Spider Robinson, fascist?
eddi sommer
I just just finished reading my second Spider Robinson short;
both had civilians walking around armed. In one, _Melancholy Elephants_,
the female protagonist offhandedly shoots an accoster dead,
because "she was in a hurry"; this plays little-to-no
role in the plot, is just added backdrop.
In th'other, _Antimony_, again for no apparent plot reason, just
added color, we are told there has been a "Civil War II"
in the US, involving the "virtual annihilation of the American black".
Later on, "a middle-aged black man with three days' growth of beard"
makes a brief cameo as a splatter freak on rampage, and of course
is gunned down by the female protagonist of the story.
There is is nothing in either of the stories to indicate
any of this is meant to be thoughtprovoking or
dystopian; the elements that shocked me didn't play
pivotal roles in the story structure, they were even
used to make mildly humorous in a Heinlein sort of way
asides, like the bit about having to kill instead of
disable because she was ina hurry.
Is Robinson a militant supremacist? is this well known?
---
e. sommer http://nathan.gmd.de/persons/edgar.sommer.html
.. a bank of loam gave way to gorse and bramble. [Erskine Childers]
Carol Otte
I don't believe these incidents mean that Spider Robinson is a racist or
a facist; they only indicate a certain degree on cynicism about current
situations and the way these situations could worsen.
SR has written a book called "Night of Power," which I think is
out of print. In this book, black separatists lead a revolution and take
over New York to form a new black nation. The story is told from the
view of an interracial family from Canada who get caught up in the
events. The characters have mixed reactions to the revolution, but the
bulk of the novel is highly pro-separatist.
The logic in support of the revolution is that things have gotten
so bad that there's just no other solution. It is compared to a divorce,
when the married couple have grown to hate each other so much they are
ready to kill each other.
This novel (from what Spider and Jeanne Robinson have said at
conventions) draws somewhat on real life experiences. SR grew up in New
York, but moved away at some point. He and Jeanne were living in Canada,
and visited New York so that Jeanne could participate in a dance
production (the same is true of the fictional family). During the visit,
he was stunned at how much *worse* racial tensions had gotten, given that
they were already bad when he was growing up. The visit inspired this novel.
I don't imagine that "Night of Power" indicates that SR really
thinks America should solve all of its race problems via revolution and
the formation of a black nation, any more than the lines tossed off in
"Antimony" indicate that he is really in favor of blacks being wiped out
via a failed revolution. Both, however, reflect real life concerns about
racism.
I don't know SR's actual views on how criminals ought to be
treated, but my bet would be that they're similar to my own. In theory,
I'm all for the idea that if you kill someone who is trying to
rape/assault you, you're doing the world a favor, because the same person
will only continue to harm others. Even if the police catch him, he'll
just end up out on bail, or end up released after a few years minimum
sentance (gotta make room for those evil marajuana dealers, you know). In
practice, I don't own or carry a weapon.
BTW, you mentioned Heinlein. SR is a great Heinlein fan, and
shares many (but not all) of his views.
Carol
Lisa Aaronson
> I just just finished reading my second Spider Robinson short;
> both had civilians walking around armed. In one, _Melancholy Elephants_,
> the female protagonist offhandedly shoots an accoster dead,
> because "she was in a hurry"; this plays little-to-no
> role in the plot, is just added backdrop.
>
> In th'other, _Antimony_, again for no apparent plot reason, just
> added color, we are told there has been a "Civil War II"
> in the US, involving the "virtual annihilation of the American black".
> Later on, "a middle-aged black man with three days' growth of beard"
> makes a brief cameo as a splatter freak on rampage, and of course
> is gunned down by the female protagonist of the story.
>
> There is is nothing in either of the stories to indicate
> any of this is meant to be thoughtprovoking or
> dystopian; the elements that shocked me didn't play
> pivotal roles in the story structure, they were even
> used to make mildly humorous in a Heinlein sort of way
> asides, like the bit about having to kill instead of
> disable because she was ina hurry.
>
>
> Is Robinson a militant supremacist? is this well known?
First of all, it's "Antinomy"; not "Antimony". He's not a chemist.
Second of all, if there's any author I've read who is further from being a
facist than Spider Robinson (except maybe Heinlein or Ayn Rand), I can't think
of it right now.
Do you know what facism is? Or are you just using the term as a pejorative
for anyone who thinks you don't have to sit and take anything people dish out
to you? Robinson rails against racism and sexism and every other kind of
"-ism" continually. Do you think that George Orwell was a totalitarian
because he wrote about Big Brother?
Can you say, "cautionary tale"?
FYI and FWIW, facism is a form of statism, and no individual who believes that
individuals are more important than the state can rationally be labelled a
facist.
Ta,
Lisa
-------------------------------------
I still believe in all my dreams
And all that I can be
I'll learn from mistakes, do all that it takes
To make it eventually
'Cause I still believe in me.
- from the TV show "Fame"
Paul Geiser
you start labeling him a fascist.
eddi sommer (ed...@gmd.de) wrote:
: I just just finished reading my second Spider Robinson short;
: both had civilians walking around armed. In one, _Melancholy Elephants_,
: the female protagonist offhandedly shoots an accoster dead,
: because "she was in a hurry"; this plays little-to-no
: role in the plot, is just added backdrop.
: In th'other, _Antimony_, again for no apparent plot reason, just
: added color, we are told there has been a "Civil War II"
: in the US, involving the "virtual annihilation of the American black".
: Later on, "a middle-aged black man with three days' growth of beard"
: makes a brief cameo as a splatter freak on rampage, and of course
: is gunned down by the female protagonist of the story.
: There is is nothing in either of the stories to indicate
: any of this is meant to be thoughtprovoking or
: dystopian; the elements that shocked me didn't play
: pivotal roles in the story structure, they were even
: used to make mildly humorous in a Heinlein sort of way
: asides, like the bit about having to kill instead of
: disable because she was ina hurry.
: Is Robinson a militant supremacist? is this well known?
: ---
: e. sommer http://nathan.gmd.de/persons/edgar.sommer.html
: .. a bank of loam gave way to gorse and bramble. [Erskine Childers]
"Speed was really good. It's a little violent for my taste, though." -
Desmond (Quentin Tarantino), on All-American Girl
Robert J. Sawyer
Not at all. In fact, the reason he moved to Canada from his native U.S.
was because he couldn't stand the violence and coarseness of American
society. A lot of wha he writes is designed to illuminate these problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Sawyer, SF writer | World Wide Web Home Page:
7670...@compuserve.com | http://www.greyware.com/authors/sawyer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author of GOLDEN FLEECE, FAR-SEER, FOSSIL HUNTER, FOREIGNER, END OF AN ERA,
and THE TERMINAL EXPERIMENT (serialized in ANALOG as HOBSON'S CHOICE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuk Goodin
[Examples deleted]
>Is Robinson a militant supremacist? is this well known?
Read _Night_of_Power_ and the Callahan books. These might lead you
to believe that the answer to your question would be "no" (at least to
the second part).
chuk
Lisa Aaronson
>And what was that SR story whose theme was that it's not just all
>right, but your Moral Duty, to subject folks to a mind-altering drug
>without their knowledge or consent, provided you *know* it's For Their
>Own Good? "Fascist" is surely not the right term, but "totalitarian"
>might fit.
Um, it was very early Spider Robinson, and I vaguely recall him writing
elsewhere that he very definitely does *not* think that what the protagonists
of that story did was moral.
The moral of that story, by the way, is certainly *not* totalitarian. Do
people just use political pejoratives without any reference at all to what
they mean? How can the acts of individuals be called "totalitarian"? The
moral of the story is simply evil.
Mark Bernstein
: And what was that SR story whose theme was that it's not just all
: right, but your Moral Duty, to subject folks to a mind-altering drug
: without their knowledge or consent, provided you *know* it's For Their
: Own Good? "Fascist" is surely not the right term, but "totalitarian"
: might fit.
Oh yes, I remember that story. I don't recall the title, but the drug
was called TWT, or The Whole Truth, and the premise was that anyone
who took it once became immediately addicted, not to the drug, but to
telling the truth. Not a story I either liked or believed in.
IMO, Spider often shows a disturbing lack of faith in the ability of
humanity to take care of itself. He's used the "benevolent aliens
step in to save mankind" story more than once, and has also written
any number of stories that turned me off because all the sympathetic
characters are just Too Damn Special. The final two-thirds of the
novel version of _Stardance_ (everything but the original novella) is
a prime example of this--*every* significant member of the dance
troupe has some sort of special talent. And of course it's up to
those Special People to do what's right for humanity.
--
Mark Bernstein
ma...@erim.org
Dave Platt
>right, but your Moral Duty, to subject folks to a mind-altering drug
>without their knowledge or consent, provided you *know* it's For Their
>Own Good? "Fascist" is surely not the right term, but "totalitarian"
>might fit.
I might point out that you're making a classic mistake, of assuming that
the author of a story actually agrees with the motivations and decisions
of his/her characters. This is NEVER a safe assumption, even in a story
which seems to turn out "for the best", or where the protagonists are
good and honorable people who argue convincingly for their points of
view.
Point 1: Spider Robinson has mentioned this mistake with respect to much
of the criticism he's read of Heinlein's writings (I think he was
probably thinking of Alexi Panshin's "Heinlein in Dimension" in
particular). Spider specifically takes to task those people who
categorize Heinlein as a "fascist" or "militarist", on the basis of the
words and actions of some of his characters.
Point 2: in the afterward to "Satan's Children" (the story you are
thinking of) which appears in his collection "Antinomy", Spider
_specifically_ says that he has never been sure whether the story is
ending on a note of bright hope, or in a state of utter horror.
Spoiler alert...
The fact that the characters in Spider's story came to the conclusion
(after much agonizing over the issue, and careful experimentation) that
"turning TWT loose in the world" was a good and appropriate action, DOES
NOT MEAN that Spider himself agrees with their conclusion, or would
agree under similar circumstances.
It is _just_ as valid to interpret this story as a cautionary tale, of
how people might mistakenly destroy The World As We Know It by making an
incorrect moral judgement. After all, we don't _know_ if human
civilization (or even the human race) actually survived the release of
TWT - it seems likely, but not at all certain.
In a sense, the theme of "Satan's Children" is very similar to that of
"Telempath" - introducing a worldwide change in human nature, without
the consent of those changed, in the hope of improving the state of
human civilization. In "Telempath", this change blew up in the face of
the man who created it, and took civilization down into the dust. In
"Satan's Children", we just don't know how it will turn out.
--
Dave Platt dpl...@3do.com
USNAIL: The 3DO Company, Systems Software group
600 Galveston Drive
Redwood City, CA 94063
Josh Kaderlan
Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@universe.digex.net> wrote:
>Oh, yeah.....that "Tony Donuts" story was definitely written by someone
>who thinks there's too much violence and coarseness.
>
>IMHO, Robinson shifts between warm-and-fuzzy and portraying people being
>shoved around for the greater good. I'm not sure that fascist is the
>best word to describe him, though, and I'd be willing to bet that
>he isn't a racist.
>
>I'm still waiting for someone to show up at Callahan's who's an expert
>punster, a lover of the right kind of jazz ... and is the bad guy.
>
>It's an untidy situation--I *like* most of what he's written, but
>the amount of killing in some of the books looks creepier and creepier
>to me as time goes on.
>
Robinson made a comment (maybe it was in "Rah! Rah! R.A.H!) about his
inability to win an award (either a Hugo or a Nebula) recently.
Something about how he thought he might have offended the Universe in
some way, and that accounted for it. (Does this ring any bells?) Funny
-- I thought it was because his later stuff, well, blows.
My introduction to Robinson came with the two most recent "Lady" books.
Then I went back and read *Mindkiller* and the original Callahan's book.
I find it almost inconceivable that the latter two were written by the
same person as the former two, *Mindkiller* especially. The latter two
were about *people*, the former two were self-indulgent and their
characters lacking in humanity. They reminded me way too much of late
Heinlein (to tie this in to another thread). What's happened to the guy?
Josh
Bill Snyder
Aaronson) wrote:
>The moral of that story, by the way, is certainly *not* totalitarian. Do
>people just use political pejoratives without any reference at all to what
>they mean? How can the acts of individuals be called "totalitarian"? The
>moral of the story is simply evil.
OK, I'll plead guilty to a modicum of verbal sloppiness, but IMO the
use of that term is by no means totally unjustifiable. My reading of
the story -- with quotes around definitionally arguable terms -- is
that certain "special" people have the right (divinely ordained,
morally inhering due to superior knowledge/wisdom, or pick your own
poison), to force others to act in the "proper" way. If this isn't
the nitty-gritty of totalitarianism, what is?
--
-- Bill Snyder [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]
James Nicoll
Josh Kaderlan <jek...@cac.psu.edu> wrote:
snip
>My introduction to Robinson came with the two most recent "Lady" books.
>Then I went back and read *Mindkiller* and the original Callahan's book.
>I find it almost inconceivable that the latter two were written by the
>same person as the former two, *Mindkiller* especially. The latter two
>were about *people*, the former two were self-indulgent and their
>characters lacking in humanity. They reminded me way too much of late
>Heinlein (to tie this in to another thread). What's happened to the guy?
Perhaps he found a formula that sold and stuck with it, much like
Ron Goulart did back in the late '60s.
I haven't read a SR book since that vomitus _Night of Power_ but
the underlying moral framework of his books seemed to be 'If we do it, it's
ok, but other people do it because they're evil' with a healthy dollop of
self-serving posing thrown it and little thought given to consequences
if they slow down the plot.
James Nicoll
--
"Hey, Major...You ever hear of 'Human Rights'? Heh-heh. Probably not, huh..."
"That's a term that emerged from the interface of morality and reality. I
understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action."
from _Ghost in the Shell_, Masamune Shirow
john r. fleming
: In <lisa.81....@interport.net> li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson)
writes:
<grammatical sniping snipped>
: but i concur fascism is not the right word. another poster
: suggested totalitarian; mnot sure that hits it squarely either.
: What DO you call someone who thinks it's ok to kill if one is
: convinced one's superior, morally or what?
When I read your initial post, I had to take a deep breath and refrain
from embarrassing myself. To me, "fascist" has a strongly negative
connotation. :) Chalk it up to a difference of opinion.
Regarding the killing of the mugger in Melancholy Elephants, I do *not*
think it was gratuitous, nor intended to illustrate the morality of killing
an "inferior." My interpretation was that Dorothy was preoccupied with a
subject of such importance that she was forced to kill, not subdue. The
fact that Spider seems to gloss over the scene in describing her hurry to
get to the meeting seems to emphasize this. What could be so important
that taking a life seems so unimportant? (The fact that art is finite,
and the possible future demoralization and death of our race) The scene
also establishes Dorothy as quite a formidable woman.
Personally, I refuse to feel sorry for the mugger. You pays your money,
you takes yer chances.
YMMV, of course. I don't do lit'rary critism - This is my (quite biased
- Robinson is one of my favorite authors) opinion...
--
===========================================================================
John Fleming jrfl...@firefly.prairienet.org
Grad Student - Chemistry fle...@krypton.che.ilstu.edu
Illinois State University, Normal IL
Bill Snyder
Platt) wrote:
>>And what was that SR story whose theme was that it's not just all
>>right, but your Moral Duty, to subject folks to a mind-altering drug
>>without their knowledge or consent, provided you *know* it's For Their
>>Own Good? "Fascist" is surely not the right term, but "totalitarian"
>>might fit.
>I might point out that you're making a classic mistake, of assuming that
>the author of a story actually agrees with the motivations and decisions
>of his/her characters. This is NEVER a safe assumption, even in a story
>which seems to turn out "for the best", or where the protagonists are
>good and honorable people who argue convincingly for their points of
>view.
And I might point out that you're making a couple of classic mistakes
-- assuming that the other guy, because he disagrees with you, must be
seriously naive or dumb, and not checking your facts. Come to think
of it, I believe I *will* point those things out: see comments below.
>Point 1: Spider Robinson has mentioned this mistake with respect to much
>of the criticism he's read of Heinlein's writings (I think he was
>probably thinking of Alexi Panshin's "Heinlein in Dimension" in
>particular). Spider specifically takes to task those people who
>categorize Heinlein as a "fascist" or "militarist", on the basis of the
>words and actions of some of his characters.
Having just recently reread, "Rah, rah, RAH," I believe you're
conflating separate points. SR does object therein to those who call
RAH a fascist, militarist, etc. And he does caution against taking
characters to be mouthpieces of the author. He just doesn't imply
that one arose from t'other. (And while his warning is valid, let's
note for the record that it does not logically follow that the
characters *don't* voice the author's opinions in any specific case.
While we're at it, let's also recall that SR admitted later on in his
essay that the sugar-coating on RAH's morality pills had indeed grown
a tad thin of (then) late.)
>Point 2: in the afterward to "Satan's Children" (the story you are
>thinking of) which appears in his collection "Antinomy", Spider
>_specifically_ says that he has never been sure whether the story is
>ending on a note of bright hope, or in a state of utter horror.
He says that in the foreword to it, actually, part of an interleaf
between it and the previous story. And a couple of paragraphs later,
he *also* says, "As I type this interleaf I find that I approve of my
protagonist's [sic] final decision. But I must admit I am
uncomfortably aware that the story could be justifiably titled,
'Events Leading Up To The End Of The World." I am highly suspicious
of chemical panaceas, and I really do believe in my heart of hearts
that dosing someone without his or her knowledge or consent is
ultimate moral sin..."
Now just what the hell does *this* mean, boys and girls? How can we
possibly reconcile "I approve..." with "...utimate moral sin?"
YM(Must)V, but my answer is that we can't;; I believe one is compelled
to take one of them as the author's actual opinion, and the other as a
pious disclaimer, as with the anti-abortionist preacher who intones,
"All these people are filthy devil-spawned murderers of babies, taking
more victims daily; would that their foul careers were ended; not that
I'd want any harm to come to them, mind you..." or the animal-rights
type who sobs for Bambi's mother, but "If a few of these hunters shot
one another. I wouldn't shed a tear," or any other hand-washer or
hypocrite who says, "The ends, of course, *never* justify the means,
but what the hell, maybe just this once while nobody's looking..."
A final and more general & metaphysical hought: How would you view an
author who wrote a story in which sympathetically protrayed (i.e.
"good" in the ordinary sense) characters discover, in an apparent
upbeat ending, that Dachau and Belsen were just what those dirty kikes
had coming to them, or that child-rape is good for the kid? This, I
think, cuts to the heart of it -- is the author's only moral duty to
treat the *work* with integrity? Or are there some notions which are
just too far beyond the moral pale to be given even the thinnest
sugar-coating?
Andrew C. Plotkin
> >Point 2: in the afterward to "Satan's Children" (the story you are
> >thinking of) which appears in his collection "Antinomy", Spider
> >_specifically_ says that he has never been sure whether the story is
> >ending on a note of bright hope, or in a state of utter horror.
>
> He says that in the foreword to it, actually, part of an interleaf
> between it and the previous story. And a couple of paragraphs later,
> he *also* says, "As I type this interleaf I find that I approve of my
> protagonist's [sic] final decision. But I must admit I am
> uncomfortably aware that the story could be justifiably titled,
> 'Events Leading Up To The End Of The World." I am highly suspicious
> of chemical panaceas, and I really do believe in my heart of hearts
> that dosing someone without his or her knowledge or consent is
> ultimate moral sin..."
>
> Now just what the hell does *this* mean, boys and girls? How can we
> possibly reconcile "I approve..." with "...utimate moral sin?"
Because allowing the human race to continue its current course -- when
you have the power to divert it in the way described in the story --
is *also* ultimate moral sin?
The problem is that if I was in that position, I would feel that every
problem which would occur to humanity in the future is suddenly my
responsibility. Rather, er, uncomfortable. And not acting is just as
much a choice as acting.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>Bill Snyder wrote:
>>A final and more general & metaphysical hought: How would you view an
>>author who wrote a story in which sympathetically protrayed (i.e.
>>"good" in the ordinary sense) characters discover, in an apparent
>>upbeat ending, that Dachau and Belsen were just what those dirty kikes
>>had coming to them, or that child-rape is good for the kid?
>It's called fictional irony and it can be an extremely powerful technique.
>It's also a huge mistake that the author doesn't understand the position
>the readers are being put in and the effect he is creating.
Could you run that by me again? Either a typo ate a key word or two,
or my reading skills are on the decline -- and either way, this isn't
a case where I feel safe in trying to interpolate.
[and re: fictional moralities]
>This is the kind of question John Campbell used to delight in. He was quite
>willing to take the 'immoral' side of any question and make a strong case
>for it. But basically, the answer is no. If a morality is worthwhile it
>should stand up to questioning like this.
*Any* question? I recall, for instance, JWC's editorial defense of
imperialism from the early 60's, but was he really willing to do this
in any arbitrary situation?
>It's also true that some moral questions do not have easy answers and leave
>us ambivalent even once we choose a course of action.
>As in Spider's story -- or the real world.
But the story does not have an ambivalent "feel"; one is not left with
the uneasy sensation that comes from having (one hopes) chosen the
lesser of two evils. The characters at the end are in no doubt that
they have made the right decision, and the tone of the ending is
likewise of very strong approval of the choice made.
Bill Snyder
>> IMO, Spider often shows a disturbing lack of faith in the ability of
>> humanity to take care of itself. He's used the "benevolent aliens
>> step in to save mankind" story more than once, and has also written
>> any number of stories that turned me off because all the sympathetic
>> characters are just Too Damn Special. The final two-thirds of the
>> novel version of _Stardance_ (everything but the original novella) is
>> a prime example of this--*every* significant member of the dance
>> troupe has some sort of special talent. And of course it's up to
>> those Special People to do what's right for humanity.
> Another thread-starter: I think Robert Heinlein showed a similar
>mentality in some of his early stories. The classic example, I think, is
>"Gulf"- or whatever that one is about people who vastly increase their reasoning
>powers and have a shadowy organization behind the scenes.
An interesting side-note: Damon Knight's chapter on Heinlein in _In
Search of Wonder_ mentions that in the oricinally-published version of
_If This Goes On_, the revolutionaries intended to 'brainwash' the
members of the losing side. In the postwar version, RAH had this
proposal denounced by a sympathetic character, who then keels over
from a heart attack, a la Prof in MiaHM. It gets voted down.
Alan Braggins
> >Now just what the hell does *this* mean, boys and girls? How can we
> >possibly reconcile "I approve..." with "...utimate moral sin?"
>
> on the side of what the people did"?
>
> Seems pretty straightforward really.
"Right now I come down on the side of ultimate moral sin" is
straightforward, but insane or serious doublethink if sincerely meant.
If its the lesser of two evils, it isn't an ultimate sin. If its done
with good but misguided intentions, it isn't an ultimate sin.
Maybe if its done with evil but misguided intentions? A Christian
might approve of Jesus having died for us while still considering that
nailing an innocent man to a cross is a sin - but that doesn't seem to
be what is meant.
("I come down on the side of _what_someone_else_might_consider_ ultimate
moral sin" is a completely different statement, before someone misses
that point).
Mark Bernstein
: Another thread-starter: I think Robert Heinlein showed a similar
: mentality in some of his early stories. The classic example, I think, is
: "Gulf"- or whatever that one is about people who vastly increase their reasoning
: powers and have a shadowy organization behind the scenes.
I've been chewing on this one for a day or two, thinking back on all the
Heinlein I've read (which is all the Heinlein ever published in book
form). I'd have to call "Gulf" the exception. It's the only story I can
think of offhand that is explicitly elitist ("That's monkey talk, son"),
and he later notes in _Friday_ that the efforts of that group failed, and
were repudiated by Baldwin.
I think examples in the opposite direction are just as common. In _Citizen
of the Galaxy_, Baslim states that *anyone* could use the same techniques
he used to teach Thorby. In _Stranger in a Strange Land_, Mike sets out
to change the world by teaching Martian to anyone who wants to learn it,
starting a movement that shows every sign of continuing to grow after he's
killed. Heinlein is capable of taking either viewpoint.
--
Mark Bernstein
ma...@erim.org
Bill Snyder
(Kevin B. O'Brien) wrote:
>As a social scientist, I think you just defined "paternalism".
OK, could you differentiate meaningfully in layman's terms between
paternalism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism? "Paternalism" seems
like an awfully weak term to apply, to, say, the Nazis. (Not meant as
sarky, but an indication of sincere and deep confusion.)
Arthur Hlavaty
: ok, but what's a wing nut?
: oops, STOP MAKING SENSE:---}
I dunoo, but Teddy Harvia draws good ones.
--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
\\\ E-zine available on request. ///
Arthur Hlavaty
: but i concur fascism is not the right word. another poster
: suggested totalitarian; mnot sure that hits it squarely either.
: What DO you call someone who thinks it's ok to kill if one is
: convinced one's superior, morally or what?
American?
John Billingsley
something for years and one of y'all might have an answer. About
Spider Robinson's putative fascism I don't much care. I used to like
the man's fiction some twenty years (fifteen?) ago, read a lot of his
stuff, as I remember, in Analog. At which time I was in my early
(late?) teens, and getting a little more particular in my reading
habits. Seemed to me, after a number of stories, that Robinson was
addicted to cheap happy endings. Would pull any damn rabbit out a
hat to keep from killing off a favorite character. Ended up killing
most of the suspense instead. And those Callahan's stories -- woo.
After a certain point the cuteness and the fucking puns started to
get to me. But, again, that was a while back, time for memory to
betray and writing style to change, so maybe I got it wrong and/or
maybe now he's doing Mein Kampf in spacesuit drag, whatever, I dunno,
that's not my point! Got off on a little tangent there. Sorry.
What I meant to say is, I didn't like his fiction, but I read every
single one of his book reviews. In Galaxy, I think? That *was* him,
right? Hmm. Okay. Assuming it was, at some point, during one of
the reviews, he mentioned an R.A. Lafferty story, and added,
enigmatically, and rather petulantly, that he used to like Lafferty
stories, but now he doesn't. And he doesn't want to talk about it.
So... what happened? Did he realize that Lafferty used the third
letter of every word to spell out Satanic sermons? Did he just
experience a sudden aversion to his writing, much as I did for
Robinson's? Or did he meet Lafferty at a convention and have some
unfortunate encounter? Reading between the lines in some of
Lafferty's stories I gathered he was none too happy about
long-haired, bearded youth, and Robinson, from the publicity stills,
definitely seemed to fall into that category. But, again, this is
conjecture, and very old conjecture at that. Who knows the real
reason? Who wants to rip me to shreds for not liking Robinson's
earlier work and not bothering to read the later? Who else likes
R.A. Lafferty's stuff and has any idea of what he's been doing
lately, assuming he's alive? And is there any reliable biographical
information out there? All I've seen is enigmatic endpaper
paragraphs. Anyone actually (gasp) met the man? Care to share some
anecdotes?
John
jo...@crocker.com
Mark Bernstein
: If you think all of Spider Robinson's sympathetic characters are 'Too
: Damn Special', then I'd be interested to know if you read any epic
: fantasy.
Rarely. I've read a bit of Tolkien, but no Jordan or Eddings or Brooks
or Feist or whatever. I'll admit to reading a few series with Special
characters--Card's "Alvin Maker" series, May's "Pliocene Exile" and
"Milieu" books, for example. The difference there is that both those
series contain characters, both sympathetic and un-, who can be considered
normal, and provide a background or baseline against which the Special
chararacters can be measured. My problem with some later Robinson is
the lack of that contrast. *Every* sympathetic character, even the most
minor, has some sort of special ability.
--
Mark Bernstein
ma...@erim.org
Mary K. Kuhner
>OK, could you differentiate meaningfully in layman's terms between
>paternalism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism? "Paternalism" seems
>like an awfully weak term to apply, to, say, the Nazis. (Not meant as
>sarky, but an indication of sincere and deep confusion.)
> -- Bill Snyder [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]
Not a social scientist, but I'll make a stab:
Paternalism says "I will exert power over you for your own good, because
I'm wiser/more moral than you are."
Authoritarianism says "I will exert power over you because it's my right
to do so." Many forms, depending on where the right is thought to come
from: God, elected status, royal birth....
Totalitarianism doesn't really seem parallel to the others: the
statement would be more like "I will exert power over all aspects of
your life." In practice it often seems to go along with "I will exert
power over you because I *can*," which I would tend to call "fascism".
These are far from mutually exclusive, but I wouldn't call the Nazis
paternal. A paternalistic approach to the Final Solution would have
been to segregate the Jews into ghettos and govern them "for
their own good, because they were unfit to govern themselves"--perhaps to
sterilize them, thus avoiding production of "disadvantaged" children.
Still evil, but different.
I've seen a number of SF examples of paternalism: one of the most
searching is Octavia Butler's _Xenogenesis_ trilogy. Aliens save the
remnants of humankind from the aftermath of nuclear war. But "for our
good" they must change us, perhaps destroying what makes us human. Is
it moral for them to do so? Butler doesn't set up straw men, so the
alien position is compelling in some ways. But the moral arguments
against it--essentially, that it is better to be human and die--are also
compelling. A very disturbing set of books.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
--
I do not receive posts from the following systems because they tolerate
abuse of Usenet: prodigy.com interramp.com scruz.net
If you wish me to see your message anyway please use email.
Steve Taylor
Billingsley) wrote:
[... snip ...]
> About
> Spider Robinson's putative fascism I don't much care. I used to like
> the man's fiction some twenty years (fifteen?) ago, read a lot of his
> stuff, as I remember, in Analog. At which time I was in my early
> (late?) teens, and getting a little more particular in my reading
> habits. Seemed to me, after a number of stories, that Robinson was
> addicted to cheap happy endings. Would pull any damn rabbit out a
> hat to keep from killing off a favorite character. Ended up killing
> most of the suspense instead. And those Callahan's stories -- woo.
> After a certain point the cuteness and the fucking puns started to
> get to me.
Truer words never spoken. I read Spider Robinson in my teens and enjoyed
him quite a bit, but the the coziness of his stories became more and more
cloying as I read further, and as I grew up. Eventually he just wasn't
worth the bother any more.
[... snip ...]
> but I read every
> single one of his book reviews. In Galaxy, I think? That *was* him,
> right? Hmm. Okay. Assuming it was, at some point, during one of
> the reviews, he mentioned an R.A. Lafferty story, and added,
> enigmatically, and rather petulantly, that he used to like Lafferty
> stories, but now he doesn't. And he doesn't want to talk about it.
Funny you should mention book reviews - it was a Spider Robinson book
review that finally pushed me over the edge. He was reviewing Joe
Haldeman's "All My Sins Remembered" (well worth reading if you can dig up
a copy) in (I think) Analog.
To give some background, "All My Sins..." ends <Microspoiler Alert!> with
someone dying because he refuses to compromise his morality anymore. The
ending feels very upbeat to me - the book says, basically that the
character is too fundamentally moral and strong to be oppressed forever.
How upbeat do you want?
In Spiders' review, he said that it was a nice enough book, but so
miserable and downbeat - wouldn't it have been nicer if the character had
miraculously escaped and run off to enact a subtle and terrible campaign
revenge against his evil masters.
Oh goody! Cheap melodrama - my favourite. It was at this point that I
finally decided I could safely ignore Spider Robinson.
> So... what happened?
To be fair, Lafferty has gone from being extremely readable to being
extremely... umm... individual over the course of his career. I still love
his writing dearly, but he did change quite substantially.
> Who else likes R.A. Lafferty's stuff
Enormously!
> and has any idea of what he's been doing lately, assuming he's alive?
I've heard - though I'm not too sure of this - that he's still alive, but
that he had a stroke some years ago and has not been writing since. Sad if
true.
> And is there any reliable biographical information out there?
I'd like an answer to that one too.
> John
> jo...@crocker.com
Steve
Hans Rancke-Madsen
>I found it most bothersome in
>the Callahan's stories, where at the start (it seemed to me) the
>_point_ was that this is the good people can do when random folks work
>together. It's progressively wandered away from that, with "The
>Wonderful Conspiracy" as the turning point. Yeurgh.
Yep. "The Wonderful Conspiracy" more or less ruined the whole concept. I
agree about the "people can help each other" aspect you mention, but to
me there was another, and even more important aspect to the stories: That
if you mess up you have to and you can live with the guilt and not get
crushed by it. "Wonderful Conspiracy" turned that around 180 degrees and
tells us that you _can't_ live with guilt. The only way to live with
guilt is not to be guilty. Yeurgh.
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
ran...@diku.dk
------------
- "You don't like the Goths?"
- "No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
- "Persecution?"
- "Religious persecution. We wont stand for it forever."
- "I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
- "That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and
watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going
about their business unmolested, as if they owned the
country. If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"
-Martin Padway and stranger in bar in
"Lest Darkness Fall"
Michael Hall
>After a certain point the cuteness and the fucking puns started to
>get to me.
I'm with you here. At one time I absolutely _loved_ Heinlein -- but my
falling out didn't have to do with his abhorrent political beliefs. It
was his writing. (Robinson's talked openly and often of his fondness
for Heinlein.)
I've enjoyed Robinson immensely. But, like many authors, I feel he's
started to less story-telling and more pulpit preaching. Established
authors get more freedom in this area -- they're making money for the
publisher, so why would their stuff be edited more rigorously?
>the reviews, he mentioned an R.A. Lafferty story, and added,
>enigmatically, and rather petulantly, that he used to like Lafferty
>stories, but now he doesn't. And he doesn't want to talk about it.
No idea here. I read his reviews off and on, but don't specifically
recall that one.
>Anyone actually (gasp) met the man? Care to share some
>anecdotes?
I met him at a con. heard him speak at a dinner. But then went off to
talk with friends. When I do go to cons, I rarely have any interaction
with the program.
Reactions? He's very smug. Probably has the royalty cheques to back up
the smugness, too. His wife was there, and there were lots of
in-references between the two to show off their connectedness and
intelligence. He's genuinely funny.
His looks? He looks like his pictures. They mean little to me, and I
would hope others' views of his appearance would mean little to him.
I fan-warred with him years ago over his eligibility for a Canadian sf
award. At the time (don't know what the status is now, and don't care)
he was an American living in this country and had no interest in
citizenship. His vociferous participation in the debate was
astounding. In the end, he qualified, and I cared less about the
award.
I stopped buying his books a few years ago. There's too much good
stuff out there to get exercised about a small corner of the market. I
don't think anyone can claim Robinson is "important" and Must Be Read.
Ellison, maybe.
Michael Hall
mh...@ccinet.ab.ca Everything you know is wrong.
Fort McMurray, Alberta -- Firesign Theatre
Ray M. Radlein
> And why is it that of all the SF/F writers I've ever commented on in
> this newgroup, Spider is the only one I feel comfortable in referring
> to by first name?
Because "Spider" is such a goofy first name. Nicknames (and "Spider" sure
fits the nickname template) are inherently informal.
- Ray R.
******************************************************************
Kelly's Pith-Poor Law: Terseness is not enough.
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
ra...@neonate.org
******************************************************************
Gary Farber
: And why is it that of all the SF/F writers I've ever commented on in
: this newgroup, Spider is the only one I feel comfortable in referring
: to by first name?
Have you asked Joel, Will, Elizabeth, Jane, Robert . . . ? <g>
--
-- Gary Farber Brooklyn,
gfa...@panix.com New York City
Andrew C. Plotkin
> I remember a column Robinson did early in his _Galaxy_ career*
> where he reviewed a biography by L. Sprague DeCamp** and ripped into
> the book savagely. Why? Well, Robinson didn't want to read about
> (Lovecraft or Howard, I disremember which) and thought that because
> he didn't find the subject matter interesting, the book must therefore
> be bad, and the meticulous effort put into it by DeCamp made it worse:
> why should an author waste effort on a book if it won't interest Spider
> Robinson, center of the universe?
>
> I think Robinson later apologized in print.
>
> *It might even have been his first one.
>
> ** Who I have found filed under 'C', 'D', and 'S' in bookstores.
I think you managed to grab all the brass rings in one go... The
column is entitled "Spider vs. the Hax of Sol III"; it *was* his
first, written in 1975. It's reprinted in _Time Travellers Strictly
Cash_; in the afterword (written in 1981) he says that he had already
apologized to LSdC in private, and then does so again in print.
(Remember what I said about reading his books all the way through?
They grabbed me again this past week, which is how I remember all this
stuff.)
John Billingsley
> Look at (um) _Stardancer_ (?): the original story ends with a
> great sacrifice. The novel ends with that great sacrifice being
> an illusion with no consequences...
Yes! That's the one that put me over the edge. Suppressed childhood
memories of trauma and betrayal cascade through my brain -- the
flutter of pages as the book is hurled through the air, the muffled
thud of jeans on linoleum as a lonely little boy falls to his knees,
sobbing. UNH! Well... maybe my memories tend less towards
suppression than elaboration, but you get the idea. At the very
least it prompted a sour expression and a tsk of heartfelt disgust.
It wouldn't have been nearly so bad if the original story hadn't been
so good. So what happened? Maybe somebody cornered Robinson and
slapped him a good one him with the sappy stick? Or maybe he came
that way and early editors managed to suppress the tendency. But
only for a little while...
Another example of the "grotesquely happy ending" was from some silly
post-apocalyptic novel of his, notable mainly for the method of
apocalypse -- world-wide hyper-activation of the human olfactory
system, resulting in the total collapse of a civilization based on
smelly hydrocarbons and chemicals. (ID it if you can -- lord knows I
can't.) The protagonist had, in a flashback, killed his father,
using the incident as motivation and angst-fodder through the rest of
the novel. How'd he kill him? This is a good one. He mixed a batch
of incompatible cleaning agents and left it in his father's house.
Oo! Death by warning label! Dad didn't notice because he'd
purposefully destroyed his own olfactory nerves (don't ask). Why he
wouldn't have noticed the progressive and very painful deterioration
of his mucous membranes, I don't know. I don't care. I don't have
to. Because, guess what, it's a moot point! Dad's not dead! Come
the final curtain he's back to kiss it better, reconciliations all
around, deus ex saccharine. Euh.
At least, that's how I remember it. Here's hoping you never have to.
But, back to my original question -- why did Robinson go sour on
Lafferty? Did he finally notice the inherent viciousness lurking
under Lafferty's harmless whimsy? Did he read a Lafferty story
without a happy ending? Did Lafferty express a love for the writings
of Lovecraft (or Howard (or deCamp))? Or was it personal? Or has my
treacherous memory made it all up? Who remembers that review? All
my source material is in boxes and two thousand miles away.
John
jo...@crocker.com
Bruce Baugh
ran...@diku.dk (Hans Rancke-Madsen) wrote:
:Yep. "The Wonderful Conspiracy" more or less ruined the whole concept. I
:agree about the "people can help each other" aspect you mention, but to
:me there was another, and even more important aspect to the stories: That
:if you mess up you have to and you can live with the guilt and not get
:crushed by it. "Wonderful Conspiracy" turned that around 180 degrees and
:tells us that you _can't_ live with guilt. The only way to live with
:guilt is not to be guilty. Yeurgh.
Also true, though not completely - while "Wonderful Conspiracy" drags in an
element of what amounts to supernatural help, Jake and the Doc and all the
rest remain themselves. That gets progressively undermined, though, in later
works.
bruceab@teleport.com____________________http://www.teleport.com/~bruceab
List Manager, Christlib, where Christian & libertarian concerns hang out
Preview S.M. Stirling's novel DRAKON at my home page
Coming soon, the George Alec Effinger page, including a preview of
WORD OF NIGHT, the new Marid Audran novel
Bruce Baugh
Shirl Phelps <sph...@nova.umuc.edu> wrote:
: Actually, Callahan (and his wife, Lady Sally) aren't aliens. They are
:time travelling *humans* from a distant future come back to be sure that
:their future does indeed come about. I don't see where you think he lost
:faith . . .
Zepp is capable (more than capable :-) of answering for himself, but as for
me, this is James' difference-that-makes-no-difference. Callahan comes from a
culture fundamentally different than our own. By that fact, he undermines the
whole point of Callahan's as a demonstration of what people in _this_ culture
can do. If the time travellers had showed up in one story as observers, that'd
be one thing, but by building them into the essential framework, the whole
thing turns into one more we-must-be-bailed-out-by-others story.
bruceab@teleport.com____________________http://www.teleport.com/~bruceab
List Manager, Christlib, where Christian & libertarian concerns hang out
Science fiction readers: Preview George Alec Effinger's WORD OF NIGHT
(the new Marid Audran novel) and S.M. Stirling's DRAKON at my home page.
Karen Lofstrom
: Another example of the "grotesquely happy ending" was from some silly
: post-apocalyptic novel of his, notable mainly for the method of
: apocalypse -- world-wide hyper-activation of the human olfactory
: system, resulting in the total collapse of a civilization based on
: smelly hydrocarbons and chemicals. (ID it if you can -- lord knows I
: can't.)
I can't remember the name of the novel either, but I will always
remember my response to it. I was put off by the silly plot, but
quite taken with some of the prose. I was so taken that I wrote
Spider Robinson a letter c/o his publisher raving about what a good
writer he was, but there were these holes in the plot ...
No doubt it was a stupid letter, written by a person who was much
younger and brasher then, but I'm still not sure I deserved the
response I got. Spider Robinson sent me back a LONG flame telling me
what a worthless human being I was and how people like me were the
reason good writers stopped writing.
Since then I have been much more careful talking to writers about
their writing.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"They're on Demerol, they've got a '67 Camaro, and some fresh white
mice to play with. Whee doggers." -- Global Domination Update #15
LAL
Carter) wrote:
> Keith Wood (kei...@sedona.net) wrote:
>
> : Which beliefs did you find to "abhorrent"?
>
> If I may jump in here, what I personally found abhorrent was his
> view that democracy was a terrible concept, men are superior to women,
> and that there's a superior race of people (which he thought himself
> part of), and that they should be allowed to rule while everyone else
> should just do what they're told.
APC must be trolling -
I can't bring myself to believe he's really missed the point so completely.
--
Standard disclaimers apply. Nobody here ever agrees with me on anything.
Andrew P Carter
over to the Heinlein: kidlit post, in which the same argument is taking place,
it would be appreciated ;)
Andrew P Carter
: I hate this kind of reply - but, are you sure that we're talking about
: Robert Heinlein here? How you managed to arrive at the above conclusions
: is beyond me. Try reading "The Notebooks of L. Long" and see if you still
: hold the same beliefs when you finish. The statements in that work seem
: to reflect RAH's philosophy quite well and do NOT match the results that
: you derived!
I base most of my views on RAH on Time Enough For Love, which I understand
is one of the last books he wrote, and which seemed to me to have a lot of his
philosophy in it. One of the main things I don't like about RAH is his idea
that there is a superior class of people which has been historically held back
by the "commoners". Will anyone who's been debating with me over RAH concede
this point?
Susan Groppi
: I base most of my views on RAH on Time Enough For Love, which I understand
: is one of the last books he wrote, and which seemed to me to have a
: lot of his philosophy in it. One of the main things I don't like about
: RAH is his idea that there is a superior class of people which has been
: historically held back by the "commoners". Will anyone who's been
: debating with me over RAH concede this point?
I've been following rather than debating, but I will concede this point.
I think the way your phrasing it is bad, though. So far as I can tell
(based on a good bit more than just Time Enough), he didn't believe that
this "superior class" was set apart my race, gender, or heritage. It's
not a superior class in the racial-purity or even class-conscious sense.
Heinlein firmly held to the view that there are smart people and stupid
people, and that the stupid people have traditionally held back the smart
people.
Let me amend that--there are smart people, stupid people, and
people who could be smart but never thought about it. In his novels, the
protagonist characters are generally smart people. The sympathetic minor
characters are in the third category, and most people are stupid people.
And, of course, the terms "smart people" and "stupid people" are
just my personal oversimplifications. "Smart people" are people who
think like Heinlein does, obviously. People who believe in the concept
of right and wrong, who feel that they are capable of judging right and
wrong without having to follow socially-imposed rules, people who don't
expect other people to take care of them, people who can and do acheive.
In this sense, I think Heinlein was right. I think there
definitely are smart people and stupid people in this world, and I think
that it's at least partially true that the smart people have been held
back in many ways by the stupid people. I do not think that any part of
this theory is a Bad Thing--he wasn't advocating having all the stupid
people shot, for example, just stating that they would probably be lost
without the smart people.
-- Susan
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
gro...@fas.harvard.edu -- Susan Marie Groppi
- Sugarpop Sin -- alt.fan.karl-malden.nose -
"And I've been wondering lately just who's
going to save me..." -- The Sundays
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Ned Danieley
: And I like how he automatically groups himself firmly in this
: "smart person" category. He was an intelligent man, but I don't think
: he was the genius he considered himself. Maybe he was overcompensating
: for his lack of formal education (I'm in no ways criticizing this; most
: self-taught people I've known are extremely intelligent. I'm just
: trying to find an explanation for his incredible ego)
why would you say that someone who graduated from the US Naval Academy
had a lack of formal education?
--
Ned Danieley (n...@eel-mail.mc.duke.edu)
Experimental Electrophysiology Laboratory
Box 90295, Duke University
Durham, NC 27708 (919) 660-5111
Josh Kaderlan
MSK <tk...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>
>I remember seeing in at least two different works the quote: "I had done
>the two most important things a man can do: I had killed a man and loved a
>women."
>
I've read almost every book RAH ever wrote (all but *Citizen of the
Galaxy*, I think), and I cannot remember *ever* seeing this quote or
anything like it. Not once, definitely not twice. Where'd it come from?
--Josh
Mark Rosenfelder
I remember it as well; it's from that appalling work, _Farnham's Freehold_.
Daniel Blum
> In article <tknob-01119...@blv-pm2-ip19.halcyon.com>,
> MSK <tk...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> >
> >I remember seeing in at least two different works the quote: "I had done
> >the two most important things a man can do: I had killed a man and loved a
> >women."
> >
> I've read almost every book RAH ever wrote (all but *Citizen of the
> Galaxy*, I think), and I cannot remember *ever* seeing this quote or
> anything like it. Not once, definitely not twice. Where'd it come from?
> --Josh
It's from "Year of the Jackpot" (which can be found in _The Menace From
Earth_, I think). I don't know where else in Heinlein's works it might be
found.
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum to...@mcs.com
"I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't just made it up."
_______________________________________________________________________
Ross TenEyck
>In article <tknob-01119...@blv-pm2-ip19.halcyon.com>,
>MSK <tk...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>>
>>I remember seeing in at least two different works the quote: "I had done
>>the two most important things a man can do: I had killed a man and loved a
>>women."
>>
>I've read almost every book RAH ever wrote (all but *Citizen of the
>Galaxy*, I think), and I cannot remember *ever* seeing this quote or
>anything like it. Not once, definitely not twice. Where'd it come from?
Well, I can't recall it from any Heinlein book, but Kipling has something
like that in "Kim" -- one of the characters says something like, "When I
was his age, I had already shot my man and begot my man." For some reason,
the phrase stuck in my mind.
>--Josh
--
============== http://weber.u.washington.edu/~teneyck/home.html =============
Ross TenEyck G2ME | I saw a crow on campus today, gleaning
teneyck@{saul.}u.washington.edu | left-over learning from between the bricks.
Poet for hire | Soon, he will be wise. -RT
Andrew P Carter
: why would you say that someone who graduated from the US Naval Academy
: had a lack of formal education?
I'm aware he received a graduation certificate, and I'll concede that
it's the equivalent of a bachelor's of engineering. What I meant is he
had no graduate education, though a lot of his characters did, as well as
the other two members of the Big Three (Asimov and Clarke). I was merely
suggesting that a lot of his posturing was a result of trying to overcompensate
for this.
Nancy Lebovitz
>
>> In article <46e5t3$a...@news-2.ccinet.ab.ca>,
>> mh...@ccinet.ab.ca (Michael Hall) wrote:
>> > At one time I absolutely _loved_ Heinlein -- but my
>> > falling out didn't have to do with his abhorrent political beliefs.
>>
>>
>
>delighted to hop in the sack with anybody and everybody, anytime,
>anyplace, and encourage their husbands to sleep around (yeah, right) and
>the casual violence.
>
An odd thing about Heinlein is that he writes a moderate amount about
relationships being problematic, but also writes as though sex is
never problematic.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Nancy Lebovitz
Fishman Michael <mic...@wiscon.weizmann.ac.il> wrote:
>Nancy Lebovitz <475edd$6...@universe.digex.net>
>>Actually, some early Heinlein ("Magic, Inc.", the novel about the actor
>>substituting for the politician) is very pro-democracy.
>
>_Double Star_ actually. And the quote you mean is about simpathy for
>the common men. As regards democracy (mob rule in greek) see
>_Expanded Universe_
>
The pro-democracy (or at least pro-elected government) material
is in some of his earlier works.
And, as I recall, in Double Star, there's a speech by Dak about
people's obligation to get involved in government. By implication,
this seems like a pro-democratic sentiment--only democratic/republican
(in the general, not the party senses of the words) governments permit
that sort of involvement, and it takes some respect for people in
general to think that they should get involved rather than being
content to be ruled.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Susan Groppi
: it's the equivalent of a bachelor's of engineering. What I meant is he
: had no graduate education, though a lot of his characters did, as well as
: the other two members of the Big Three (Asimov and Clarke). I was merely
: suggesting that a lot of his posturing was a result of trying to overcompensate
: for this.
I was always under the impression that Heinlein made it very clear that
he had a lack of respect for "higher learning". He did not consider
university education to be worthwhile in comparison to real-life
education, especially when the educated person thought that, say, a
doctorate in English made them a real doctor.
Elisabeth Carey
> And I like how he automatically groups himself firmly in this
>"smart person" category. He was an intelligent man, but I don't think
>he was the genius he considered himself. Maybe he was overcompensating
>for his lack of formal education (I'm in no ways criticizing this; most
>self-taught people I've known are extremely intelligent. I'm just
>trying to find an explanation for his incredible ego)
Lack of formal education? Correct me if I'm mistaken, sir, but are we
not talking about Rohert A. Heinlein, graduate of Annapolis?
Or are you merely expressing your opinion of the service academies?
Heinlein's chief failing in the education department was a lack of
appreciation of the social sciences - not having studied them
seriously, he believed that they did not require any serious study, and
were entirely composed of wishful thinking and fuzzy-headed thinking,
with no discipline and no rigor.He was a physics & mathematics snob, in
short.
But that wasn't a lack of formal education - that was, in part, the
effect of a particular kind of formal higher education. And while
undoubtedly he continued to learn throughout his adult life, he was
most certainly not "self-taught" in any normal sense of the term.
/s/ Elisabeth Carey
Matt Hickman
>>
>The pro-democracy (or at least pro-elected government) material
>is in some of his earlier works.
>
pro-democracy as any book can get. Granted, he may have become disillusioned
and cynical over the course of the twenty or thirty years after he wrote this book,
but I have a feeling that Heinlein's idealism was never truely extinguished.
Heinlein's idealism was focused on liberty, and his attitude towards democracy
was influenced by how well he judged democracy to serve liberty. And there have
been many occasions this century where democracy and liberty have clashed.
I agree with Heinlein, liberty is the goal. Democracy is a reflection of liberty
which can be corrupted when people do not actively participate in the democratic
process and allow political bosses, special interest groups and power blocks too much
say.
Matt Hickman bh...@chevron.com TANSTAAFL!
OS/2 Systems Specialist, Chevron Information Technologies Co.
Congratulations and welcome to the the ranks of free men.
I've been free a parcel of years now and I predict that you
will find it looser but not always more comfortable.
(Sargon manumission clerk to Thorby)
- Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)
_Citizen of the Galaxy_
Matt Hickman
>>MSK <tk...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>>>I remember seeing in at least two different works the quote: "I had done
>>>the two most important things a man can do: I had killed a man and loved a
>>>women."
>else. Silly, maybe, but it hardly seems "abhorrent".
Actually, I think it was the Cyrano construct (aka the eater of souls)
who advised Oscar to do this. (see sig below) The Cyrano construct
was what dueled Oscar at the time Oscar recoverd the egg of the
Phoenix. Cyrano was dying of sword wounds inflicted by Oscar when
he gave Oscar this advise.
It appears that Heinlein intended this Cyrano contruct to be
a faithful reproduction of the original man. So Heinlein saw this
as something that the real Cyrano de Bergerac would have said
-- and it does not necessarily reflect Heinlein's own beliefs.
Matt Hickman bh...@chevron.com TANSTAAFL!
OS/2 Systems Specialist, Chevron Information Technologies Co.
"...have you seen Carcasonne?...See it. Love a lass, kill a man,
write a book, fly to the Moon -- I have done all these." Cyrano
Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
_Glory Road_ 1963
Ben S. Hadad
Ross TenEyck <ten...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>jek...@cac.psu.edu (Josh Kaderlan) writes:
>
>>In article <tknob-01119...@blv-pm2-ip19.halcyon.com>,
>>>
>>>I remember seeing in at least two different works the quote: "I had done
>>>the two most important things a man can do: I had killed a man and loved a
>>>women."
>>>
>>Galaxy*, I think), and I cannot remember *ever* seeing this quote or
>>anything like it. Not once, definitely not twice. Where'd it come from?
>
>Well, I can't recall it from any Heinlein book, but Kipling has something
>like that in "Kim" -- one of the characters says something like, "When I
>was his age, I had already shot my man and begot my man." For some reason,
>the phrase stuck in my mind.
Actually, the Heinlein quote above is _close_ to one from the Puppet Masters,
expanded edition...Too lazy to look it up, but it went something like:
"I felt good, as if I'd killed a man or had a woman."
It is worth considering what sort of book RAH was writing here...This always
struck me as almost a detective-genre or spy-genre book in a skiffi setting,
rather than skiffi per se.
My two cents...
Interesting Kipling quote...
Ben
>
>
>>--Josh
>--
>============== http://weber.u.washington.edu/~teneyck/home.html =============
>Ross TenEyck G2ME | I saw a crow on campus today, gleaning
>teneyck@{saul.}u.washington.edu | left-over learning from between the bricks.
>Poet for hire | Soon, he will be wise. -RT
--
ha...@cs.uh.edu
ha...@neosoft.com
http://www.neosoft.com/~hadad/home.html
Bernard Peek
acar...@osf1.gmu.edu "Andrew P Carter" writes:
> Ned Danieley (n...@sunbar.mc.duke.edu) wrote:
> : why would you say that someone who graduated from the US Naval Academy
> : had a lack of formal education?
>
> I'm aware he received a graduation certificate, and I'll concede that
> it's the equivalent of a bachelor's of engineering. What I meant is he
> had no graduate education, though a lot of his characters did, as well as
> the other two members of the Big Three (Asimov and Clarke). I was merely
> suggesting that a lot of his posturing was a result of trying to overcompensate
> for this.
Given that the proportion of the population with degrees is now much
higher than it was at that time, Heinlein could be forgiven for
believing that his Naval Academy certificate was worth more than a
modern-day degree.
According to the Encyclopedia of SF he also studied at the University
of Missouri.
--
Bernard Peek
I.T and Management Development Trainer to the Cognoscenti
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Nancy Lebovitz
Andrew P Carter <acar...@mason2.gmu.edu> wrote:
>Susan Groppi (gro...@scunix4.harvard.edu) wrote:
>: I was always under the impression that Heinlein made it very clear that
>: university education to be worthwhile in comparison to real-life
>: education, especially when the educated person thought that, say, a
>: doctorate in English made them a real doctor.
>
>what "doctor" signifies, considering that throughout history physicians
>have usually been considered highly skilled workers rather than scholars.
>The doctoral degrees in the humanities were given out long before the
>sciences.
>
Does anyone have citations handy? My impression was that Heinlein
respected degrees in technical subjects, but not in education--and
he had utter contempt for classes in creative writing.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Keith Wood
acar...@osf1.gmu.edu (Andrew P Carter) wrote:
[ I base most of my views on RAH on Time Enough For Love, which I understand
[is one of the last books he wrote, and which seemed to me to have a lot of his
[philosophy in it.
It was written about 15 years before his death.
[ One of the main things I don't like about RAH is his idea
[that there is a superior class of people which has been historically held back
[by the "commoners". Will anyone who's been debating with me over RAH concede
[this point?
Hmmmm. I would have to concede that RAH didn't think that everyone was equal,
but there was no "master race" that was inherent superior. His stories were
most often about individuals who proved themselves heroes, so I guess that
could be seen as being "superior," but RAH's villains were most often from
within the ranks of whatever "superior" class you might select. In TEFL, for
instance, there is reference to a woman in charge of the Howard Foundation who
is assassinated after lasting longer than LL expected her to, because she was
throwing her weight around. In Sixth Column, the greatest hero is kin to the
"Asiatic" invaders, while the top loony was one of the Good Guys.
===============================================================
Keith Wood TV-18 News anchor
Host/Producer, The Computer Program, FLYING TIME!, and Infinity Focus.
Gunsite (Orange) alumnus, Team OS/2, Parrothead, N7JUZ, AZ0237 but not a
number (I'm a FREE MAN!), creator of FIRE TEAM and HERO SEEKER
===============================================================
Mark Rosenfelder
Rob Borden <RBO...@hr.house.gov> wrote:
>mark...@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) wrote:
>> I remember it as well; it's from that appalling work,
>> _Farnham's Freehold_.
>
Well, there was the quote referred to, which annoyed me enough that I've
remembered it for untold years.
There was the fact that the hero threw a fit over his wife's infidelity,
while being unrepentantly unfaithful himself. I find this a particularly
unpalatable double standard.
Then there's the race thing. This was discussed ad nauseam in the r.a.sf.w
Heinlein flamewar of a year or two back; suffice it to say that the
intention (disparaging racism) was good, but the device chosen (the race
reversal) was at best tricky to make work (depicting blacks as tyrants and
cannibals to dramatize the evils of racism? hmm, Bob, is this really a
great approach?) and at worst counter-productive (I can think of a frequent
r.a.sf.w contributor who misread the book as *supporting* racism-- that's
extreme, but the method and the execution left a bad taste in my mouth).
Finally, no real positives remain in my mind to offset these negatives.
I didn't find the characters or the depicted society very interesting.
Graydon
: An odd thing about Heinlein is that he writes a moderate amount about
: relationships being problematic, but also writes as though sex is
: never problematic.
Heilein never says anything about sex directly at all.
I suspect he just had a block about putting that stuff in words; it can
be very hard to do.
--
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca | Monete me si non anglice loquobar.
Nancy Lebovitz
Rob Borden <RBO...@hr.house.gov> wrote:
>tk...@halcyon.com (MSK) wrote:
>>
>> Some aspects of Heinlein I dislike are all those gorgeous women who are
>> delighted to hop in the sack with anybody and everybody, anytime,
>> anyplace, and encourage their husbands to sleep around (yeah, right) and
>> the casual violence.
>
>whom they slept. They were, however, very willing to sleep with men
>they judged worthy. They were not held back by social mores they held
>to be not relevant.
>
>Of course, I do hold some doubt about how practical the free sex thing
>is. I know my wife would have a problem with it. Is it impractical
>because of deeply ingrained social taboos or because of our nature?
>
I don't know--I've heard a theory that whether a person is polyamorous
or monogamous may be as deep a part of one's nature as whether one
is heterosexual, gay, or bi.
At this point, non-free sex works as something of a firewall against
STD's.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Nancy Lebovitz
John Boston <jbo...@delphi.com> wrote:
>
> On the subject of this thread in general--Heinlein's supposedly
>abhorrent philosophy--his work is like the Bible. You can find
>something in it somewhere to support almost any proposition you want.
>Like most people, he didn't have a philosophy so much as a ragbag
>of contradictory attitudes and prejudices; the difference is that his
>were expressed in books read by thousands and sometimes millions of
>people and not just in the neighborhood bar or over the dinner table.
>If you don't like FARNHAM'S FREEHOLD, go back and read DOUBLE STAR.
>
Nicely put, though I think there are some threads running through
all of Heinlein--notably respect for competence and for loyalty.
Also, though he never talks about it, he had more sense of proportion
than a lot of science fiction writers. Farnham only escapes through
a piece of luck--he doesn't lead a successful slave revolt.
If you want to see an attitudinally assorted batch of Heinlein,
read ASSIGNMENT IN ETERNITY. "Gulf" is the elitist Heinlein who
gets on a lot of people's nerves. (The premise is that only a
few people are smart enough to learn a language which makes them
a *whole* *lot* *smarter*.) "Lost Legacy" is about everyone
regaining lost psychic powers. It's one of my favorite wish-fulfillment
stories. "Jerry Was A Man" is about a genetically (biologically?)
altered ape being legally accepted as human because he has a good
lawyer and sings. It's clearly supposed to be a feel-good ending.
"Elsewhen" is about people ending up in alternate universes that
suit them.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Arthur Hlavaty
: Heinlein's chief failing in the education department was a lack of
: appreciation of the social sciences - not having studied them
: seriously, he believed that they did not require any serious study, and
: were entirely composed of wishful thinking and fuzzy-headed thinking,
: with no discipline and no rigor.He was a physics & mathematics snob, in
: short.
Had he studied them seriously, he would have *known* they were like that.
--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
\\\ E-zine available on request. ///
Susan Groppi
: ...which could also prove my point. Obviously the man had no idea
: what "doctor" signifies, considering that throughout history physicians
: have usually been considered highly skilled workers rather than scholars.
: The doctoral degrees in the humanities were given out long before the
: sciences.
But "higher education", as I'm becoming more and more convinced in my
life, is completely useless from a practical viewpoint. In that sense, I
agree with Heinlein a lot. A doctorate in English means nothing more
than that you have a lot of knowledge about a subset of English-language
literature. Doctorates in other fields are slightly more useful, but
they are never the absolute standard of intelligence that many people
hold them to be.
John T. Dillworth III
>
<snip>
>
>But "higher education", as I'm becoming more and more convinced in my
>life, is completely useless from a practical viewpoint. In that sense, I
>agree with Heinlein a lot. A doctorate in English means nothing more
>than that you have a lot of knowledge about a subset of English-language
>literature. Doctorates in other fields are slightly more useful, but
>they are never the absolute standard of intelligence that many people
>hold them to be.
>
>
> -- Susan
The worth of any degree is in direct proportion to what can be
accomplished with it. We've all seen SF written by "Dr X", but how often
is that doctorate related to the actual "study" of writing related
fields? There seems to be a contadiction here. I am open to rebuttal on
this, but with actual names/degrees, not casual citations with no hard
data to backup up the assertion.
johnd (The Elder)
Wayne Throop
:: he believed that they did not require any serious study, and were
:: entirely composed of wishful thinking and fuzzy-headed thinking, with
:: no discipline and no rigor.He was a physics & mathematics snob, in
:: short.
: From: hla...@panix.com (Arthur Hlavaty)
: Had he studied them seriously, he would have *known* they were like that.
What makes you think he didn't "study them seriously"?
I myself wonder how one gets such an impression from Heinlein's works.
In several works, such as "...If This Goes On", or "Methuselah's Children",
or the other stories set far enough forward, his characters make it clear
that social and psychological sciences are (in those settings) rigorous
disciplines, and that the difference is that more sophisticated mathemetical
tools were brought to bear. This attitude is, then, that social and
psychological studies are less *mature* and more *complex* than, say,
physics.
Therefore, IMHO, "he believed", quite the contrary to Elisabeth's
summary, that they DO require VERY serious study. He's saying that those
physicists and chemists are wimps, and have merely tackled the easy jobs.
As to the *current* *content* of social and psychological research, he
may well have thought it contained a lot of fuzzy-headed thinking. Lots
of people think so. Feynman thought so, too, and gave specific reasons
why he thought so. Even some non-physicists think so; one could
probably find some choice comments of behaviorists and neurologists
about Freudians, for one example.
But humans do a lot of fuzzy-headed thinking, and the only reason
so-called "hard" sciences might be said to have less fuzzy-headed thinking
is merely the maturity of the field; all the usual mistakes are catalogued
and recognized.
Bottom line: Heinlein probably *was* a math-snob. His "if you can't put
numbers to it you don't know it" type quotes abound, and I think the
thread of encouraging a respect for rigorous mathematics is especially
strong in his juveniles (one of the clearest cases is, perhaps, The
Rolling Stones). It is not clear to me that he was entirely wrong in
this. But far from supposing humanities didn't deserve study, I can
only conclude from his novels that he thought they deserved much, much,
much *more* study.
--
Wayne Throop throopw%sheol...@dg-rtp.dg.com
thr...@aur.alcatel.com
Joseph Askew
>I think it would be more in the spirit of Heinlein to say, not that there
>is a superior "class" of people, but simply that some people are smarter,
>or stronger, or saner, than other people. That is, everyone is NOT created
>equal (with equal rights, yes; but that's a different matter.)
And that these people are superior because of genetics. Indeed
if there is one long running thread through RAH's work it is
that some people are superior to others thanks to their genes.
It is not hard to see where this sort of thing goes even if he didn't.
>Many of Heinlein's characters are smarter AND stronger AND saner AND
>more whatever than the "average"... which simply says that that's the kind
>of character Heinlein liked writing about.
And some of the assumptions he makes.
>Such characters are "superior"
>by certain metrics -- they are more likely to survive the kinds of things
>that happen to Heinlein's characters, for instance. "Superior" isn't
>really meaningful unless you define "superior *at what*"... long jump,
>ballroom dancing, basketweaving. I don't think Heinlein ever meant
>"superior" in the sense of "having the inherent right to rule over
>others," which is what seems to be putting your back up.
Except Heinlein would have *never* put quotes around the superior.
They were superior in a sort of debased Darwinian sense. They were
supermen. And women. Superior humans beings who were "more fit"
(except he wouldn't use the quotes here either) Heinlein did not
really define what superior actually meant except in this Social
Darwinian sense. I can see why this annoys people. Remember that
using this logic Virginia was complusory sterilizing people in 1970.
Joseph
John Boston
>Actually, the Heinlein quote above is _close_ to one from the Puppet
Masters,
>expanded edition...Too lazy to look it up, but it went something like:
>"I felt good, as if I'd killed a man or had a woman."
>
>It is worth considering what sort of book RAH was writing here...This
always
>struck me as almost a detective-genre or spy-genre book in a skiffi
setting,
>rather than skiffi per se.
Just to keep things in perspective, remember that as far as anyone
knows, the most substantial thing Heinlein ever killed was a cat. In
his defense, the cat was a feral one that kept beating up on Heinlein's
cat. Heinlein also went on hunting trips with his agent and others,
but he didn't hunt--he "kept camp" for them. This crucial intelligence
can all be found in GRUMBLES FROM THE GRAVE, along with photos of
Heinlein's cats (but not the feral interloper) and something his agent
shot.
John Boston
Trister K
>which can be corrupted when people do not actively participate in the
democratic
>process and allow political bosses, special interest groups and power
blocks too >much say.
Pure democracy is no friend of liberty nor will it ever be. Believe it or
not, the above political bosses, special interest groups and power blocks
are what has made life in the US bearable (when it has been bearable) for
the last two hunderd years. Or do you imagine that a popular referendum
would ever have freed the slaves?
Fishman Michael
|> In article <1995Nov2.1...@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il>,
|> Fishman Michael <mic...@wiscon.weizmann.ac.il> wrote:
|> >Nancy Lebovitz <475edd$6...@universe.digex.net>
|> >>Actually, some early Heinlein ("Magic, Inc.", the novel about the actor
|> >>substituting for the politician) is very pro-democracy.
|> >
|> >_Double Star_ actually. And the quote you mean is about simpathy for
|> >the common men. As regards democracy (mob rule in greek) see
|> >_Expanded Universe_
|> >
|> is in some of his earlier works.
|>
|> people's obligation to get involved in government. By implication,
|> this seems like a pro-democratic sentiment--only democratic/republican
|> (in the general, not the party senses of the words) governments permit
|> that sort of involvement, and it takes some respect for people in
|> general to think that they should get involved rather than being
|> content to be ruled.
|>
|> Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
|>
Maybe we aren't talking about the same thing. Heinlein was
specifically oposed to ``warm body democracy''. See _Starship Troopers_
and all the schemes in _Expanded Universe_. And in Lasarus's Notebooks
``Any gotherment will work, if responsibility equals authority''
``Democracy ends when the plebs find out they can vote themselves,
bread & circuses.''
By the way: remember description of the goverment of Secundus,
which Lasarus had set up.
Nancy Lebovitz
Joseph Askew <jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
>Except Heinlein would have *never* put quotes around the superior.
>They were superior in a sort of debased Darwinian sense. They were
>supermen. And women. Superior humans beings who were "more fit"
>(except he wouldn't use the quotes here either) Heinlein did not
>really define what superior actually meant except in this Social
>Darwinian sense. I can see why this annoys people. Remember that
>using this logic Virginia was complusory sterilizing people in 1970.
>
families, but others' families didn't seem at all extraordinary.
AFAIK, Heinlein *never* said that superior people should protect
themselves by pruning the genome--their superiority was proven
by their being able to survive without such protection.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Nancy Lebovitz
Fishman Michael <mic...@wiscon.weizmann.ac.il> wrote:
>In article <47d91n$3...@universe.digex.net>, nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>|> In article <1995Nov2.1...@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il>,
>|> Fishman Michael <mic...@wiscon.weizmann.ac.il> wrote:
>|> >Nancy Lebovitz <475edd$6...@universe.digex.net>
>|> >>Actually, some early Heinlein ("Magic, Inc.", the novel about the actor
>|> >>substituting for the politician) is very pro-democracy.
>|> >
>|> >_Double Star_ actually. And the quote you mean is about simpathy for
>|> >the common men. As regards democracy (mob rule in greek) see
>|> >_Expanded Universe_
>|> >
>|> The pro-democracy (or at least pro-elected government) material
>|> is in some of his earlier works.
>|>
>|> And, as I recall, in Double Star, there's a speech by Dak about
>|> people's obligation to get involved in government. By implication,
>|> this seems like a pro-democratic sentiment--only democratic/republican
>|> (in the general, not the party senses of the words) governments permit
>|> that sort of involvement, and it takes some respect for people in
>|> general to think that they should get involved rather than being
>|> content to be ruled.
>|>
>specifically oposed to ``warm body democracy''. See _Starship Troopers_
>and all the schemes in _Expanded Universe_. And in Lasarus's Notebooks
>``Any gotherment will work, if responsibility equals authority''
>``Democracy ends when the plebs find out they can vote themselves,
>bread & circuses.''
>
>By the way: remember description of the goverment of Secundus,
>which Lasarus had set up.
Unfortunately, I don't remember it--could you describe it?
Heinlein did write some material in favor of participatory democracy--
in his later books, he gives the impression of being less and less
convinced that much of anyone will participate.
I still think that Heinlein had a wider streak of being democratic
(in the non-political sense of the word--respect for people of many
classes and occupations) than he generally gets credit for.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Bernard Peek
nan...@universe.digex.net "Nancy Lebovitz" writes:
>
> Heinlein did write some material in favor of participatory democracy--
> in his later books, he gives the impression of being less and less
> convinced that much of anyone will participate.
Heinlein would have approved of the idea of making voting compulsory,
as I believe it is in Australia, but would have been saddened by the
thought that it was necessary.
>
> I still think that Heinlein had a wider streak of being democratic
> (in the non-political sense of the word--respect for people of many
> classes and occupations) than he generally gets credit for.
From my readings of Heinlein I'd say he was definitely pro-democracy
and equality, but was also profoundly cynical. He described things the
way he expected them to turn out, but without the suggestion that he
approved. The main misreading here seems to be a belief that he was
attempting to create a utopian view, when in fact he portrayed what he
considered a dystopia.
**/**
>Andrew P Carter (acar...@mason2.gmu.edu) wrote:
>: ...which could also prove my point. Obviously the man had no idea
>: what "doctor" signifies, considering that throughout history physicians
>: have usually been considered highly skilled workers rather than scholars.
>: The doctoral degrees in the humanities were given out long before the
>: sciences.
>
>life, is completely useless from a practical viewpoint. In that sense, I
>agree with Heinlein a lot. A doctorate in English means nothing more
>than that you have a lot of knowledge about a subset of English-language
>literature. Doctorates in other fields are slightly more useful, but
>they are never the absolute standard of intelligence that many people
>hold them to be.
>
>
> -- Susan
You seem to indicate that the measure of intelligence
can only be found in emploment possibilities and "practical"
application of ones activities. A Doctorate in English implies
much more I think, that the recipient has devoted long passages
of time to perceiving the nuances and revelations of different
literatures, and that and some point the individual completed
a significant body of original work. This in and of itself would
seem to distinguish a person from the teeming hordes.>
>
>>
______________________________________________________________________
Obe...@uwyo.edu |"Your mouth, is your religion, you |
GIS Technician to the Stars | put your faith in a hole like that?"|
Past, Present, and Future | Frank Zappa |************************
**********************************************
Douglas Borsom
...
> Just to keep things in perspective, remember that as far as anyone
>knows, the most substantial thing Heinlein ever killed was a cat. In
>his defense, the cat was a feral one that kept beating up on Heinlein's
>cat. Heinlein also went on hunting trips with his agent and others,
>but he didn't hunt--he "kept camp" for them.
Ah yes. "Shoot a kitty. Love a woman." :-)
-doug (Where'd I put my squirrel gun?)
Bruce Baugh
"John T. Dillworth III" <jo...@Neosoft.com> wrote:
:The worth of any degree is in direct proportion to what can be
:accomplished with it. We've all seen SF written by "Dr X", but how often
:is that doctorate related to the actual "study" of writing related
:fields?
In sf, fairly often. Drs Harry Turtledove and Susan Schwartz have both put
their history degrees (Byzantine, for Harry; I'm not sure about Susan) to use
in their fiction. Ditto with Dr Barbara Hambly and her medieval studies
degree. (Someone correct me if Barbara didn't complete the PhD.) Drs Gregory
Benford, David Brin, Robert L Forward, John Cramer, and others have all done
sf strongly related to their sundry disciplines in physics, astronomy, and so
forth.
No doubt someone like Ahasuerus could supplement this list.
bruceab@teleport.com____________________http://www.teleport.com/~bruceab
List Manager, Christlib, where Christian & libertarian concerns hang out
Science fiction readers: Preview George Alec Effinger's WORD OF NIGHT
(the new Marid Audran novel) and S.M. Stirling's DRAKON at my home page.
Fishman Michael
>>>the two most important things a man can do: I had killed a man and loved a
>>>women."
You people are MISquoting the _Notebooks_
There is a quotation that starts
``A man should be able.......
goes on for half a page, and ends
......specialization is for insects''
Rob Borden
>
> In article <47bgc0$b...@neon.house.gov>,
> Rob Borden <RBO...@hr.house.gov> wrote:
> >mark...@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) wrote:
> >> I remember it as well; it's from that appalling work,
> >> _Farnham's Freehold_.
> >
> >Okay I'll play along, appalling how?
> There was the fact that the hero threw a fit over his wife's
> infidelity, while being unrepentantly unfaithful himself. I find
> this a particularly unpalatable double standard.
You might want to pardon the author for injecting a little realism
in his work. This double standard, while clearly wrong, is a
fairly commonly held one. Nor do I think, Heinlein was proposing
it as a virtue.
> Then there's the race thing. This was discussed ad nauseam in the
> r.a.sf.w Heinlein flamewar of a year or two back;
and I, for one, do not want to debate the merits of it here.
> suffice it to say that the intention (disparaging racism) was good,
I agree.
> but the device chosen (the race reversal) was at best tricky to
> make work (depicting blacks as tyrants and cannibals to dramatize
> the evils of racism? hmm, Bob, is this really a great approach?)
> and at worst counter-productive (I can think of a frequent
> r.a.sf.w contributor who misread the book as *supporting* racism--
> that's extreme, but the method and the execution left a bad taste
> in my mouth).
I disagree. Turning the tables is a fairly well used methodolgy.
A reader, not predisposed to disparage white on black racism, might
start making exactly the objections the author wants the reader to
make to racism when the situation is turned on its head. Or maybe
not, but it is a good effort.
It also shows the dangers of racism of any kind. The excesses of
affirmative action may have been years off when Heinlein wrote it,
but it does show that discrimination based on non-essentials is
wrong.
I liked the part where Farnham realizes his treatment of his house
servant had been racist. It was a pernicious kind of racism wherein
the racist did not think of himself as such. Sort of like modern day
liberal paternalism.
BTW, anybody who reads Heinlein and comes away thinking Heinlein
supports racism - has a serious congnitive dysfunction.
> Finally, no real positives remain in my mind to offset these
> negatives. I didn't find the characters or the depicted society
> very interesting.
To be honest, not one of my favorite Heinlein's either. Too many
characters I just did not like at all. But I did like the pioneering
bit. Nobody makes pioneering a virtue like Master Bob. I have always
loved the pioneering story in TEfL.
What books would you keep in
your bomb shelter?
Rob Borden, rbo...@hr.house.gov
Nancy Lebovitz
Rob Borden <RBO...@hr.house.gov> wrote:
>mark...@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) wrote:
>>
>> suffice it to say that the intention (disparaging racism) was good,
>
>I agree.
>
>
>> but the device chosen (the race reversal) was at best tricky to
>> make work (depicting blacks as tyrants and cannibals to dramatize
>> the evils of racism? hmm, Bob, is this really a great approach?)
>> and at worst counter-productive (I can think of a frequent
>> r.a.sf.w contributor who misread the book as *supporting* racism--
>> that's extreme, but the method and the execution left a bad taste
>> in my mouth).
>
>I disagree. Turning the tables is a fairly well used methodolgy.
>A reader, not predisposed to disparage white on black racism, might
>start making exactly the objections the author wants the reader to
>make to racism when the situation is turned on its head. Or maybe
>not, but it is a good effort.
>
in effect if not in intent. Racism is not a normal part of slavery,
but it was very much part of the stereotype of African blacks. If
Heinlein had simply wanted to show the evils of slavery, I think
he would have done better to show it as it usually appears in
human history, rather than adding an additional horror. Furthermore,
since there is *no* practical, religious, or economic justification
given for the cannibalism, the only implication left is that the Chosen
do it because they're black. I don't believe that Heinlein did this
on purpose--it undercuts all the overt points of the book. I do think
that the stereotype snuck up on him.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Nancy Lebovitz
Bernard Peek <b...@intersec.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <47ir7q$k...@universe.digex.net>
> nan...@universe.digex.net "Nancy Lebovitz" writes:
>
>>
>> Heinlein did write some material in favor of participatory democracy--
>> in his later books, he gives the impression of being less and less
>> convinced that much of anyone will participate.
>
>Heinlein would have approved of the idea of making voting compulsory,
>as I believe it is in Australia, but would have been saddened by the
>thought that it was necessary.
>
and it seems contrary to the general anti-compulsion tone of his
writing. Considering that he was consistently opposed to drafting
people to defend their country (presumably, even in case of a military
emergency), why would he favor drafting people to vote.
Me, I think only write-in voting (crib sheets permitted) should be
allowed.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Chris Clayton
>
>Susan Groppi (gro...@scunix4.harvard.edu) wrote:
>: I was always under the impression that Heinlein made it very clear that
>: he had a lack of respect for "higher learning". He did not consider
>: university education to be worthwhile in comparison to real-life
Hi, Susan. I'm afraid that I have to disagree, at least in part. Heinlein
made it clear in several places, writing in his own voice (as opposed
to words put into his character's mouths) that he had a very high respect
for people who had achieved distinction in fields requireing close
reasoning (as opposed to scholarship). Scientific Ph.D's especially.
My memory varies, but I'm sure this is in Expanded Universe.
What he had NO tolerence for is people who got advanced degrees
without learning anything about history, mathematics, or language
(which he says he considers the three basics of a good education),
and who never learned to reason well from what they did know.
He did feel that education degrees generally fit these descriptions,
and the curriculum he makes fun of in Expanded Universe was
worthy of ridicule not because of the degree, but because you
could earn the degree and still be bonehead ignorant.
Also, my memory is that a great many of his lead characters
did hold advanced degrees, and the ones who achieved great
things without formal education (D.D. Hariman comes to mind)
generally felt that this was a lack, not a virtue.
Basically, my feeling was that he valued education that actually
educated, and had little tolerance for damnfoolishness. (Of
course, he did always get to define what was damnfoolishness.)
Chris Clayton
Return mail to: USFM...@ibmmail.com
Ford has a better idea, but the opinions are all mine.
John T. Dillworth III
<snip>
<
> Now that this subject has become completely tangental...
> You seem to indicate that the measure of intelligence
> can only be found in emploment possibilities and "practical"
> application of ones activities. A Doctorate in English implies
> much more I think, that the recipient has devoted long passages
> of time to perceiving the nuances and revelations of different
> literatures, and that and some point the individual completed
> a significant body of original work. This in and of itself would
> seem to distinguish a person from the teeming hordes.>
>>
>>>
>______________________________________________________________________
>Obe...@uwyo.edu |"Your mouth, is your religion, you |
>GIS Technician to the Stars | put your faith in a hole like that?"|
>Past, Present, and Future | Frank Zappa |************************
>**********************************************
>
Oberon,
"Teeming hordes"? A bit elistist are we? I would advise you to reread the
Frank Zappa quote you included. I believe you meant "at" rather than
"and" in the above passage?
johnd
John T. Dillworth III
Please excuse me, but you just made my point for me. None of the cited
degrees below are in English or any other *directly* related field of
study.
Obviously a degree in History, regardless of period, will prepare a
person to compare various civilizations and/or time periods to one
another and to see how social interactions produce historical events.
Anyone who has read Mr. Turtledove's works can see an excellent grasp of
historical influences in his work. The same can also be easily said for
Ms. Hambly with her Dark Trilogy and other novels.
The other holders of doctorates listed below have also shown the varied
influences of their particular degree. I say again, none of the listed
writers have a degree in English. This does not mean that I think that
there aren't any such writers, simply that I don't remember seeing one.
johnd (The Elder)
**/**
>
>
>BTW, anybody who reads Heinlein and comes away thinking Heinlein
>supports racism - has a serious congnitive dysfunction.
nothing else?>
David Mix Barrington
: In article <47e05m$9...@portal.gmu.edu>,
: Andrew P Carter <acar...@mason2.gmu.edu> wrote:
: >Susan Groppi (gro...@scunix4.harvard.edu) wrote:
: >: I was always under the impression that Heinlein made it very clear that
: >: he had a lack of respect for "higher learning". He did not consider
: >: university education to be worthwhile in comparison to real-life
: >: doctorate in English made them a real doctor.
: >
: > ...which could also prove my point. Obviously the man had no idea
: >what "doctor" signifies, considering that throughout history physicians
: >have usually been considered highly skilled workers rather than scholars.
: >The doctoral degrees in the humanities were given out long before the
: >sciences.
: Does anyone have citations handy? My impression was that Heinlein
: respected degrees in technical subjects, but not in education--and
: he had utter contempt for classes in creative writing.
In _TNotB_, Zeb has an entirely bullshit "earned" doctorate in education
(he went out of his way to earn a doctorate with the most meaningless work
possible, to show that he could do it).
Deety and Jake are proud of their earned Ph.D.'s in the sciences, but Hilda,
the most widely
educated of them all from her decades of hanging around a university, has
no earned degree IIRC.
Maureen seems to feel in _TSBtS_ that the process of earning her Ph.D. in
philosophy is of some use, but this scene also seems to project the view
of a humanities degree as a mere accumulation of minutiae.
Jubal at one point in _SiaSL_ objects to being called "Doctor" because of
"all the people in all those fields who now get called that" (not an exact
quote). His companion says "the degree in medicine hasn't been watered down",
implying that the others have, and he seems to agree.
The extent to which any of these characters represent RAH's actual views is
of course debatable.
Dave MB
Mark Rosenfelder
>> infidelity, while being unrepentantly unfaithful himself. I find
>> this a particularly unpalatable double standard.
>
>You might want to pardon the author for injecting a little realism
>in his work. This double standard, while clearly wrong, is a
>fairly commonly held one. Nor do I think, Heinlein was proposing
>it as a virtue.
Sorry, but I'd pardon it only if I felt a need to absolve Heinlein of every
possible criticism. Heinlein could have demolished this particular double
standard in a couple of lines, if he chose to. He should have chosen to.
>> Then there's the race thing. This was discussed ad nauseam in the
>> r.a.sf.w Heinlein flamewar of a year or two back;
>
>and I, for one, do not want to debate the merits of it here.
>
>> suffice it to say that the intention (disparaging racism) was good,
>
>I agree.
>
>> but the device chosen (the race reversal) was at best tricky to
>> make work (depicting blacks as tyrants and cannibals to dramatize
>> the evils of racism? hmm, Bob, is this really a great approach?)
>> and at worst counter-productive (I can think of a frequent
>> r.a.sf.w contributor who misread the book as *supporting* racism--
>> that's extreme, but the method and the execution left a bad taste
>> in my mouth).
>
>I disagree. Turning the tables is a fairly well used methodolgy.
>A reader, not predisposed to disparage white on black racism, might
>start making exactly the objections the author wants the reader to
>make to racism when the situation is turned on its head. Or maybe
>not, but it is a good effort.
Or a reader may be confirmed in his prejudices that "those people" can't be
trusted. You may remember the furor over Robert Crumb's cartoon "When the
Blacks Take Over America". There are better ways to make the point.
>BTW, anybody who reads Heinlein and comes away thinking Heinlein
>supports racism - has a serious congnitive dysfunction.
That was the opinion of many at the time. :)
>What books would you keep in
>your bomb shelter?
A bit off-topic, but irresistable. Well, at the least (*my* bomb shelter
wouldn't skimp on the bookshelves), I'd have--
several blank books
a Bible
my one-volume Shakespeare
my dictionary, atlas, and almanac
books on farming, carpentry, elementary mechanics, medicine, and the like
my set of Colin McEvedy's historical atlases
a few books each of Pogo, Mafalda, Dykes to Watch Out For, Love & Rockets,
Calvin & Hobbes, Asterix
_Chomsky's Universal Grammar_ -- after the Bomb I should have time to
finally work through that one
Karlgren's Chinese dictionary and _Teach Yourself Chinese_ - ditto
_The Screwtape Letters_ and Narnia
_The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ -- see, there is some Heinlein here
_Snow Crash_
_The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ (1st 2 volumes)
_The Demolished Man_
_The Innocents Abroad_
_Three Men in a Boat_
_Dave Barry's Greatest Hits_
Lots of light reading, you see-- appropriate for post-Apocalypse entertainment,
I think.
Rob Borden
>
> In article <47lens$p...@neon.house.gov>, Rob Borden <RBO...@hr.house.gov> writes:
> >
> >
> >BTW, anybody who reads Heinlein and comes away thinking Heinlein
> >supports racism - has a serious congnitive dysfunction.
> nothing else?>
Aw come on you are not going to make me go up to the attic, dig
through dozen boxes to find the one with _Sixth Column_ in it
and reread the book are you?
I read it years ago and I vaguely remember the plot. But I am willing
to go out on a limb here and say that whatever else happened in the
novel, Heinlein did not advocate racism in it. What in your opinion
would cause a reader of _Sixth Column_ to to think that RAH supported
racism?
Rob Borden, rbo...@hr.house.gov
Rob Borden
> I think the inclusion of cannibalism was a mistake, and racist
> in effect if not in intent. Racism is not a normal part of slavery,
> but it was very much part of the stereotype of African blacks. If
> Heinlein had simply wanted to show the evils of slavery, I think
> he would have done better to show it as it usually appears in
> human history, rather than adding an additional horror.
Historically slavery had not always been a racist institution. But
American slavery clearly was racist. Ironically, this became so
partially because enlightenment ideals such as the equality of
man had taken root in America. Not good form to hold an equal
man as a slave, better not to think of him as a man.
Anyways - I am not sure what Heinlein was attempting to do but I
always thought it was to show the evils of racism, not slavery.
> Furthermore,
> since there is *no* practical, religious, or economic justification
> given for the cannibalism, the only implication left is that the
> Chosen do it because they're black. I don't believe that Heinlein
> did this on purpose--it undercuts all the overt points of the book.
> I do think that the stereotype snuck up on him.
I never thought about it in this way. You certainly have a point.
Cannibalism could have been included to demonstrate vividly that
racists often do not think of the target of their racism as human.
Certainly the Chosen did not think of it as cannibalism.
I am not aware of any stereo types the cannibalism would be
reinforcing. I thought that was confined mostly to the South Pacific.
I could be very wrong on this.
It does seem that cannibalism comes up in a fair number of Heinlein
books. The only other one I can think of off hand is Stranger. But I
know I've read Heinlein talk about long pig in more than two books.
I've never even heard that term outside of Heinlein.
Rob Borden, rbo...@hr.house.gov
I believe I've seen your name on a.p.o. posts also. I wonder how
much cross polinization there is between these two newsgroups?
Nancy Lebovitz
Rob Borden <RBO...@hr.house.gov> wrote:
>nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>
>
>> I think the inclusion of cannibalism was a mistake, and racist
>> in effect if not in intent. Racism is not a normal part of slavery,
|
That word was supposed to be "cannibalism". I hope the post will
make a bit more sense now. :-)
>> but it was very much part of the stereotype of African blacks. If
>> Heinlein had simply wanted to show the evils of slavery, I think
>> he would have done better to show it as it usually appears in
>> human history, rather than adding an additional horror.
>
>
>Historically slavery had not always been a racist institution. But
>American slavery clearly was racist. Ironically, this became so
>partially because enlightenment ideals such as the equality of
>man had taken root in America. Not good form to hold an equal
>man as a slave, better not to think of him as a man.
>
>Anyways - I am not sure what Heinlein was attempting to do but I
>always thought it was to show the evils of racism, not slavery.
>
I think his point was that both racism and slavery are bad--and
he was arguing that there's no such thing as races which are naturally
slaves or masters. Thus, he has blacks as cruel and arrogant masters and
whites as (for the most part) shiftless, lazy, ambitionless slaves.
>> Furthermore,
>> since there is *no* practical, religious, or economic justification
>> given for the cannibalism, the only implication left is that the
>> Chosen do it because they're black. I don't believe that Heinlein
>> did this on purpose--it undercuts all the overt points of the book.
>> I do think that the stereotype snuck up on him.
>
>I never thought about it in this way. You certainly have a point.
>Cannibalism could have been included to demonstrate vividly that
>racists often do not think of the target of their racism as human.
>Certainly the Chosen did not think of it as cannibalism.
>
>I am not aware of any stereo types the cannibalism would be
>reinforcing. I thought that was confined mostly to the South Pacific.
>I could be very wrong on this.
I'm 42. When I was a kid, the Africans boiling the missionaries in
a pot was a standard magazine cartoon theme.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Nancy Lebovitz
of Asian ancestry), I'd say it's pretty bigoted. When I read it most
recently, I was irritated at how the Americans were experts on "the
Asian mind" in spite of all contact with Asia having been broken
for 50 (?) years!
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Gary E. Grant
Rob Borden <RBO...@hr.house.gov> wrote:
>
>I am not aware of any stereo types the cannibalism would be
>reinforcing. I thought that was confined mostly to the South Pacific.
>I could be very wrong on this.
>
>books. The only other one I can think of off hand is Stranger. But I
>know I've read Heinlein talk about long pig in more than two books.
>I've never even heard that term outside of Heinlein.
>
The old time Hawaiians used the expression "Long Pig" to refer to caucasians.
AFAIK, Captain Cooke was turned into "Long Pig" in the Sandwich Isles (Hawaii)
I too, thought that RAH used the institution of cannibalism to show the
true nature of racism as feeding on peoples souls, both the master as
well as the servant. I seem to remember that RAH used cannibalism in
"Universe/Common Sense" to illustrated the possible devolution of morals
and decency.
RAH showed fundamental abhorance of slavery in many of his books. The book
where slavery was central to the theme was, "Citizen of the Galazy". He also
mentions it "Time Enough for Love", "Methusalah's Children" and
"CWWTW" "TSBTS".
Gary :-)
Joseph Askew
>>Except Heinlein would have *never* put quotes around the superior.
>>They were superior in a sort of debased Darwinian sense. They were
>>supermen. And women. Superior humans beings who were "more fit"
>>(except he wouldn't use the quotes here either) Heinlein did not
>>really define what superior actually meant except in this Social
>>Darwinian sense. I can see why this annoys people. Remember that
>>using this logic Virginia was complusory sterilizing people in 1970.
>Heinlein had some of his superior characters come from superior
>families, but others' families didn't seem at all extraordinary.
This is perfectly true. But then so what? Where such people
do appear Heinlein often used odd biological terms to describe
them. This does not contradict anything I might have said.
>AFAIK, Heinlein *never* said that superior people should protect
>themselves by pruning the genome--their superiority was proven
>by their being able to survive without such protection.
I never said Heinlein did say such a thing. But then he mostly
wrote of societies where such pruning was done for them. He was
in favour of societies where the weak would be eliminated (as a
gross generalisation) and hence no need for such artificial means.
The logic behind the Virginian laws are not that different from
those of RAH except of course in Virginia there was no "natural"
process to kill these people and so some in power felt the need
for the State to step in and rectify this. Just as a matter of
interest, if a system is set up that allows for the elimination
of certain racial characteristics how is that any more or less
"natural" than what Virginia did? To take an analogy suppose a
disease was created or arose in Africa which only killed Blacks.
Does the refusal of the State to treat infected people or spend
money on research into a cure mean that anyone killed by this
disease is killed naturally?
Joseph
LAL
> In article <47nsvo$4...@neon.house.gov>,
> Rob Borden <RBO...@hr.house.gov> wrote:
> >
> >I am not aware of any stereo types the cannibalism would be
> >reinforcing. I thought that was confined mostly to the South Pacific.
> >I could be very wrong on this.
Anecdote: I have a Fijian friend who tells a wonderful family history
story. Seems her grandfather was rich enough to travel on European ships
in the first half of this century. All the rich Euro passengers would
immediately notice the Fijian among them and whisper about it. This
friend's g'father would enter the ship's dining hall, ask for a menu, wait
for the whispering to build to a crescendo, call over the waiter, and
loudly say "There's nothing on the menu I want, please bring me a
passenger list."
>
> RAH showed fundamental abhorance of slavery in many of his books. The book
> where slavery was central to the theme was, "Citizen of the Galazy". He also
> mentions it "Time Enough for Love", "Methusalah's Children" and
> "CWWTW" "TSBTS".
This argues against the specious claim made elsewhere that RAH thought
some humans were inherently superior to others. In fact if you start
assuming RAH himself is regularly speaking through his characters you also
have to assume he's clinically nuts - he contradicts himself everywhere.
This whole series of threads is an paean to Heinlein by both his
detractors and his supporters. Heinlein's strength is he has his
characters make statements and then he backs those statements up by
telling a story where the background and plot seem absolutely inevitable.
Some miss-guided folks don't understand that it's wonderful story telling
abilities and not proselytizing that makes the inevitable situation seem
so "well argued." A favorite example; the Dutch House of Orange becomes
the Emperor of the Solar System in _Double Star_ - that deserves a major
doubletake and yet has its internal logic and near inevitability - gotta
go now and play with my model trains. Bye
--
Standard disclaimers apply. Nobody here ever agrees with me on anything.
**/**
>
>Oberon,
>"Teeming hordes"? A bit elistist are we? I would advise you to reread the
>Frank Zappa quote you included. I believe you meant "at" rather than
>"and" in the above passage?
>
>johnd
Johnd, I believe you meant "elitist" instead of "elistist" in the
above passage? But by all means, teem away. ;)>
Lisa Aaronson
>I believe I've seen your name on a.p.o. posts also. I wonder how
>much cross polinization there is between these two newsgroups?
There's quite a bit. It makes sense. Anyone seriously interested in
Objectivism is likely to be the kind of person with their eyes open, always
looking for new facts and new ways of looking at things. In principle,
anyway. SF is the most appropriate fictional genre for Objectivists.
Lisa
-------------------------------------
I still believe in all my dreams
And all that I can be
I'll learn from mistakes, do all that it takes
To make it eventually
'Cause I still believe in me.
- from the TV show "Fame"
Nancy Lebovitz
Joseph Askew <jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <47lens$p...@neon.house.gov> Rob Borden <RBO...@hr.house.gov> writes:
>
>>BTW, anybody who reads Heinlein and comes away thinking Heinlein
>>supports racism - has a serious congnitive dysfunction.
>
>it is certainly true that Heinlein flirted with a lot of ideas
>that you would tend to associate with unacceptable racial views.
>He was a Social Darwinianist. He believed that characteristics
>were genetically transmitted. He believed that bad genes could
Yes, but he seemed to think in terms of families rather than
races.
>and perhaps should be eliminated from the gene pool. Admittedly
>he did not say a lot about race. But then I find it very hard to
>believe that such a man from such a Southern background could hold
>such views on every other issue but race. So he was careful what
There's quite a bit of evidence that he thought there were people
worthy of respect from all races. Consider Mr. Kiku in THE STAR BEAST.
He's an African black, a highly competent civil servant, and possibly
the most powerful man on Earth.
Then there's the bit with the witch doctor in MAGIC, INC. The viewpoint
character is embarassed at being surprised that the witch doctor is
black, and considered it intolerably rude to show such surprise. The
witch doctor is portrayed as a highly competent professional.
Friday breaks up with her New Zealand family over their engaging
in racism-based injustice, and I think it's fair to say that the
prejudice against APs is portrayed as a bad thing in that book.
>he wrote. His silence is just as noticable on America's Civil rights
>movement. You would think he would vocally support it - did he?
I can't remember him saying anything one way or the other about it--
he generally didn't say much about current politics--but I think there's
sufficient evidence that he thought racism was revolting.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Daniel Blum
> In article <47nr99$4...@neon.house.gov>,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >BTW, anybody who reads Heinlein and comes away thinking Heinlein
> >> >supports racism - has a serious congnitive dysfunction.
> >> nothing else?>
> >
> >
> >Aw come on you are not going to make me go up to the attic, dig
> >through dozen boxes to find the one with _Sixth Column_ in it
> >and reread the book are you?
> >
> >I read it years ago and I vaguely remember the plot. But I am willing
> >to go out on a limb here and say that whatever else happened in the
> >novel, Heinlein did not advocate racism in it. What in your opinion
> >would cause a reader of _Sixth Column_ to to think that RAH supported
> >racism?
> >
> While it isn't perfectly racist (it's got a good guy character
> of Asian ancestry), I'd say it's pretty bigoted. When I read it most
> recently, I was irritated at how the Americans were experts on "the
> Asian mind" in spite of all contact with Asia having been broken
> for 50 (?) years!
> Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
It IS quite bigoted. Does anyone else remember that Locus ad for an
inscribed copy of _Sitxh Column_ that ran a few years ago? The ad
quoted the inscription, which was something much like "To Irving:
this just goes to show what a man will do when he's hungry."
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum to...@mcs.com
"I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't just made it up."
_______________________________________________________________________
Julian Treadwell
>In article <wfWjwwUN...@sedona.net>, kei...@sedona.net wrote:
>
>>Some aspects of Heinlein I dislike are all those gorgeous women who are
>delighted to hop in the sack with anybody and everybody, anytime,
>anyplace, and encourage their husbands to sleep around (yeah, right) and
>the casual violence.
Not all the women and men were promiscuous, and those that were mostly
lived in a far-future world where it was socially permissible. I don't
recall the men being more promiscuous than the women, or vice versa, or,
actually, wives encouraging their spouses to sleep around.
>
>I remember seeing in at least two different works the quote: "I had done
>the two most important things a man can do: I had killed a man and loved a
>women."
>
>I have never understood the concept of murder as a character-building
>experience.
>
>In fact, the post-traumatic stress syndrome ("shell shock") often suffered
>by soldiers would seem to imply the opposite.
First, he said "kill" not "murder" - a slight difference. Second, the
quote does not imply Heinlein personally thought this, evenj if it does
appear twice. Thirdly, fighting in defence of your country, family and
beliefs probably can be, for some, a character-building experience.
>
Julian Treadwell
Dave Goldman
> >he wrote. His silence is just as noticable on America's Civil rights
> >movement. You would think he would vocally support it - did he?
>
> I can't remember him saying anything one way or the other about it--
> he generally didn't say much about current politics--but I think there's
> sufficient evidence that he thought racism was revolting.
Samuel Delany has more than once commented on coming to a page well into
_Starship Troopers_ where it is suddenly revealed that the protagonist is
black. I've never been able to find that page (even once bought a
paperback copy of ST and re-read the whole thing just to look for this
page).
Can anybody confirm Delany's assertion? With, say, a page number?
-- Dave Goldman
Rob Borden
>
> In article <47lens$p...@neon.house.gov> Rob Borden <RBO...@hr.house.gov> writes:
> >servant had been racist. It was a pernicious kind of racism wherein
> >the racist did not think of himself as such. Sort of like modern
> >day liberal paternalism.
>
> of Northern intellectual who sympathised with the Civil Rights
> movement in particular) It is not a criticism of much else.
I don't know what he thought about the Civil Rights movement. If you
want to make a philosophy out of his fiction, it would be hard
to see how he would not be opposed to state sponsored and supported
racism. His characters judged people individually (by the content
of their character, if you will) than by position, sex, education,
or race. It is a criticism of racism. It is just not egalitarian or
paternalistic.
> As Heinlein was not this sort of wooly headed liberal it wasn't
> anything other than an attack on people he did not agree with.
Yea! I just can't stand it when authors agree with whom they agree
and disagree with whom the disagree.
> >BTW, anybody who reads Heinlein and comes away thinking Heinlein
> However it is certainly true that Heinlein flirted with a lot of
> ideas that you would tend to associate with unacceptable racial
> views. He was a Social Darwinianist.
If by this you mean that he thought some individuals are better
at certain things than others, then I can't disagree. All men are
not created equal. As hard as I try, I will never play on the
offensive line of the Dallas Cowboys. If I weighed 300 pounds I
wouldn't be able to walk much less play football.
> He believed that characteristics were genetically transmitted.
Wow how strange! I suppose that means you believe homosexuality is
a learned behavior.
I imagine that like most of us, he thought nurture shared a role with
nature in shaping people. Take Lazurus Long's siblings, some of them
ended up quite screwed up.
> He believed that bad genes could and perhaps should be eliminated
> from the gene pool.
I'm sure he thought that bad enough genes would eliminate themselves.
It is clear from his choice of characters that he thought good genes
could show up in all races.
> Admittedly he did not say a lot about race.
Friday, Farnham's Freehold, I Will Fear No Evil, - in fact I have
a hard time thinking of a Heinlein book that didn't say something
negative about racist attitudes in some way.
> But then I find it very hard to believe that such a man from such
> a Southern background could hold such views on every other issue
> but race.
Yes you have it right. All Southerners (Clinton included) are racists
as are all individualists. <--- Sarcasm.
As far as his real political views - didn't he run on a Socialist
ticket in California once? Or did I just dream reading that
somewhere? <---- Not sarcasm, I really thought I heard this
somewhere.
Rob Borden
David Mix Barrington
: Bruce,
: Please excuse me, but you just made my point for me. None of the cited
: degrees below are in English or any other *directly* related field of
: study.
: Obviously a degree in History, regardless of period, will prepare a
: person to compare various civilizations and/or time periods to one
: another and to see how social interactions produce historical events.
: Anyone who has read Mr. Turtledove's works can see an excellent grasp of
: historical influences in his work. The same can also be easily said for
: Ms. Hambly with her Dark Trilogy and other novels.
: The other holders of doctorates listed below have also shown the varied
: influences of their particular degree. I say again, none of the listed
: writers have a degree in English. This does not mean that I think that
: there aren't any such writers, simply that I don't remember seeing one.
: johnd (The Elder)
Kim Stanley Robinson has a Ph.D. in English literature -- his thesis topic
was Philip K. Dick. I'll agree that doing a Ph.D. _about_ literature isn't
necessarily good preparation for writing it, unless it serves as a convenient
excuse for _reading_ a lot of good literature.
Dave MB
Andrew P Carter
: Samuel Delany has more than once commented on coming to a page well into
: _Starship Troopers_ where it is suddenly revealed that the protagonist is
: black. I've never been able to find that page (even once bought a
: paperback copy of ST and re-read the whole thing just to look for this
: page).
: Can anybody confirm Delany's assertion? With, say, a page number?
No page numbers or anything, but I distinctly remember getting the
impression that the protagonist was Filippino. Don't know exactly why,
though (it's been a long time since I read it), but I think it has to
do with the names and descriptions of people from his planet.
Raymund Eich
This is in the r.a.sf.w FAQ, but I can give you an approximate page number.
It's near the end, between the attack on Planet P and the assault on Klendathu.
Juan talks to a friend about a famous human soldier who should have a dropship
named after him, Magsaysay (Filipino leader of the anti-US insurrection of
the 190-'s?), and mentions that Tagalog was a language occasionally used
around the Rico household.
My question is: why did SRD assume Juan was black? Are there many Filipinos
of African descent?