> delivering yet another warning against imminent atomic doom (as
> late as 1976!) and being booed from the balcony by people who
> had once admired him.
I'm confused; why should it hurt you to hear a warning against imminent
atomic doom in 1976? The Soviet Union still existed; China still had
nuclear weapons. And if memory serves, wasn't the "Doomsday Clock" set
at something like 5 minutes to midnight for most of the 70s? I don't
understand.
--
Douglas B. O'Morain, Technical Writer | "I think it's the smiling. Men don't
http://reality.sgi.com/employees/dougom | think you should be smiling while
DNRC: Supreme Gadget Tinker | doing sports."
Silicon Graphics, Inc. | -- Sandra Sevenson, London Observer,
dou...@sgi.com | on why men don't like figure skating
Rick Cook
(I wrote)
>>If that's Panshin's understanding, it differs rather radically from the
>>understanding of those of Heinlein's friends I have spoken to about it.
>>The letters were only a small part of it.
>>
>What else was there?
Basically Heinlein felt Panshin invaded his privacy by going to his friends
to ask about him.
> (Bear in mind that I haven't read any of Panshin's
>work -- are his books still in print?)
I hope so. At least some of them are excellent.
> This entire thread has been about the letters,
Well, no. This point has been hashed over before in this thread. The
letters weren't really what motivated Heinlein -- they were only a small
part of what he objected to about Panshin's behavior.
> and this is the first concrete statement I've seen that
>Heinlein's reaction was *not* in response to Panshin having read the
>letters.
My understanding is that Panshin didn't really read them. He glanced at
them, realized they had no bearing on Heinlein as a literary figure and
returned them to the reciepent's widow.
--RC
Alan Robson
|> >and are not inconsistent with what we know of The Dean from other
|> >sources. (Have you read what Asimov wrote about RAH?)
|>
|> Uh, Asimov is not exactly an unbiased source. He and Heinlein did not agree
|> on a number of things and their personalities clashed rather badly.
|>
Hmmm. Presumably therefore the only reliable witnesses are people who agree
whole-heartedly with Heinlein and whose personalities do not clash because they
are the same as his. All others are unreliable. Do not trust them.
Now let's see if I understand this properly. People who agree with Heinlein
can be trusted to be unbiased. People who disagree with him are biased...
Nope. Sorry. Doesn't work for me.
--
-A
Rick Cook
>So if you and another person have a genuine miscommunication, you feel no
>need to apologize? Not even if it's a relationship you value?
You're assuming there was a miscommunication. Clearly there was not.
Heinlein and Panshin both understood what Panshin had done perfectly. They
differed on its propiety. (The letters were more-or-less a side issue.)
> Panshin didn't "meekly accept
>[his] lot;" he tried to make amends with RAH. The man rebuffed him. So
>now, when he tries to tell his side of the story, in response to a
>long-running thread (that he didn't even start), you say he's playing the
>victim. What should he have said?
How about simply telling the story free of whining, self-pity and attempts
to grab sympathy?
Frankly Panshin's account of what happened makes me think a lot less of
Panshin than the original incident ever did.
--RC
Rick Cook
> he'll
>never be able to satisfy all the people who take such offense that he has
>had some negative things to say about Heinlein along with many positive
>things. As it is, I feel rather guilty now for having contributed to a
>situation that wound up with his name being quite beaten upon.
>
Gary, he's done more with his response to cause himself problems than the
relating the oriignal incident.
--RC
Rick Cook
>>The "more in sorrow than in anger" approach?
>Sure, and what's wrong with that? I get the feeling you don't like that
>approach. Why not?
How about because it's fundamentally dishonest? The essence of it is
slamming the person you're attacking while trying to make yourself look
good by taking a high moral tone.
What Panshin did in his response is an excellent example.
>>>What's abusive about those phrases? Inaccurate, maybe. But I personally
>>>don't see them as insulting or abusive. (And remember, he described
>>>Heinlein's later life as a horror story, not the man himself.)
>>If someone called you a self-devouring, solipsistic vampire, am I to
>>assume that you would not find the words insulting and abusive?
>>
>No, I don't think I would. I'd be more likely to guffaw.
The fact that you found the abuse silly doesn't make it any less abuse. And
Panshin's statement was most definitely abusive of Heinlein.
>>How about if I called you a canabalistic, selfish blood-sucker?
>There's a difference there. I still think I'd be more likely to guffaw
>(and I certainly don't think Heinlein would have objected to being called
>"selfish;" remember, this is the man who repeatedly said, "Altruism is
>just selfishness.").
So you think Heinlein would also approve of being called a self-devouring
vampire?
Look, this is silly. Whatever you think of Heinlein's original actions, or
of Panshin's original actions, that statement of Panshin's is abuse to the
point of character assassination. To try to pretend otherwise says more
about the pretender than it does about either Heinlein or Panshin.
Until I read that piece of work I didn't feel that what Panshin had done
was out of line. I was annoyed at what I see as a misattribution of motive
to Heinlein, but that fundamentally has nothing to do with Panshin. I also
thought Panshin was dumb to force the issue, but he apparently felt he had
to for personal reasons no matter what the likely outcome and I can accept
that.
To my mind Panshin's statement is more damaging to Panshin than anything
Heinlein could have said or done about him.
--RC
Rick Cook
>I didn't (don't) believe it. I think that the forwarded-mail technique
>was a way to avoid giving out his email address. Based on the
>hostility of some of the responsive posts, it's not hard to understand
>why.
>
Uh Leighton. . .
Panshin e-mail address _has_ been posted here. Nor is Panshin unwilling to
give it out.
In fact he's responding to some of the posts here in e-mail.
I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
--RC
Rick Cook
>Forwarded without comment, save to again repeat my request that comments
>be sent to Alexei Panshin at to...@epix.net, not to me, please. Thank you.
>
>
Let me note that I'm especially annoyed at the 'vampire' line. Nice
literary ring there, but offensive as hell!
I suppose the local blood services are being vampires every time they call
me and ask me to come donate blood? Or my wife, who is asked to donate as
often as she possibly can because she is O negative and that's an
especially lifesaving type?
For those of you who don't know, Heinlein's life was saved by blood
transfusions. He had a rare blood type. As a form of payback he did
everything he could to get people to donate blood -- including having
combined autographing and blood drive sessions. This was greatly
appreciated by the blood services in the various cities where the cons were
held, and probably by the people whose lives were saved by the blood.
But Heinlein's still a vampire.
Keep one other thing in mind. Although Heinlein was a social person, he
picked his friends. He didn't particularly enjoy going to conventions and
especially in the later years they were a burden on him. (Among other
things his health was fragile for the last 20-30 years of his life and
during his entire time as a writer he was never what you'd call robust.) He
certainly didn't need to attend the conventions for business reasons and he
would have been much better off to stay home and work.
I am told by people who knew him that the blood drives were about the main
reason he went to conventions in the last 15-20 years or so. He did it more
out of a sense of duty than anything else.
But Heinlein's a vampire.
Of all the things you could choose to attack the man on that is perhaps the
lowest.
--RC
Rick Cook
>> Vampire? Someone in this discussion has confirmed that
>> Heinlein demanded blood as a price of interaction in his latter
>> days, and could be unpleasant to those who couldn't or wouldn't
>
>Well, first, it would be desirable to see some solid proof that RAH
>indeed made it a precondition of any kind of interaction, but even
>assuming such was the case, don't you think that "vampire" is entirely
>too strong a word to use?
>
Heinlein manifestly did NOT make blood donation the precondition for any
kind of interaction. But then that's not precisely what Alexi said.
--RC
Greg Tanner
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew <aha...@clark.net> wrote:
>Alexei Panshin (to...@epix.net) wrote: [snip]
>>
>> Vampire? Someone in this discussion has confirmed that
>> Heinlein demanded blood as a price of interaction in his latter
>> days, and could be unpleasant to those who couldn't or wouldn't
>> give it.
>
>Well, first, it would be desirable to see some solid proof that RAH
>indeed made it a precondition of any kind of interaction, but even
>assuming such was the case, don't you think that "vampire" is entirely
>too strong a word to use?
The word "vampire" carries the connotation of using blood for selfish
purposes (e.g., consumption by the vampire). Contrast this with
Heinlein's demand that blood be given for selfless purposes (i.e., to
benefit those in need of it).
While I generally agree with Panshin's (and Ahasuerus') observations about
RAH in his later years, this analogy strikes me as a poor fit. I
wouldn't say that it's too strong; the word "eccentric" strikes me as
being too weak.
Julian Treadwell
[passed on following from Alexei Panshin]
> As I read through the discussion, it would seem that the negative
>reaction to the essay portion I posted here on Heinlein centers
>around my having suggested that he became a solipsistic self-
>devouring vampire as he grew old, and that this struck me as
>a horror story.
I agree those were the two most gratuitously derogatory phrases you
used. 'Wreck' also seemed a little personal.
> A number of people here seem to think that this was a descent
>by me into name-calling. I didn't intend it to be that, but rather
>a description in so many words of an aspect of Heinlein's career
>trajectory that was dismaying to many of those who had found
>reason to love his work in an earlier day.
> Solipsistic? By this, I mean that there is a strong solipsistic
>streak in Heinlein's stories from early days, as evidenced by
>"They" and _Beyond This Horizon_. But it came to dominate
>three of his large late novels--_I Will Fear No Evil_, _Time Enough
>for Love_ and _The Number of the Beast_.
'Solipsism: the view or theory that self is the only object of real
knowledge or the only thing really existent' - Shorter Oxford
Dictionary.
The term therefore has two meanings - (1) that
all you can truly know is yourself, or (2) that only you exist.
'Solipsism' as used by RAH in the 'pan-dimensional multi-person
solipsism' universe of his later books undoubtedly had the first
meaning. 'Multi-person' makes that quite clear.
This is a common philosophical viewpoint, from Descartes
onwards. It does not imply amorality, nihilism or any
other 'negative' doctrine. I fail to see why should you find it
'dismaying' that RAH incorporated it into the philosophical
themes of some of his books.
> Self-devouring? I mean the redefinition of earlier Heinlein
>stories so that they became trivialized aspects of later ones.
The earlier stories were redefined only to the extent of becoming
single threads of a author-created multiverse. To me this doesn't
diminish them in any way. They're still great stories and their
'moral content' is not affected in any way that I can see.
Anyway, the 'pan-dimensional multi-person solipsism' universe
is obviously not something RAH believed in or expected his readers to
take seriously, it was merely a (very clever, imo) literary device.
'They' does indeed have a solipsistic aspect. However, it
is a horror/fantasy which I doubt RAH intended to have any
serious philosophical message for the reader.
I haven't read 'Beyond This Horizon' or 'I Will Fear No Evil' for some
years, and I don't recall what their 'solipsistic dimension' was I'm
afraid. Although I do remember the stories and characters fairly
well.
> Vampire? Someone in this discussion has confirmed that
>Heinlein demanded blood as a price of interaction in his latter
>days, and could be unpleasant to those who couldn't or wouldn't
>give it.
Someone else confirmed that an attempt to give blood was
deemed acceptable. And anyway this 'demanding blood' was an attempt
to fill the nation's blood banks to which RAH owed his life and which
traditionally have dangerously low stock-levels. I see nothing
sinister or dismaying in this condition he imposed on fans, quite the
contrary in fact.
> This trend in life to me is a horror story that demands more
>explanation than I have to give.
I'm afraid I haven't found your arguments persuasive. You still
haven't spelt out why you find RAH's dalliance with solipsism, his
demanding fans give blood to get autographs and his
incorporating his earlier works into the universe of his later books
"dismaying". You've simply stated that you found these things so,
and I'm unable to see why.
> But you can't "shoot the
>messenger" for pointing out that there are some difficult facts
>here that must be taken account of. Particularly if you want
>to adopt RAH as a hero and as a role model.
I find this a little insulting. "Hero-worshipping" is neither
something I indulge in nor, I feel, is it something RAH would have
wished to happen to him. As for 'role model', well, Heinlein kept
his personal life so private that anyone wishing to use him as such
would have the greatest difficulty in finding anything to model. It
was his philosophy and imagination that I find inspiring in his books
personally (not that I don't disagree with a lot of what he said - he
wrote on such a large array of subjects that it could hardly be
otherwise).
However, I don't wish to shoot you. Nor to discourage you from
participating in Usenet discussions. (If they're on the subject of
Heinlein, however, you probably should wear a virtual Kevlar vest).
> If the Heinlein way of knowing all, mastering everything and
>being in charge is to be given credence as the example of mature
>human behavior
"Knowing all"? Even Lazarus, with 2000 years of experience, had many
areas of knowledge about which he knew only little. If you mean
"Renaissance-types", then I'd agree this fits a lot of his characters.
But I could cite many examples of major characters (including later
ones) who did not fit this description. As for their being 'examples
of mature human behaviour', well they all had their human failings and
I'm sure RAH expected the reader to recognise them (or more likely to
make up his/her mind about what was a failing and what wasn't).
>, then we also have to factor in everything that
>Heinlein imagines from spreading Limburger cheese on cold
>radiators
A prank - on a "bad guy", if I recall correctly. Hardly a calculated
act to lead the young generation astray.
>to an autobiographical time traveler having a sexual
>relationship with his mother.
In my opinion the recurring theme of incest was an attempt to show
sexual mores as the culturally relative things they are. But he did
not just say "how ridiculous, why do we follow these silly rules" - in
"The Cat Who Walks Through Walls" RAH created an incident in which
incest had disastrous consequences. And he certainly didn't ignore
the genetic consequences of consanguinous relationships. To view
these episodes as other than a serious attempt at examining the
validity of sexual taboos is short-sighted and quite missing the
point.
> And when a Heinlein character
>whom RAH specifically identified to his editor as autobiographical
>describes himself as "indifferent honest," and Heinlein himself
>says of him: "His morals were strictly pragmatic, and conformed
>to accepted code as closely as they did only through a shrewd
>and imaginative self-interest," we need to pay attention.
I'm not sure which character this was, but I'd guess it was Lazarus.
Anyway, I'm not sure (in fact I doubt) that RAH would have meant he
was wholly autobiographical.
From what little has been published about RAH's private life, however,
I'd say he was a fair bit more honest than average. Pragmatic,
though, I'd have to agree with. Self-interested? Well, aren't we
all, at bottom?
Nancy Lebovitz
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
>Forwarded without comment, save to again repeat my request that comments
>be sent to Alexei Panshin at to...@epix.net, not to me, please. Thank you.
>
>From to...@epix.netMon Jan 22 15:23:52 1996
>To: gfa...@panix.com
>Subject: TANSTAAFL
>
>Dear Gary,
>
> Solipsistic? By this, I mean that there is a strong solipsistic
>streak in Heinlein's stories from early days, as evidenced by
>"They" and _Beyond This Horizon_. But it came to dominate
>three of his large late novels--_I Will Fear No Evil_, _Time Enough
>for Love_ and _The Number of the Beast_.
Solipsism became a common theme in Helnlein's later work, but
I don't know of any public evidence that Heinlein himself was
a solipsist. In any case, in the later novels, he said it was
*group* solipsism--does that take any of the curse off?
>
> Self-devouring? I mean the redefinition of earlier Heinlein
>stories so that they became trivialized aspects of later ones.
There's a difference between Heinlein's self and his body of
work.
Vaguely related: It seemed as though almost every detail in the
first chapter of _The Cat Who Walked Through Walls_ was an echo
of something from earlier Heinlein.
> Vampire? Someone in this discussion has confirmed that
>Heinlein demanded blood as a price of interaction in his latter
>days, and could be unpleasant to those who couldn't or wouldn't
>give it.
Still, this isn't quite the same thing as being a vampire.
It sounds to me like you're stretching some features of Heinlein's
life to make them sound as unpleasant as possible.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
12/95 updated calligraphic button catalogue available by email
Gary Farber
: Correct me if I am wrong, but since Heinlein never spoke of the matter,
: there was no need whatsoever for Panshin to "tell his side of the story".
: Telling his side of the story implies that he is rebutting, but there was
: nothing to rebut. Heinlein treated the matter as private, and to the
: best of my knowledge, never tried to "tell his side of the story" in
: response to rumours and speculations.
: To my way of thinking, Panshin should have responded with "That was in
: the past, but let me tell you about what I am working on now."
I was the one who originally mentioned this incident on Usenet, which I
now regret. I should have anticipated that something of this sort might
follow. I feel I owe Alexei Panshin an apology, which I now publically
convey. I did not anticipate this turning into an excuse to bash him, and
I should have, no matter that my initial post was sympathetic to him.
His response has been to the various attacks upon him which followed,
which provoked an understandable desire on his part to make his point of
view clear. So that's my "correction." You seem to feel that your own
comments are not worthy of being responded to.
: Trying to drum up sympathy for "his side of the story", when, of the
: two principals involved, his is the only side of the story extant,
: reeks of "victimhood" and "he done me wrong".
So why are you so exercised to "defend" Heinlein?
My own position, as I've said each time, is that this incident reflects no
moral failing whatever in either man: merely differing views, and what I
characterized as a "sad" situation. Your Mileage May Vary, fine, but for
how many more months will this thread go on? :-(
Rick Cook
(I wrote)
>|> Uh, Asimov is not exactly an unbiased source. He and Heinlein did not
>agree on a number of things and their personalities clashed rather badly
>Hmmm. Presumably therefore the only reliable witnesses are people who
>agree whole-heartedly with Heinlein and whose personalities do not clash
>because they are the same as his.
You err in your presumption, but then you know that. Rather than respond to
the criticism you create a straw man and have much fun knocking it down.
Your right, of course, but do you really think you are adding anything to
the discussion?
The substantive issue is the value of Asimov's report about Heinlein's
character. The fact that Asimov and Heinlein didn't get along very well has
a definite bearing on Asimov's assessment of Heinlein.
It suggests Asimov's comments, while not worthless, probably shouldn't be
taken at face value.
This is even more true when you consider that a great many people who met
Heinlein, all the way from one-time casual encounters to decades-long
friendships, formed an utterly different opinion of the man's character.
--RC
Bert Clanton
Watt-Evans) wrote:
> >>lei...@ix.netcom.com(Leighton M. Anderson ) wrote:
> >>
> >>Why... does
> >>Panshin have a pathological need to continually bash RAH in public?
>
> Pathological? I see nothing unhealthy about Panshin's response.
>
> Continually? Twice in twenty-three years?
>
> In public? Say rather, in the forum where Panshin himself came under attack
> on this subject.
>
>
What do you make of someone like me, who is both a great admirer of
Heinlein, and a great admirer of Panshin's book about him? And who admits
that neither my idol RAH nor his critic AP are flawless human beings, but
likes them both anyhow?
Best wishes,
Bert
Rick Cook
>
>I'm confused; why should it hurt you to hear a warning against imminent
>atomic doom in 1976? The Soviet Union still existed; China still had
>nuclear weapons. And if memory serves, wasn't the "Doomsday Clock" set
>at something like 5 minutes to midnight for most of the 70s? I don't
>understand.
>-
find to beat Heinlein with.
Look, someone who honestly believes that Heinlein's blood drives at
conventions justifies a charge of vampirism can be expected to say nearly
anything to blacken Heinlein's name.
--RC
Doug O'Morain
Actually, Mr. Panshin answered my question: it saddened him that
Heinlein seemed so obsessed with the nuclear threat that he repeated
his remarks from 1961 in 1976, and it further saddened him that
Heinlein was booed because of it. As a person who greatly
admired Heinlein when he was younger, I can understand Panshin
being saddened by this. It made sense to me.
I read HEINLEIN IN DIMENSION, and thought it okay. I agreed with
some of Panshin's assesments, disagreed with others ("Homosexual
panic" as the explanation of Ben's behavior in STRANGER IN A
STRANGE LAND being an example of the latter). And while Panshin
does in places seem unduly harsh on Heinlein's later works, that's
his opinion, and he's entitled to it. C'est l'vie.
Jim Puckett
>I'm not sure why you find this to be so important. Do you not believe
>Panshin when he says he hasn't yet figured out how to post?
Far as I can tell, it's kind of like the "I didn't inhale"
defense - if it's true, he's open to charges of incompetence,
and if not, he's a liar.
But then, what do I know? :)
jim p.
...amazing - I take two years off from r.a.s.f, and guess what's
going on when I show up :)
Jim_...@transarc.com
> Doug O'Morain wrote:
> >
> >I'm confused; why should it hurt you to hear a warning against imminent
> >atomic doom in 1976? The Soviet Union still existed; China still had
> >nuclear weapons. And if memory serves, wasn't the "Doomsday Clock" set
> >at something like 5 minutes to midnight for most of the 70s? I don't
> >understand.
> >-
> It makes more sense if you realize that Panshin will seize any club he can
> find to beat Heinlein with.
Did you hear the speech? It did hurt, but not just because it was yet
another talk about the dangers of nuclear war. It was rambling and
trite, with no real depth or reasoning. It was more the sort of speech
that one would expect to hear from a two-bit politician who is trying
to scare the public into voting for him. It was filled with lines like
"there WILL be war, and the men will have to go out and defend the
women and the children."
It was quite sad to see the man who had written the sharp, concise,
and interesting books Heinlein had written 20 years earlier descend to
this level.
Doug O'Morain
>In rec.arts.sf.written, rc...@BIX.com (Rick Cook) wrote:
>>The substantive issue is the value of Asimov's report about Heinlein's
>>character. The fact that Asimov and Heinlein didn't get along very well has
>>a definite bearing on Asimov's assessment of Heinlein.
>So, why didn't they get along, then? Something to do with Asimov,
>something to do with Heinlein, something to do with why Panshin
>didn't seem to get along with Heinlein? :-)
Actually, wasn't it based on an incident that happened when they were
working together during WW II?
And I think Heinlein's later writing shows that, while he may or
may not have like Asimov as a person (on which I have no data and
therefore no opinion), he respected him.
Rick Cook
>I was the one who originally mentioned this incident on Usenet, which I
>now regret. I should have anticipated that something of this sort might
>follow. I feel I owe Alexei Panshin an apology, which I now publically
>convey. I did not anticipate this turning into an excuse to bash him, and
>I should have, no matter that my initial post was sympathetic to him.
Gary, you have not done Panshin one-one-hundredth of the damage he has done
himself in this business -- particularly in the response he asked to be
posted here.
A week ago I regarded Panshin as having acted foolishly in forcing the
meeting with Heinlein but otherwise saw him as blameless in what happened.
My initial point was that Heinlein's motives were not what some imputed to
him.
After that statement and some of the e-mail, I have revised opinion, sharply.
>His response has been to the various attacks upon him which followed,
>which provoked an understandable desire on his part to make his point of
>view clear.
Well, he's succeeded in that -- to his great detriment. He would have been
much better off if he'd kept his mouth shut. The more he talks about the
incident the worse he appears.
--RC
Thomas Koenig
>The substantive issue is the value of Asimov's report about Heinlein's
>character. The fact that Asimov and Heinlein didn't get along very well has
>a definite bearing on Asimov's assessment of Heinlein.
So, why didn't they get along, then? Something to do with Asimov,
something to do with Heinlein, something to do with why Panshin
didn't seem to get along with Heinlein? :-)
(Frankly, this discussion has lost all meaning. Smearing Panshin isn't
going to restore Heinlein to sainthood in the eyes of those who never
thought he was such a great guy; OTOH, no amount of Heinlein smearing
will convince any Heinlein fanatic that he may have been anything but
perfect. I'll stop reading this thread as of now.)
--
Thomas Koenig, Thomas...@ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig...@dkauni2.bitnet.
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double
logarithmic diagram.
Gary Farber
Again, please alter the attribution line to *his* e-mail address,
to...@epix.net. I am not the writer; these are not my opinions: I'm
merely doing him the favor of posting until he can get a newsreader and
understand it, as damn quickly as possible, I hope, like in the next week
or two. :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXEI PANSHIN writes:
From to...@epix.netThu Jan 25 10:41:36 1996
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 10:13:55 +0000
From: to...@epix.net
To: gfa...@panix.com
Subject: TANSTAAFL
For posting in the Heinlein discussion, from me at
to...@epix.net.
Some of you have been good enough to wonder why
I might have been bothered by what Robert Heinlein
made of himself as he grew older.
Those of us old enough to have first encountered
Heinlein's writing in the Forties and Fifties perceived
him as a colossus. He was a stimulus to me, a model
and a hero. And I'm sure he was as much to a good
many other people of the time.
But _Stranger in a Strange Land_ and the novels
that followed it aroused mixed feelings in his early
fans and seemed to demand a lot of reconsideration.
I was first hauled into the fray in 1963 by a California fan
who said that _Stranger_ was still a subject of discussion
out there and asked me to comment on it.
I would also suspect that Advent asked me to write what
became _Heinlein in Dimension_ because there were
such ambivalent reactions to RAH's stories thirty years
ago. The title of the book itself is a reflection of my feeling
that RAH had more aspects than one and that these would
all have to be taken into account if Heinlein's fiction was ever
to be assessed.
Even that early, it was apparent that Heinlein had a streak
of solipsism, and I said so in the book. Here are some quotes
from his fiction:
_Beyond This Horizon_ in 1942: "It was always a little hard
to remember which position Himself had played, forgetting
that he played all the parts." And: "That piece was an
automatic, some of the pieces had to be."
"'All You Zombies'" in 1959: "I _know_ where _I_ came
from--but _where did all you zombies come from?_" And:
"_You_ aren't really there at all."
In other Heinlein stories, there were Real People and then
there were others whose humanity was in question. And
it was possible for the Real People to know the difference
Unreal people couldn't operate a slide-rule. Those who
couldn't "grok the fullest" were subject to discorporation.
One person just posted me an e-mail that sent me back to
_Have Spacesuit--Will Travel_ and the remark: "'Kip, a
reverence for life does not require a man to respect Nature's
obvious mistakes.'"
It gradually became apparent that if you were a reader
of Heinlein, you had to make a decision as to whether you
were okay enough to be let in the tent or whether you were
among those that Heinlein was ready to regard as automatic
pieces, zombies, animals and peasants. And since I never
learned how to operate a slide-rule, I for one had to look very
carefully at all of what Heinlein had to say.
I didn't thnk that it was necessary for Heinlein to draw this
circle of inclusion and exclusion. And as I looked more closely,
it was dismaying to me to watch Heinlein adopting defensive
measures to ward off the un-elect: Expressing the same fears
of the Russian Other in 1976 as in 1961, and being booed for
it. Banishing critics and commentators to a Klein-bottle prison.
Using his power and prestige to coerce others into doing his
will. And turning formerly independent stories into mere aspects
of new solipsistic ones.
If this fossilized and defensive behavior saddened me, it
was partly because Heinlein had once had a better vision
of his own possibilities.
It is perfectly understandable that those of you who are
entering the scene at this last date might not have taken
all of this in. And I also understand that people might
not be familiar with the complex discussions of Heinlein
that I wrote twenty or thirty years ago.
But if anyone is interested in what I have written about these
issues, there is the book _Heinlein in Dimension_. There are
four more pieces totaling about 190 pages in Cory's and my
essay collection, _SF in Dimension_. There are 40 pages
on Heinlein's early career in _The World Beyond the Hill_.
And there is also the 1991 essay, "When the Quest Ended,"
on Heinlein's better vision of his own possibilities and the
circumstances under which he came to reject the vision. All
of this commentary is available from me at to...@epix.net
if you can't find it otherwise.
But whether you've been here for all the past discussion or
not, any among us who have ever found Heinlein a stimulus,
an influence, and a hero are eventually going to have to
look without flinching at everything the man said and did,
and take that into account in making our assessments of
his influence on us.
He said at many different times and in many different ways,
"_You_ aren't really there at all." Now, if you are sure in
your own mind that he couldn't possibly have been talking
about _you_, then you are off the hook. Otherwise, you have
something to think about.
Alexei Panshin
.
Jim Puckett
>Combined with Julian Treadwell's previous nonsensical theory about
>Panshin's "vendetta" and using this event to "make himself famous" (I
>think that was Julian; if I have the attribution wrong, I apologize)
Again - it's hard to say for certain - but I've been reading SF since
the mid 60's and the only times that I've ever read or heard of Mr.
Panshin is when Spider Robinson (in "Rah Rah RAH") discussed AP's
criticism of RAH (early 80's, I think), and this new mess.
jim p.
Josh Kaderlan
David MacLean <dmac...@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca> wrote:
>In article <4du3hb$1k...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>
>jek...@cac.psu.edu (Josh Kaderlan) wrote:
>>I'm not sure why you find this to be so important. Do you not believe
>>Panshin when he says he hasn't yet figured out how to post?
>
>Information about mail-to-news servers is easily come by. If he cannot
>come by information that is readily available, how much faith can we have
>in his research abilities?
>
But he also included his email address and asked anyone who wanted to to
write him (and apparently has responded to mail sent to him).
>>>How about if I called you a canabalistic, selfish blood-sucker?
>>>
>>There's a difference there. I still think I'd be more likely to guffaw
>>(and I certainly don't think Heinlein would have objected to being called
>>"selfish;" remember, this is the man who repeatedly said, "Altruism is
>>just selfishness.").
>
>"You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din."
>
If someone called you a "cannabalistic, selfish blood-sucker," would you
really take offense? Why?
>It occurs to me that the degree of perceived insult is in inverse relation
>to the amount of agreement with the notion expressed. If, for example,
>I called you a lout, and you had a self-image of being a lout, you would
>be less insulted than if your self-image included *not* being a lout.
>
Hmmm... I don't know if I agree or not. I think it comes down to fear of
the way other people view you; if you're afraid of coming across as a
lout and someone calls you that, then it reinforces the fear you have.
But if you don't think of yourself as a lout (but you don't care what
other people think), then it's not insulting. I think it has to do with
the amount of importance you place on the other person's words in other
circumstances too.
For example, I write for the student-run newspaper at my university. On
occasion, I've gotten letters published in the paper attacking stories
I've written. But not once have I taken offense at what those people
have written (even though they attack my competence), because I just
don't care enough about them to get worked up over it.
--Josh