Starship Troopers; is there an end to the film?
Julie Pascal
I read _Starship Troopers_ many, many years ago.
It's what I call "Classic" SF, by which I mean it was
written in a "voice" common to SF of that time. Books
published today have a different feel to them. A different
sound.
I thought the movie did an excellent job of catching
the feel of 1950's science fiction in general and
_Starship Troopers_ in particular. I wish they'd
included the father's enlistment in the movie but
I suppose they ran out of time. (I prefer books to
movies, anyway.)
Perhaps you ought to read some old science fiction
and find out what you've missed.
-Julie
Erlend A. Eide wrote:
>
> I have seen the film, but not read the book. I Think the film sucked. Mainly
> because i felt there where no beginning and end to it. When it was finnished
> I kind of sat waiting for a voice to say " And the seqel comes next year" in
> a fancy way, but it never came. Is the book better i those acpects?
>
> EAE.........waisted some money that day!
Erlend A. Eide
Ernest Sjogren
Actually, I thought that a lot of the film was quite good, for
Hollywood; the boot camp stuff, in particular, wasn't bad. The movie
could have been super; there was obviously a good deal of money spent.
Naturally, I wish it had stuck closer to the book.
What bothered me the most about it was that the Military in it seemed
so stupid, militarily speaking. Strategy and tactics seemed just
plain amateurish. I got the feeling that the writers of the movie (or
someone who had a say in the scripting) figured the audience would be
too stupid to notice. Did anyone else get the same impression, when
seeing the movie?
-- Ernie Sjogren
Julie Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote:
>I read _Starship Troopers_ many, many years ago.
>
>It's what I call "Classic" SF, by which I mean it was
>written in a "voice" common to SF of that time. Books
>published today have a different feel to them. A different
>sound.
>
>I thought the movie did an excellent job of catching
>the feel of 1950's science fiction in general and
>_Starship Troopers_ in particular. I wish they'd
>included the father's enlistment in the movie but
>I suppose they ran out of time. (I prefer books to
>movies, anyway.)
>
>Perhaps you ought to read some old science fiction
>and find out what you've missed.
>
>-Julie
>
>
>Erlend A. Eide wrote:
>>
Keith Morrison
Ernest Sjogren wrote:
>
> Actually, I thought that a lot of the film was quite good, for
> Hollywood; the boot camp stuff, in particular, wasn't bad. The movie
> could have been super; there was obviously a good deal of money spent.
>
> Naturally, I wish it had stuck closer to the book.
>
> What bothered me the most about it was that the Military in it seemed
> so stupid, militarily speaking. Strategy and tactics seemed just
> plain amateurish. I got the feeling that the writers of the movie (or
> someone who had a say in the scripting) figured the audience would be
> too stupid to notice. Did anyone else get the same impression, when
> seeing the movie?
Oh, lord yes. Like the utter lack of air support despite the bloody
good job it did the one time it did happen. Having nothing heavier
than rifles when they were trapped in the fort. I could go on.
The whole plot came crashing down just after that rock hit. They
said they believed the Bugs were just animals. So why go to war
with a bunch of animals? If they were only a bunch of animals
they surely couldn't throw asteroids at Earth.
So you get people in this film going on about how there was no way
the bugs were intelligent while they are fighting them for sending
an asteroid intentionally at Earth.
The only possible comment is "Huh?"
Oh, and the Nazi-era inspired design was just too gratutitous.
--
Keith Morrison
kei...@polarnet.ca
Thomas Jøgensen
Ernest Sjogren wrote:
> Actually, I thought that a lot of the film was quite good, for
> Hollywood; the boot camp stuff, in particular, wasn't bad. The movie
> could have been super; there was obviously a good deal of money spent.
>
> Naturally, I wish it had stuck closer to the book.
>
> What bothered me the most about it was that the Military in it seemed
> so stupid, militarily speaking. Strategy and tactics seemed just
> plain amateurish. I got the feeling that the writers of the movie (or
>
> someone who had a say in the scripting) figured the audience would be
> too stupid to notice. Did anyone else get the same impression, when
> seeing the movie?
Yes definately, and considering how important the military is in
theportrayed society it is unforgivable. My girlfriend who has not
read the book called it Sparta in space which seems exactly right.
Except for the total incompetance. Also they didn´t seem to have
_any_ weapons between shitty handgun and pinch-nuke.
The _worst_ part was the invasion of klendatu. We have a hostile
planet with a fairsized astoroid belt in orbit, and we don´t give a
few a nudge? Or at least take cover behind them.
Mark Blunden
Keith Morrison wrote in message <35673FF3...@polarnet.ca>...
>Ernest Sjogren wrote:
>>
>> Actually, I thought that a lot of the film was quite good, for
>> Hollywood; the boot camp stuff, in particular, wasn't bad. The movie
>> could have been super; there was obviously a good deal of money spent.
>>
>> Naturally, I wish it had stuck closer to the book.
>>
>> What bothered me the most about it was that the Military in it seemed
>> so stupid, militarily speaking. Strategy and tactics seemed just
>> plain amateurish. I got the feeling that the writers of the movie (or
>> someone who had a say in the scripting) figured the audience would be
>> too stupid to notice. Did anyone else get the same impression, when
>> seeing the movie?
>
>good job it did the one time it did happen. Having nothing heavier
>than rifles when they were trapped in the fort. I could go on.
The equipment the soldiers had was ridiculous. On the one hand, machine
guns and grenades hardly advanced from today's weapons, on the other hand
personal nuclear rocket launchers - and nothing in between. I can
understand - just about - the fim-maker's perceived need to make the
soldiers familiar to a modern audience, but this was ridiculous. I very
much doubt that a heavy infantry force of any of today's armies would be as
seriously under-equipped as the soldiers in ST.
Also, the space scenes left much to be desired. The starships had been
shown to possess good manoueverability, but even after they knew that the
Bugs' bombardment was deadly, they just sat there in orbit and took it.
--
Mark.
mar...@netcomuk.co.uk
To e-mail me, remove the '.spamoff' from my address.
"There are plenty of people who believe that Elvis is alive, or that
aliens occasionally land here to do highly personal things to people,
or that the whole idea of evolution is a conspiracy of godless scientists.
Almost all of these people can vote and some of them have got guns."
- Terry Pratchett
Nick Jong
Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote:
>Oh, lord yes. Like the utter lack of air support despite the bloody
>good job it did the one time it did happen. Having nothing heavier
>than rifles when they were trapped in the fort. I could go on.
Agreed. The movie's creators obviously cared more about depicting
close-up action and fighting than about portraying a competent military.
Earth should have at least tried using orbital or aerial bombardment. If
the writers really wanted ground fighting, they could have had the bugs
avoid or destroy the bombers. In any event, they should have found some
way to justify how the humans fought the war.
>The whole plot came crashing down just after that rock hit. They
>said they believed the Bugs were just animals. So why go to war
>with a bunch of animals? If they were only a bunch of animals
>they surely couldn't throw asteroids at Earth.
I find this to be much more excusable than the apparent tactical
incompetence of the military. That mankind might ignore the possible
sentience of the bugs to make it easier to kill them seems entirely
plausible to me.
--
"Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of
ignorance."
-Robert Quillen
William Burns
On Sat, 23 May 1998 02:18:34 +0200, "Erlend A. Eide" <ere...@c2i.net>
wrote:
>I have seen the film, but not read the book. I Think the film sucked. Mainly
>because i felt there where no beginning and end to it. When it was finnished
>I kind of sat waiting for a voice to say " And the seqel comes next year" in
>a fancy way, but it never came. Is the book better i those acpects?
Get and read the book by all means. Two differences will come to
light: 1. the book is a whole better; and 2. there are no facists
goose-stepping around the landscape.
- William
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation." (Stephen Crane)
Tharsia
In article <6k9qm8$qls$2...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, "Mark Blunden"
<mar...@netcomuk.co.uk.spamoff> writes:
>
>Keith Morrison wrote in message <35673FF3...@polarnet.ca>...
>>Ernest Sjogren wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, I thought that a lot of the film was quite good, for
>>> Hollywood; the boot camp stuff, in particular, wasn't bad. The movie
>>> could have been super; there was obviously a good deal of money spent.
>>>
>>> Naturally, I wish it had stuck closer to the book.
>>>
>>> What bothered me the most about it was that the Military in it seemed
>>> so stupid, militarily speaking. Strategy and tactics seemed just
>>> plain amateurish. I got the feeling that the writers of the movie (or
>>> someone who had a say in the scripting) figured the audience would be
>>> too stupid to notice. Did anyone else get the same impression, when
>>> seeing the movie?
>>
>>Oh, lord yes. Like the utter lack of air support despite the bloody
>>good job it did the one time it did happen. Having nothing heavier
>>than rifles when they were trapped in the fort. I could go on.
>
>The equipment the soldiers had was ridiculous. On the one hand, machine
>guns and grenades hardly advanced from today's weapons, on the other hand
>personal nuclear rocket launchers - and nothing in between. I can
>understand - just about - the fim-maker's perceived need to make the
>soldiers familiar to a modern audience, but this was ridiculous. I very
>much doubt that a heavy infantry force of any of today's armies would be as
>seriously under-equipped as the soldiers in ST.
>
>Also, the space scenes left much to be desired. The starships had been
>shown to possess good manoueverability, but even after they knew that the
>Bugs' bombardment was deadly, they just sat there in orbit and took it.
The best comment I came across was in a fan magazine (which I was covertly
reading behind a shelf at a bookstore) in which commentors said, "My National
Guard unit could have eaten the Federation forces for lunch! Don't they know
that if you all run screaming and shooting at a target, you all run out of ammo
at the same time? What about 'stop, drop & reload' ?" and other words to that
effect.
In the book it's really obvious from the beginning that the bugs are
intelligent -- the hard part is figuring out how to deal with it, because they
use 'hive minds' and have well-hidden, well-defended controllers. Kind of like
fighting the Borg. . .
Also in the book -- and there would have been little problem doing this, with
CGI, as anyone who has played Mechwarrior on the computer knows -- the soldiers
use the highest technology. They _are_ their own air-support, to an extent:
_Mobile Infantry_, with _powered battle armor_. When we heard that there was
going to be no Suit, we knew it was doomed. That was the only thing that gave
them a chance against the Bugs on the ground. (Heck, this was the book that
_made_ powered battle armor a force to be reckoned with in sf.)
My father, who went through USAF boot camp during the Viet Nam war, said the
movie was totally foolish and unrealistic. He's a Heinlein fan, too -- but he
said, "That wasn't Heinlein."
Then there's the fact that it usually helps if you hire people who can act . .
.
Tha...@aol.com (aka joan barger)
--Whoever does not study history is doomed to repeat it
Live long and prospect!
--Motto of the Intergalactic Mining Association
Helen & Bob
Alaska, near Anchorage), 1959-1960, Your Dad is exactly correct. It
wasn't Heinlein, nor was it anything like the Military (as I knew it),
nor was it anything approacing rational, and God knows, if anything, RAH
was rational.
Bob, old fart and XGI
BASILISK
William Burns <wbu...@geraldton.lakeheadu.ca> wrote in article
<3567fca9...@news.lakeheadu.ca>...
> Get and read the book by all means. Two differences will come to
> light: 1. the book is a whole better; and 2. there are no facists
> goose-stepping around the landscape.
I can't agree. In my view the book is nothing more than a homoerotic ode
to Heinlein's days in the military, with a massive dose of McCarthyism
added. It is prevented from being Heinlein's worst book only by "Farnham's
Freehold", which adds open racism to the author's other ideological
failings. Heinlein has written some good stuff. "Friday" is my personal
favorite, but in the '50's and '60's the man did little, in my view, but
make himself look silly.
I enjoyed the movie despite the usual Verhoeven heavy-handedness. (This
after all is the director that gave us "Basic Instinct" and "Total
Recall"). The effects were terrific, and the satire, given the macho
gun-faggot xenophobia of the book, was dead on.
Basilisk
James C. Ellis
BASILISK wrote:
> I can't agree. In my view the book is nothing more than a homoerotic ode
> to Heinlein's days in the military, with a massive dose of McCarthyism
> added. It is prevented from being Heinlein's worst book only by "Farnham's
> Freehold", which adds open racism to the author's other ideological
> failings. Heinlein has written some good stuff. "Friday" is my personal
> favorite, but in the '50's and '60's the man did little, in my view, but
> make himself look silly.
> I enjoyed the movie despite the usual Verhoeven heavy-handedness. (This
> after all is the director that gave us "Basic Instinct" and "Total
> Recall"). The effects were terrific, and the satire, given the macho
> gun-faggot xenophobia of the book, was dead on.
Troll Rating: 2.3 (includes bonus of 0.8 points awarded for it being
related to Heinlein).
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leszek Karlik, aka Mike
On Mon, 25 May 1998 18:18:22 GMT, "BASILISK" <BASI...@MCIONE.COM> disseminated
foul capitalist propaganda by writing:
> I can't agree. In my view the book is nothing more than a homoerotic ode
>to Heinlein's days in the military, with a massive dose of McCarthyism
[...]
> I enjoyed the movie despite the usual Verhoeven heavy-handedness. (This
>after all is the director that gave us "Basic Instinct" and "Total
>Recall"). The effects were terrific, and the satire, given the macho
>gun-faggot xenophobia of the book, was dead on.
Erm... I can't help but feel this is a troll.
Oh well, de gustibus et coloribus non disputandum est.
Whatever strikes your fancy.
;))
> Basilisk
--
Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - tr...@friko.onet.pl; www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike
Star Wars junkie; ICQ UIN 6947998; WTF TKD; FIAWOL; IMAO; SNAFU; TANJ
GL/O d- s+: a19 C+++ L++ P E--- W-(++) N+++ K? w(---) O+ M- PS+(+++)
PE Y+ PGP- !t--- 5+(-) X- R*+++>$ tv-- b++++ D+ G-- e h--*! !r-- !y-*
Seth Deitch
On Mon, 25 May 1998 22:09:59 GMT, nospa...@u.washington.edu (K. Hu)
wrote:
>On Mon, 25 May 1998 18:18:22 GMT, "BASILISK" <BASI...@MCIONE.COM>
>wrote:
>
>> I can't agree. In my view the book is nothing more than a homoerotic ode
>>to Heinlein's days in the military, with a massive dose of McCarthyism
>
>Putting the word 'homoerotic' in the first line destroys your
>credibility for the rest of the post. Just so you know.
>
>>added. It is prevented from being Heinlein's worst book only by "Farnham's
>>Freehold", which adds open racism to the author's other ideological
>
>Right, open racism. Heinlein hates anyone who's not white. Like, say,
>the 'macho gun-faggot' protagonist of that 'homoerotic ode to the
>military', _Starship Troopers_.
>
>>failings. Heinlein has written some good stuff. "Friday" is my personal
>>favorite, but in the '50's and '60's the man did little, in my view, but
>>make himself look silly.
>
>Are you sure you didn't hate _Friday_ as well? You forget that, among
>his other ideological failings, the man is a misogynist and
>antifeminist.
>
>> I enjoyed the movie despite the usual Verhoeven heavy-handedness. (This
>>after all is the director that gave us "Basic Instinct" and "Total
>>Recall"). The effects were terrific, and the satire, given the macho
>>gun-faggot xenophobia of the book, was dead on.
>
>You have exactly the same failure of understanding that led Verhoeven
>to make this infantile and idiotic movie. You have no idea what the
>book is about, so *of course* you enjoyed it. Ignorance is bliss.
>
>Oh, and would you mind clarifying the meaning of the term
>'gun-faggot'?
Hey K.,
Do you know what a troll is? You just jumped at that bait without a
second's thought.
K. Hu
On Mon, 25 May 1998, Seth Deitch wrote:
> Hey K.,
Hey Seth,
> Do you know what a troll is? You just jumped at that bait without a
> second's thought.
Mm, I've seen serious-minded arguments on _ST_ far less troll-like than
that.
BASILISK
K. Hu <nospa...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article
<3569e9ae...@news.u.washington.edu>...
> Right, open racism. Heinlein hates anyone who's not white. Like, say,
> the 'macho gun-faggot' protagonist of that 'homoerotic ode to the
> military', _Starship Troopers_.
I don't believe Heinlein "hated" anybody who wasn't white. (I don't know,
of course. Do you?) I do believe that Farnham's Freehold is an extremely
racist work. Here's why...
In "Farnham's Freehold" all the black characters are cannibals. This
includes the 20th century african-american domestic servant character, who
isn't in the future a week before he sells out his employer and starts
eating people. Then we have Mrs. Farnham, who is described as older,
unpleasant and unattractive, but whom the black cannibal king can't wait to
add to his harem. Perhaps I simply lack the vision to see whatever
non-racist point Heinlein was making here and if so, I look forward to your
enlightening me. But from my own limited perspective, it looks, swims and
quacks like a duck.
Basilisk
Travis C. Porco
In article <3569e9ae...@news.u.washington.edu>,
K. Hu <nospa...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Putting the word 'homoerotic' in the first line destroys your
>credibility for the rest of the post. Just so you know.
>>added. It is prevented from being Heinlein's worst book only by "Farnham's
>>Freehold", which adds open racism to the author's other ideological
Into the killfile with you. Anyone who thinks Farnham's Freehold is
a racist book is a fool, and I don't apologize for saying it.
It is this sort of stupidity and ignorance that is stultifying our
national ability to have an intelligent dialog about race anymore.
It has gotten to where claiming that you are color-blind is enough
to get you called a racist.
After a while, you realize that anything you say can be construed as
racist in the court of liberal opinion. This is the first step in
the discrediting of the accusation of racism, which is a serious
problem. Racism in fact exists and is a problem even though the
PC left thinks so too. The sooner the do-gooder, divisive, race-baiting,
America-hating left shuts up, the better.
That is all I have to say about the matter.
Farnham's Freehold is excellent and contains some wonderful evocations
of what the passage of milennia can mean...what it is like for your
entire civilization to have passed from history.
>Right, open racism. Heinlein hates anyone who's not white. Like, say,
>the 'macho gun-faggot' protagonist of that 'homoerotic ode to the
>military', _Starship Troopers_.
Part of what is so much fun about Heinlein is that he is so
magnificently, intelligently, and eccentrically non-PC!
--
Travis **standard disclaimers apply**
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly
is to fill the world with fools." --Herbert Spencer
K. Hu
On Tue, 26 May 1998 02:07:13 GMT, "BASILISK" <BASI...@MCIONE.COM>
wrote:
>> the 'macho gun-faggot' protagonist of that 'homoerotic ode to the
>> military', _Starship Troopers_.
>
>of course. Do you?) I do believe that Farnham's Freehold is an extremely
>racist work. Here's why...
Let me give you some reasons for you to reconsider your judgement: If
you would look at the rest of his fiction it would be pretty damned
obvious that he has been putting non-white protagonists in his novels
since nearly the beginning - AGAINST the prevailing cultural norms.
Sometimes he had to hide it because the publishers simply wouldn't
allow such positive portrayals of non-white characters. Heinlein
celebrates the goodness and competence of people - *all* people, of
all cultures, "races", and genders.
If you're genuinely interested, I can take this further, but, as
others have warned, you sound very much like a troll; unless you
demonstrate a serious intent to discuss this, I'm unwilling to spend
more than the approximately five minutes I'll take on this post.
>In "Farnham's Freehold" all the black characters are cannibals. This
>includes the 20th century african-american domestic servant character, who
>isn't in the future a week before he sells out his employer and starts
>eating people.
Is this it? If you've read _Stranger in a Strange Land_, you'd know
how Heinlein really feels about cannibalism. This is Heinlein's poke
at racist and hypocritical whites - he wants them to take it the wrong
way, and sneer at the 'savage' cannibal blacks. "Look at the
cannibalistic animals!" they'd say, and Heinlein would answer back,
"You're not so far from 'savage cannibalism' yourself!"
In short, Heinlein's more complex than you take him to be.
You have also, btw, neglected to elaborate on your 'macho gun-faggot'
remarks regarding _Starship Troopers_.
Seth Deitch
>>Erm... I can't help but feel this is a troll.
>
>Sorry to ask such a stupid question but what exactly is a troll in
>this context? I've seen this word pop up so many times in discussions
>like this but I don't know what is meant by it.
>
>Greetings,
>
How lucky we are to have such an excelent example of one right here
in front of us then.
A Troll is a posting which is posted specifically with the idea that
it will evoke a passionate reaction. It will often contain "loaded"
words. Racist diatribes or accusations of racism are old favorites.
Also insults, either against another poster, an idea contained in a
post or to the general intellegence of the readers are popular
components.
I'm only guessing, but I sense that frequently, troll do not even
represent the opinions of the troller, but are put up as a hostile,
anti-social act. There are certainly those who troll with a purpose as
well. Various fascists, fundamentalists, athests and ecentrics will
invade newsgroups from time to time with inflamatory posts. They
rarely make converts if the responses they get are any indication.
BASILISK's was a classic in which inflamatory language was purposly
injected into an otherwise civil conversation. There was no particular
need for it. If he had wishe to voice a dissenting opinion, he could
have done so without raising hackles, but it wouldn't have served his
purpose.
Its very much like two bored children riding in the back seat on a
long trip. One will torment the other in subtle ways until he recieves
the real reward for his hard work, getting his little brother to say
something stupid like "Bobby's looking at me!"
-Seth Deitch
John Scott
In article <3569e9ae...@news.u.washington.edu>,
nospa...@u.washington.edu (K. Hu) wrote:
> Oh, and would you mind clarifying the meaning of the term
> 'gun-faggot'?
Obviously a gun user who prefers breech-loading to muzzle-loading.
John
The University and I agree on a lot, but not necessarily this ...
Julie Pascal
Seth Deitch wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 May 1998 08:37:06 +0200, "Jorrit Tyberghein"
> <Jorrit.T...@uz.kuleuven.ac.be> wrote:
>
> >>Erm... I can't help but feel this is a troll.
> >
> >Sorry to ask such a stupid question but what exactly is a troll in
> >this context? I've seen this word pop up so many times in discussions
> >like this but I don't know what is meant by it.
> >
> >Greetings,
> >
> How lucky we are to have such an excelent example of one right here
> in front of us then.
I'm not contradicting your definition, but I just wanted to add
this;
Troll, as a noun, lives under a bridge. Troll, as a verb, is
a method of catching fish. You put bait, or a lure, on the line,
set your outboard motor on "very slow" and toot around the lake
hoping a fish will take the bait.
I think adapting the term to newsgroup behavior of setting out
"bait" in hopes of getting a passionate reaction is very appropriate.
-Julie
(very good definition continued below)
Edward C. Stalker
BASILISK <BASI...@MCIONE.COM> wrote in article
<01bd884b$64541a40$7b4337a6@user>...
> K. Hu <nospa...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article
> <3569e9ae...@news.u.washington.edu>...
> I don't believe Heinlein "hated" anybody who wasn't white. (I don't
know,
> of course. Do you?) I do believe that Farnham's Freehold is an
extremely
> racist work. Here's why...
>
> In "Farnham's Freehold" all the black characters are cannibals. This
> includes the 20th century african-american domestic servant character,
who
> isn't in the future a week before he sells out his employer and starts
> eating people. Then we have Mrs. Farnham, who is described as older,
> unpleasant and unattractive, but whom the black cannibal king can't wait
to
> add to his harem. Perhaps I simply lack the vision to see whatever
> non-racist point Heinlein was making here and if so, I look forward to
your
> enlightening me. But from my own limited perspective, it looks, swims
and
> quacks like a duck.
> Basilisk
I always thought it was a satire, he was skewering everybody's sacred cows
in that book.
Remember that RAH was from Missouri - I got the feeling that the basic
idea, was, generally, anybody who CAN be an oppressor, WILL be an
oppressor. This whole story is a twist on Isaac Asimov's reply to the claim
"The Jew's have never been oppressors." Asimov's reply - "except for the
Macabees, they never had the chance" The flip side of that is, anybody that
can be a slave, will be a slave.
Joe was the wanna-be upwardly mobile black man, who, faced with a good
situation, jumps right in. He felt no loyalty to most of the whites, and
only a little loyalty to Hugh - and rightly so. Even Hugh has to accept the
logic of Joe's behavior - certainly not like it, but accept it.
I did kind of dislike the cannibal thing - that's based on the lack of
protein in the jungle. After some centuries out of the jungle, you'd think
they'd give it up - except possibly for purely traditional cermonies. But
maybe it was intended to shock the white readers - after all, the white
slaves were not only on the menu, but they ACCEPTED the idea that they were
food items for the Masters. That implies a level of degradation that
personally horriffies me me a lot more than the idea of cannibalism.
Mrs Farnham was overweight (for an American) and a social climber with
pretensions of granduer.
I think, the idea of Mrs. Farnham's fall from the genteel, prim lady to
Ponse's new sex toy was intended to reply to "Well, I never..." with "Yup,
you'd probably knuckle under and like it, fool." She wasn't so much
unattractive as one of those unpleasent society matrons, formerly pretty,
that become overweight, gossip and snipe at everybody, nip "a little" gin
at times, and think they're the ultimate authority on everything right and
proper.
I dunno, why Ponse would add her to his harem, but if you go to Africa or
the Middle East, you'll find that older, overweight Caucausian women are
popular acquisitions in some circles. I've run into more than a few of them
that drift down there from the US and Europe when they can't make a living
as a hooker back home. Must be an acquired taste. (And no, I was not a
customer of the girls, but the bars attached to whorehouses are often the
cleaner places to do your drinking in those areas)
BASILISK
K. Hu <nospa...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article
<356a667f...@news.u.washington.edu>...
> Let me give you some reasons for you to reconsider your judgement: If
> you would look at the rest of his fiction it would be pretty damned
> obvious that he has been putting non-white protagonists in his novels
> since nearly the beginning - AGAINST the prevailing cultural norms.
I'm trying to remember if that's the case or not... was Lazarus Long
non-white? (sincere question; it's been a long time.) The protagonist
from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (excellent book, in my view. More
cerebral but less fun) was Russian, all the characters from Rocket Ship
Galileo appeared to be white although it wasn't discussed to my
recollection... which I believe describes most of his stuff. Can you cite
examples?
> Is this it? If you've read _Stranger in a Strange Land_, you'd know
> how Heinlein really feels about cannibalism. This is Heinlein's poke
> at racist and hypocritical whites - he wants them to take it the wrong
> way, and sneer at the 'savage' cannibal blacks. "Look at the
> cannibalistic animals!" they'd say, and Heinlein would answer back,
> "You're not so far from 'savage cannibalism' yourself!"
This of course, is the core problem of literary criticism. Every person
brings their own interpretation to a book, and the only way to know the
author's intent is to ask. This is probably the way to settle this
argument. It's a good guess that Heinlein discussed this very issue at
some point in a fanzine or similiar forum. Anybody know of primary source
stuff we can find & consult?
Basilisk
BASILISK
Edward C. Stalker <sta...@inet.att.co.kr> wrote in article
<01bd888a$32979060$40c8f8cb@default>...
> I always thought it was a satire, he was skewering everybody's sacred
cows
> in that book.
>
> Remember that RAH was from Missouri - I got the feeling that the basic
> idea, was, generally, anybody who CAN be an oppressor, WILL be an
> oppressor. This whole story is a twist on Isaac Asimov's reply to the
claim
> "The Jew's have never been oppressors." Asimov's reply - "except for the
> Macabees, they never had the chance" The flip side of that is, anybody
that
> can be a slave, will be a slave.
As in my previous post, the way to settle this is find out what Heinlein
thought he was writing about. Otherwise all our opinions are just that:
opinions.
>
> Joe was the wanna-be upwardly mobile black man, who, faced with a good
> situation, jumps right in. He felt no loyalty to most of the whites, and
> only a little loyalty to Hugh - and rightly so. Even Hugh has to accept
the
> logic of Joe's behavior - certainly not like it, but accept it.
Captain, I REALLY think you're stretching on this point. The good thing he
found himself in on was a cannibal society that enslaved an employer who
has treated him well. So he turns into a complete Judas, and starts eating
people. I am willing to entertain the possibility that there are
non-racist interpretations of this book, but I cannot believe that Heinlein
was writing this particular character as anything but a villian.
> Mrs Farnham was overweight (for an American) and a social climber with
> pretensions of granduer.
> I think, the idea of Mrs. Farnham's fall from the genteel, prim lady to
> Ponse's new sex toy was intended to reply to "Well, I never..." with
"Yup,
> you'd probably knuckle under and like it, fool." She wasn't so much
> unattractive as one of those unpleasent society matrons, formerly pretty,
> that become overweight, gossip and snipe at everybody, nip "a little" gin
> at times, and think they're the ultimate authority on everything right
and
> proper.
> I dunno, why Ponse would add her to his harem, but if you go to Africa or
> the Middle East, you'll find that older, overweight Caucausian women are
> popular acquisitions in some circles. I've run into more than a few of
them
> that drift down there from the US and Europe when they can't make a
living
> as a hooker back home. Must be an acquired taste. (And no, I was not a
> customer of the girls, but the bars attached to whorehouses are often the
> cleaner places to do your drinking in those areas)
I had no doubt that was the case <eg>. But the way I took it, it was just
another hateful reference to the stereotype that black men cannot stay away
from white women. I'm going to see what I can turn up in the way of author
interviews, although even if I'm correct I don't expect to see him admit
it. On the otherhand, if Heinlein says he was attempting to make the
points you & Mr. Hu attribute to him, I'll have to admit I'm likely
incorrect.
Regards,
Basilisk
Travis C. Porco
In article <896164628.164226@marvin>,
Jorrit Tyberghein <Jorrit.T...@uz.kuleuven.ac.be> wrote:
>>Erm... I can't help but feel this is a troll.
>Sorry to ask such a stupid question but what exactly is a troll in
>this context? I've seen this word pop up so many times in discussions
>like this but I don't know what is meant by it.
It's an attempt to get someone to react strongly to something by
posting something ridiculous. It's an attempt to induce anger and
bombast by saying something obviously absurd, so that others can
enjoy the overreaction.
And yes, I fell for it too!
Because some people seriously argue truly ridiculous opinions IMHO,
it gets hard to tell the difference. I live in Berkeley, a wonderful
city, but a city which has such a constant self-righteous drumbeat
of victim and identity politics and political correctness that it
rubs you raw after a while. And I'm a Democrat. I try to resist
politics in this group (such as the Gun Control megathread), but I
lose it once in a while :)
A. Sharp
In article <01bd88f3$1d4a9720$234a37a6@user>
"BASILISK" <BASI...@MCIONE.COM> writes:
Lazarus Long had to have been white -- his mother is described as a
fair-skinned redhead, who would not have been married interracially in 1895 in
St. Louis.
Mannie Davis was mixed as were most later-generation Loonies.
Of the three heroes in ROCKETSHIP GALILEO, one was WASP, one was Jewish, and
the third -- the mad scientist's nephew --I can't recall, but I think was from
a third different group. After all, one of the themes of the book is that the
effort invested in teamwork pays back in overcoming otherwise-overwhelming
odds.
Johnny in STARSHIP TROOPERS is Filipino. Marian in DAY AFTER TOMORROW is a
Control Natural/type X.
Heinlein's opinion of South Africa as it was when he visited is in TRAMP
ROYALE and in correspondence included in GRUMBLES FROM THE GRAVE.
A. Sharp
ax...@pge.com
>I'm trying to remember if that's the case or not... was Lazarus Long
>non-white? (sincere question; it's been a long time.) The protagonist
>from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (excellent book, in my view. More
>cerebral but less fun) was Russian, all the characters from Rocket Ship
>Galileo appeared to be white although it wasn't discussed to my
>recollection... which I believe describes most of his stuff. Can you cite
>examples?
> Basilisk
J Greely
"BASILISK" <BASI...@MCIONE.COM> writes:
>I'm trying to remember if that's the case or not... was Lazarus Long
>non-white? (sincere question; it's been a long time.)
No, but he specifically makes a point in the book of informing the
supporting cast that many of them share a common ancestor who was
non-white, simply as a point of information. It's passed off as
something that they don't know, and that in their color-blind society
wouldn't be expected to think of as remarkable in any way.
>The protagonist from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (excellent book,
>in my view. More cerebral but less fun) was Russian,
Manny? Manual Garcia O'Kelly Davis? The same one who gets in trouble
on Earth for being a member of a mixed-race family?
>which I believe describes most of his stuff. Can you cite
>examples?
Of what ethnicity is the protagonist of "The cat who walks through
walls", or the female lead (so to speak) of "I will fear no evil"?
-j
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 27 May 1998 12:52:29 GMT, lou...@mail.smu.edu (Louann Miller)
wrote:
>In article <01bd88f3$1d4a9720$234a37a6@user>, BASI...@MCIONE.COM says...
>
>>I'm trying to remember if that's the case or not... was Lazarus Long
>>non-white? (sincere question; it's been a long time.)
>
>Lazarus was a redhead; I believe white is the only color those come in
>(grin).
Well, no. Surprising as it may seem, there are genuine redheads among
American blacks -- which may be due to an admixture of white ancestry,
of course, but the ones I've met still have milk-chocolate-brown skin.
And I've heard of Chinese redheads, but never met one.
>Also clear from the books set during his childhood that he was
>culturally white, middle class, and American. Missouri, in fact.
Well, that part you've got exactly right, of course.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 4/24/98
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 27 May 1998 20:28:05 GMT, Y...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> what in blazes is Strine?
Australian slang. The Australian pronunciation of "Australian" sounds
roughly like "Strine" to American ears.
K. Hu
On Tue, 26 May 1998 22:35:09 GMT, "BASILISK" <BASI...@MCIONE.COM>
wrote:
>K. Hu <nospa...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article
><356a667f...@news.u.washington.edu>...
>
>> Let me give you some reasons for you to reconsider your judgement: If
>> you would look at the rest of his fiction it would be pretty damned
>> obvious that he has been putting non-white protagonists in his novels
>> since nearly the beginning - AGAINST the prevailing cultural norms.
>
>I'm trying to remember if that's the case or not... was Lazarus Long
>non-white? (sincere question; it's been a long time.) The protagonist
Not Lazarus.
>from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (excellent book, in my view. More
>cerebral but less fun) was Russian, all the characters from Rocket Ship
No, the protagonist from _Moon_ is Manuel Garcia O'Kelly Davis, and
you must not have read very carefully because he gets into all sorts
of legal trouble on racist ol' earth for being a very diverse mix of
ethnic stocks.
>Galileo appeared to be white although it wasn't discussed to my
>recollection... which I believe describes most of his stuff. Can you cite
>examples?
I have not read _Rocket Ship Galileo_, so I have no comment. Other
examples: Richard Colin Campbell from _Cat Who Walks Through Walls_ is
black. Friday is also described as a mix of many races. Juan Rico from
_Starship Troopers_ is Filipino. James Gifford, compiler of the
Heinlein FAQ, says that Rod Walker from _Tunnel in the Sky_ is also
black and has many examples to support this. Search dejanews if you're
interested.
In an essay called "The Happy Days Ahead" in the collection _Expanded
Universe_, he discusses 'optimistic' and 'pessimistic' predictions for
the future of American society. For the 'optimist' side he wrote a
short piece called "Over the Rainbow--" wherein a newly sworn-in
president takes charge -- and this president is black and female.
(Remember, this is his 'best-case scenario'.)
>> Is this it? If you've read _Stranger in a Strange Land_, you'd know
>> how Heinlein really feels about cannibalism. This is Heinlein's poke
>> at racist and hypocritical whites - he wants them to take it the wrong
>> way, and sneer at the 'savage' cannibal blacks. "Look at the
>> cannibalistic animals!" they'd say, and Heinlein would answer back,
>> "You're not so far from 'savage cannibalism' yourself!"
>
>This of course, is the core problem of literary criticism. Every person
>brings their own interpretation to a book, and the only way to know the
>author's intent is to ask. This is probably the way to settle this
Again: have you read _Stranger_? There's a passage on this very topic,
and though it's fiction, it's pretty safe to assume Heinlein takes
Jubal Harshaw's perspective. Jubal, after all, is the aging, cynical,
and semi-reclusive writer.
At any rate, Duke calls Mike a 'ghoul' for his cannibalistic Martian
customs. Jubal calls him a "provincial lout". Duke responds, "Okay, so
I'm from Kansas. Never was any cannibalism in Kansas." Jubal goes on
to say, "No ignorant superstitious, prejudiced bumpkin is permitted to
tell me who is fit to eat at my table." Then Jubal talks about
cannibalism in European culture, establishing Duke's membership in a
particular denomination of the Christian religion. Jubal then says
"Tell me - how did you feel when you took part in the symbolic
cannibalism that plays so paramount a part in your church's rituals?"
By which he means, of course, the Catholic sacrament of Holy
Communion, or other flavors of the same thing.
It might be easy to read _Farnham_ and think that Heinlein, the old
bigot, is making the 'black' masters cannibals so they are naturally
savages. But it's exactly as I said before -- Heinlein is well aware
of the cannibalism as a part of European culture, and for a reader to
be disgusted at its portrayal in _Farnham_ is for the same reader to
fall into the little trap Heinlein carefully dug out, the same trap
that Duke fell into.
>argument. It's a good guess that Heinlein discussed this very issue at
>some point in a fanzine or similiar forum. Anybody know of primary source
>stuff we can find & consult?
Discussion of cannibalism, or race?
BASILISK
A. Sharp <ax...@pge.com> wrote in article <axsc.237...@pge.com>...
> Heinlein's opinion of South Africa as it was when he visited is in TRAMP
> ROYALE and in correspondence included in GRUMBLES FROM THE GRAVE.
>
Thanks for the tip, I'll look them up. What does he say about SA, anyway?
Basilisk
Edward C. Stalker
> "BASILISK" <BASI...@MCIONE.COM> writes:
>
> Lazarus Long had to have been white -- his mother is described as a
> fair-skinned redhead, who would not have been married interracially in
1895 in
> St. Louis.
Teddy Roosevelt, but it seems as if I recall his grandfather Ira speaking
of Cherokee relatives.
Most of the main characters in TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE seemed white, at least
until after the time of the diaspora, where "race" as we know it no longer
had much significance.
> Mannie Davis was mixed as were most later-generation Loonies.
I assume Russian, but most of them are the same in Polish - he goes through
his geneology - I recall that one of his grandmothers was "from a part of
Asia where invading armies passed through as regularly as locust, raping as
they went - who knows who her father was?" His main claim was Hispanic -
Irish - I think he said that his O'Kelley ancestors settled in Mexico for
several generations after being run out of Ireland, moved to America and
were deported to the moon.
As I recall, Wyoming Knott was the only "white" person on the "Good guy"
list in that book - RAH had white Americans as the major enemies in that
book, seems to me.
> Of the three heroes in ROCKETSHIP GALILEO, one was WASP, one was Jewish,
and
> the third -- the mad scientist's nephew --I can't recall, but I think was
from
> a third different group. After all, one of the themes of the book is
that the
> effort invested in teamwork pays back in overcoming
otherwise-overwhelming
> odds.
that died in a concentration camp for political dissidents before the war -
the boy and his mom escaped Germany just before Pearl Harbor. Since "he
could have been the Director of the Max Planck Institute if he'd just shut
up and knuckled under." he must have been an Aryan.
>Johnny in STARSHIP TROOPERS is Filipino.
Assassin) was an Arab of some type, Lt Bearpaw was Iroquois - Col Dubois
and Major "Blackie" Collins seemed to be white, but names can be deceiving
- I really don't remember much of a physical description of those guys.
Corporal Hendricks was "a tall dark guy with a southern accent" - but that
doesn't tell me much. Ace was redheaded Irish, but Clyde Tammanany was a
Hindu from Northern India.
the human race and the gene pool was pretty much much stirred up and
chlorinated by the rebels. I recall that one of the ladies that Theobald
objects to has dark skin, but it's her cigars that irritate him.
Most of the main characters in the Heinlein juveniles were WASP-type boys -
but there were significant exceptions. Mr Kikuyu in the STAR BEAST and the
tall black girl in TUNNEL IN THE SKY (I haven't read it in many years -
Julia?) I take that back a little - many of the boy heroes had Amerind
ancestors, seems to me, and Cherokee seemed to be the favorite tribe.
RAH almost always had a tall redhead as a female lead or as a major
supporting player - but that may have been a personal preferance or
survival mechanism, depending on your interpertation.
Heinlein's opinion of South Africa as it was when he visited is in TRAMP
> ROYALE and in correspondence included in GRUMBLES FROM THE GRAVE.
> A. Sharp
> ax...@pge.com
> >I'm trying to remember if that's the case or not... was Lazarus Long
> >non-white? (sincere question; it's been a long time.) The protagonist
> >from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (excellent book, in my view. More
> >cerebral but less fun) was Russian, all the characters from Rocket Ship
> >Galileo appeared to be white although it wasn't discussed to my
> >recollection... which I believe describes most of his stuff. Can you
cite
> >examples?
> > Basilisk
mac...@alaska.net
In article <356c7b9...@news.u.washington.edu>,
nospa...@u.washington.edu (K. Hu) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 May 1998 22:35:09 GMT, "BASILISK" <BASI...@MCIONE.COM>
> wrote:
> > The protagonist
> >from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (excellent book, in my view. More
> >cerebral but less fun) was Russian, all the characters from Rocket Ship
>
> you must not have read very carefully because he gets into all sorts
> of legal trouble on racist ol' earth for being a very diverse mix of
> ethnic stocks.
I'm not sure this is quite accurate... but I haven't read TMIAHM in a very
long time! However, IIRC, Manny got in trouble because someone in part of
the Old South saw a photograph of his line family. It wasn't so much that
Manny was visibly a "diverse mix" (after all, White Racists usually simply
label anyone like that "coloured", or nowadays "Black", or "Spanish" or "Mex"
or whatever, and leave it at that), as that his family was multiracial.
Possibly BASILISK was misled by the Loonie argot, which contains a number of
Russian words, into thinking Manny was Russian. IIRC, it also contained
snippets of a Chinese pidgin, and Strine (a nod to "Botany Bay").
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Y...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6khers$j7h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
mac...@alaska.net wrote:
>
> In article <356c7b9...@news.u.washington.edu>,
> nospa...@u.washington.edu (K. Hu) wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 26 May 1998 22:35:09 GMT, "BASILISK" <BASI...@MCIONE.COM>
> > wrote:
> (snip)
> > > The protagonist
> > >from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (excellent book, in my view. More
> > >cerebral but less fun) was Russian, all the characters from Rocket Ship
> >
> > No, the protagonist from _Moon_ is Manuel Garcia O'Kelly Davis, and
> > you must not have read very carefully because he gets into all sorts
> > of legal trouble on racist ol' earth for being a very diverse mix of
> > ethnic stocks.
>
> I'm not sure this is quite accurate... but I haven't read TMIAHM in a very
> long time! However, IIRC, Manny got in trouble because someone in part of
> the Old South saw a photograph of his line family. It wasn't so much that
> Manny was visibly a "diverse mix" (after all, White Racists usually simply
> label anyone like that "coloured", or nowadays "Black", or "Spanish" or
"Mex"
> or whatever, and leave it at that), as that his family was multiracial.
>
> Possibly BASILISK was misled by the Loonie argot, which contains a number of
> Russian words, into thinking Manny was Russian. IIRC, it also contained
> snippets of a Chinese pidgin, and Strine (a nod to "Botany Bay").
Mostly Russian, yes. (Makes it such a delight to read for this Russian
speaker! Very cleverly used.) Also a bit of German and Swedish. But what
there was Chinese, and what in blazes is Strine?
Thanks!
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Money is a beautiful thing: brilliant in conception, ingenious in
design, versatile in use, and awesome in power.
Giles Boutel
Travis C. Porco <po...@stat.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in article
<6kdjqu$83j$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
> The sooner the do-gooder, divisive, race-baiting,
> America-hating left shuts up, the better.
> That is all I have to say about the matter.
>
Damn straight. Unity is only possible when those who disagree with it have
been effectively muzzled. And when we're all United - Tolerance won't be so
much like hard work.
-Giles
mac...@alaska.net
In article <6kht0l$b0d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Y...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
(snip)
> Mostly Russian, yes. (Makes it such a delight to read for this Russian
> speaker! Very cleverly used.) Also a bit of German and Swedish. But what
> there was Chinese, and what in blazes is Strine?
Not Chinese, Chinese _Pidgin_, as in "Makee-Learnee", "ChopChop", etc.
Instead of "Strine", I should have just said "Aussie slang"; "Strine" is an
urban dialect in Australia. As I said, it's been a truly long time since I
read "Mistress", but I seem to recall as many "dinkum cobbers" as "khoroshij
tovarishchi" (don't remember how RAH spells it) in the Loonie speech.
"Botany Bay" is a reference to the supposed landing-place of the convict
transportees from Britain who were the first major influx of European
settlers in Australia.
Apparently RAH knew little Russian, but Virginia Heinlein reached a
reasonable level of fluency by means a Community College course and assiduous
listening to language records, before their first trip to the USSR.
Somewhere he wrote that he was never able to appreciate Russian literature
(Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, etc.), and thought that perhaps he was missing
something only discernible in the orginal language, but that Ginny assured
him he wasn't. He seems to have had a rather ambivalent attitude toward
Russians and Russian culture, sometime praising them (in one of his SF
convention speeches, he states that Russians and Chinese are the nations most
like Americans, high praise in the context in which it appears in the
speech), other times (as in TNOTB, on the Mars of an alternative universe in
which there was no 1917 revolution) deriding a thick-headed bureaucratic
wrongheadedness that he seemingly thought much older than the Soviet
apparatchiki. But I derive this all from a very few sources; it's always hard
to be very certain about RAH's opinions, unless one was in fact a personal
acquaintance (not that a paucity of real data has kept people from firmly
stating opinions about "what he really thought" as though they had apodeictic
certainty, in this very forum... ;-) )
Travis C. Porco
In article <01bd892b$835c3860$6733...@wc034319.wcc.govt.nz>,
Giles Boutel <Giles....@wcc.govt.nz> wrote:
Giles, when you've lived in Berkeley as long as I have, and you've
been shouted down as a racist, as I have, for saying that "race
should cease to be a significant way of thinking about people" (!),
you start to get tired of the self-righteous, self-appointed
PC race-baiters. These people are not interested in reason, tolerance,
peace, order, or freedom.
Their entire conception of the world
seems to be (1) that truth and morality are white bourgeois conceptions,
except for (2) the "truth" that whites are all evil, world-devouring,
capitalist, imperialist, sexist, oppressors and that they must all,
everywhere, and forever be held accountable for certain actions of
certain whites in the past; the further corollary being that America
is evil, and must be destroyed and weakened as soon as possible and
by any means necessary, so that the good, Earth-mother loving, harmonious,
communalistic peoples of the Third World can finally flourish free of
the heel of monopoly capitalism. Or something like that.
When the PC left decides to show a little tolerance, then they can
expect me to listen when they urge me to "tolerance". "Tolerance"
as they define it means my right to be called a scumbag imperialist
and take it in moon-faced simpering silence.
I've had this stuff screamed at me for a decade, and my nerves have
finally gotten raw from hearing it. I'm not alone in that either.
And I'm a Democrat by the way.
Now this is a sci-fi group, and I normally restrain myself from
talking politics. And God knows that's mighty hard once in a while.
It really gets my goat, though, to hear RAH maligned as a "fascist"
or "racist", when it's so clearly and obviously false. It's like
saying that 1+1=10000. Discussing the matter is like discussing
evolution with a creationist, I've learned. RAH is libertarian, and
his works display a horror of even the idea of slavery (yes, that
includes Farnham's Freehold). What the left objects to is the idea
that sometimes it takes a fight to win one's freedom (part of the
message of Starship Troopers).
Louann Miller
In article <01bd88f3$1d4a9720$234a37a6@user>, BASI...@MCIONE.COM says...
>I'm trying to remember if that's the case or not... was Lazarus Long
>non-white? (sincere question; it's been a long time.)
Lazarus was a redhead; I believe white is the only color those come in
(grin). Also clear from the books set during his childhood that he was
culturally white, middle class, and American. Missouri, in fact.
> The protagonist
>from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (excellent book, in my view. More
>cerebral but less fun) was Russian,
Manuel O'Kelly Garcia Davis? Russian?
Bob Goudreau
BASILISK (BASI...@MCIONE.COM) wrote:
: The protagonist from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (excellent book,
: in my view. More cerebral but less fun) was Russian, ...
Not that I recall. He had quite a mixed ancestry, but I don't
remember Russian being listed. Now, his *speech* was influenced
by various Russian features (lack of articles, words such as
"Gospodin", etc.), but that appeared to be a property of Luna natives
in general (remember, there was a Russian city there, Novii Leningrad
IIRC), not of Manny in particular.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goud...@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
K. Hu
On Wed, 27 May 1998 Y...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <6khers$j7h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> mac...@alaska.net wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Possibly BASILISK was misled by the Loonie argot, which contains a number of
> > Russian words, into thinking Manny was Russian. IIRC, it also contained
> > snippets of a Chinese pidgin, and Strine (a nod to "Botany Bay").
>
> Mostly Russian, yes. (Makes it such a delight to read for this Russian
> speaker! Very cleverly used.) Also a bit of German and Swedish. But what
> there was Chinese, and what in blazes is Strine?
'Strine, as in "Crocodile Dundee". I'm not Aussie, but the Strine slang I
remember were things like 'fair dinkum thinkum'.
norv...@sirius.com
In article <6kht0l$b0d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Y...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <6khers$j7h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> mac...@alaska.net wrote:
> > Possibly BASILISK was misled by the Loonie argot, which contains a number of
> > Russian words, into thinking Manny was Russian. IIRC, it also contained
> > snippets of a Chinese pidgin, and Strine (a nod to "Botany Bay").
>
> Mostly Russian, yes. (Makes it such a delight to read for this Russian
> speaker! Very cleverly used.) Also a bit of German and Swedish. But what
> there was Chinese, and what in blazes is Strine?
"Strine" is a fast way of saying "Australian." Say it a few times... it'll
come to you. :-)
CAESAR
Y...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>Mostly Russian, yes. (Makes it such a delight to read for this Russian
>speaker! Very cleverly used.)
I first read TMIAHM many years before I studied Russian. It was a delight
to read it again after learning a bit of Russian: it definitely enhances
the experience!
|+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
CAESAR <> 10th LEGION <> Villa de Chaos <> Roma
"Keep the hammer back..."
"Don't fear the Reaper..."
"Don't turn your back..."
"Brother, don't do no one wrong..."
BLUE OYSTER CULT
|+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
Julie Pascal
Tharsia wrote:
>
> I have a question about the etymology of the word troll:
>
> I noticed that the distinction was made between 'troll,' nasty chap who lives
> under a bridge, and 'to troll,' infinitve, a kind of fishing.
>
> Both of which seem like appropriate roots for the usenet word 'troll' which
> ccan be either verb or noun.
>
> (NB: where I was a kid, we pronounced the fishing verb 'trawl,' as in the kind
> of boat called 'trawler,' though I believe the lines are called 'trolling
> lines'.)
>
> So . . . does anybody know how the usage started? Was one of the words the
> original? Is there just a serendipitous confluence of meanings here?
Ha! I vote for the "serendipitous confluence of meanings" just
because it sounds so cool. :-)
-Julie
mac...@alaska.net
> there was Chinese, and what in blazes is Strine?
You might care to look at
<http://gosydney.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa110597.htm>... some claim that
"Strine" is simply the Australian pronunciation of the word "Australian".
Seems plausible. Nowadays seems to be used by Brits to describe all
varieties of colloquial Australian English, although I seem to recall being
taught years ago that it referred to how they talk in the one city.
Bertman
> But I derive this all from a very few sources; it's always hard
>to be very certain about RAH's opinions, unless one was in fact a personal
>acquaintance
True. I lived down the road from him for almost two years, but was only
able to get his autograph the one time our doctors appointments coincided.
"Don't praggle me boy, I'll quang you proper!"
Tamela R. Germano
In article <01bd88f3$1d4a9720$234a37a6@user>, "BASILISK"
<BASI...@MCIONE.COM> wrote:
> I'm trying to remember if that's the case or not... was Lazarus Long
> non-white? (sincere question; it's been a long time.) The protagonist
> from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (excellent book, in my view. More
> cerebral but less fun) was Russian, all the characters from Rocket Ship
> Galileo appeared to be white although it wasn't discussed to my
> recollection... which I believe describes most of his stuff. Can you cite
> examples?
> Basilisk
Who is the only adult not related to the main characters in Star Beast
worth a damn? Ah, a Black African? Yep. Johnny Rico is from Manila, or
parts around there. How about Caroline Mishiyeni (sp?) in Tunnel in the
Sky? Who died to stop a true "Mad Scientist" in Revolt in 2100 (?, I mean
the Pan-Aisan war book) ?
Time after time RAH busted the norms of what was "proper" involving
race, sex, age, and other "norms". All took hits from him. When I was in
fifth or sixth grade and read "Star Beast", I had the world shift around
me when Betty (as I recall) tells our hero not to sweat his rep for being
alone with her overnight. I realised that such things are made-up, not
facts of nature.
Dino in Reno
Tharsia
I have a question about the etymology of the word troll:
I noticed that the distinction was made between 'troll,' nasty chap who lives
under a bridge, and 'to troll,' infinitve, a kind of fishing.
Both of which seem like appropriate roots for the usenet word 'troll' which
ccan be either verb or noun.
(NB: where I was a kid, we pronounced the fishing verb 'trawl,' as in the kind
of boat called 'trawler,' though I believe the lines are called 'trolling
lines'.)
So . . . does anybody know how the usage started? Was one of the words the
original? Is there just a serendipitous confluence of meanings here?
Tha...@aol.com (aka joan barger)
--Whoever does not study history is doomed to repeat it
Live long and prospect!
--Motto of the Intergalactic Mining Association
Tamela R. Germano
In article <01bd880a$268a72e0$e64d37a6@user>, "BASILISK"
<BASI...@MCIONE.COM> wrote:
> I can't agree. In my view the book is nothing more than a homoerotic ode
> to Heinlein's days in the military, with a massive dose of McCarthyism
> added.
He he he, did you realy read it? A "homoerotic ode"? I do hope this is
just a troll, not a true expression of what you got from the book.
It is prevented from being Heinlein's worst book only by "Farnham's
> Freehold", which adds open racism to the author's other ideological
> failings. Heinlein has written some good stuff. "Friday" is my personal
> favorite, but in the '50's and '60's the man did little, in my view, but
> make himself look silly.
How about "Citizen of the Galaxy", "Glory Road", or "The Moon Is A
Harsh Mistress"?
> I enjoyed the movie despite the usual Verhoeven heavy-handedness. (This
> after all is the director that gave us "Basic Instinct" and "Total
> Recall"). The effects were terrific, and the satire, given the macho
> gun-faggot xenophobia of the book, was dead on.
As opposed to "whimpette anti-gun lesbo Xenophobia"? You get points for
stating a point, but loose them for beating a dead horse with a OLD and
tired compairison. The bugs in the book were based on WWII alright, but it
was the Pacific Theater. And as I recall the book, few "guns" were used,
but weapons were. I do not find the use of weapons in a war story to be
odd.
>
>
Basilisk
Dino in Reno
mac...@alaska.net
In article <01bd8925$63c51ea0$1c4b37a6@user>,
"BASILISK" <BASI...@MCIONE.COM> wrote:
(snip)
> Thanks for the tip, I'll look them up. What does he say about SA, anyway?
In TR he says, roughly, that it's a fine country with fine people... as long
you ignore the race problem, which (I'm still attempting to quote RAH) is
like saying you like the Pacific Ocean except for all the salt water. RAH was
pretty clear about what Apartheit meant, six years into its era. Actually TR
contains a number of protests against the tendency of the Dutch, South
Africans, British, and Australians to treat non-whites as "non-persons"...
basic stuff like not learning the name of your waiter who serves you 3 meals
a day aboard a passenger ship.
Joe Slater
"K. Hu" <k...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>'Strine, as in "Crocodile Dundee". I'm not Aussie, but the Strine slang I
>remember were things like 'fair dinkum thinkum'.
And it's about as realistic as a USAn character going "Gosh and
tarnation to blazes! Where's that hornswogglin' son of a mule got to
now?"
jds
Travis C. Porco
In article <356f766f...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk>,
Andy Mulhearn <mu...@xnetcomuk.xco.xuk> wrote:
>On 27 May 1998 05:29:15 GMT, po...@stat.Berkeley.EDU (Travis C. Porco)
>interrupted a boring presentation with :
Sorry, can't have a friendly discussion when you start out
mean like that...:)
>>RAH is libertarian, and
>>his works display a horror of even the idea of slavery (yes, that
>>includes Farnham's Freehold).
>The reference to Farnhams Freehold interests me. I've always thought
>of it as containing a rather heavy criticism of human nature, the way
>the Joe character becomes a slave master purely on the basis of his
>colour and then takes on the role with relish when called on it.
You're right...part of the point is that freedom is a highly
precarious thing; the book seems to me to be about criticizing
the idea of necessary progress: if history were done all over again,
the era of technical civilization might have social forms more
reminiscent of our primitive past; we might not be so lucky the
second time.
K. Hu
It's just as realistic as a prison colony on the moon.
mac...@alaska.net
In article <6kildi$k9a$1...@gte2.gte.net>,
"CAESAR" <cae...@gte.net.roma> wrote:
>
> Y...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> >Mostly Russian, yes. (Makes it such a delight to read for this Russian
> >speaker! Very cleverly used.)
>
> I first read TMIAHM many years before I studied Russian. It was a delight
> to read it again after learning a bit of Russian: it definitely enhances
> the experience!
I had a similar experience a year or two ago when we rented the Alan
Arkin/Brian Keith/Carl Reiner/Theo Bikel movie "The russians Are Coming, The
Russians Are Coming". There are no subtitles. When I had seen it more than
twenty years before, I didn't know much Russian, and missed such gems as when
Theo Bikel as the sub commander instructs the crew on the deck gun where to
aim (I will say no more because I don't want to spoil it for you if you
decide to watch the film!).
You guys might enjoy "Clockwork Orange" (the book, _not_ the movie!), too, if
you haven't already read it. (Well, maybe not "enjoy"; I'm talking just
about "Nadsat", the lingo Burgess invented for his teddy boys/stilyagi).
Vsevo khroshevo,
George
K. Hu
On Wed, 27 May 1998 16:26:36 GMT, mac...@alaska.net wrote:
>I'm not sure this is quite accurate... but I haven't read TMIAHM in a very
>long time! However, IIRC, Manny got in trouble because someone in part of
>the Old South saw a photograph of his line family. It wasn't so much that
>Manny was visibly a "diverse mix" (after all, White Racists usually simply
>label anyone like that "coloured", or nowadays "Black", or "Spanish" or "Mex"
>or whatever, and leave it at that), as that his family was multiracial.
You're right. It's time for me to go and get my own copy so I can look
things up properly.
Y...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6kk8u5$pke$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
mac...@alaska.net wrote:
>
> In article <6kildi$k9a$1...@gte2.gte.net>,
> "CAESAR" <cae...@gte.net.roma> wrote:
> >
> > Y...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> > >Mostly Russian, yes. (Makes it such a delight to read for this Russian
> > >speaker! Very cleverly used.)
> >
> > I first read TMIAHM many years before I studied Russian. It was a delight
> > to read it again after learning a bit of Russian: it definitely enhances
> > the experience!
>
> I had a similar experience a year or two ago when we rented the Alan
> Arkin/Brian Keith/Carl Reiner/Theo Bikel movie "The russians Are Coming, The
> Russians Are Coming". There are no subtitles. When I had seen it
more than
> twenty years before, I didn't know much Russian, and missed such gems as
when
> Theo Bikel as the sub commander instructs the crew on the deck gun where to
> aim (I will say no more because I don't want to spoil it for you if you
> decide to watch the film!).
>
> You guys might enjoy "Clockwork Orange" (the book, _not_ the movie!), too,
if
> you haven't already read it. (Well, maybe not "enjoy"; I'm talking just
> about "Nadsat", the lingo Burgess invented for his teddy boys/stilyagi).
Yeah, what's up with that? I was surprised to read it. Why would English-
speaking punks include Russian words in their slang? Is there a historical
precedent, or was Burgess trying to prove some point?
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Money is a beautiful thing: brilliant in conception, ingenious in
design, versatile in use, and awesome in power.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Ogden Johnson III
K. Hu (nospa...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
Remember, Stuart LaJoi (?) arranged for the planted question(s) which
ticked Manny off.
OJ III
Christian Neuss
lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans) wrote:>Australian slang. The Australian pronunciation of "Australian" sounds
>roughly like "Strine" to American ears.
yup.. whereas the language that can be heard on railway stations' public
address system is referred to as 'Strain'. It seems a universal
phenomenon that no matter how much technology advances, PA systems
will always remain totally incomprehendable.
"Attention please, all passengers booked on rrrruh rrruh rruh mumble.."
Chris
--
// Christian Neuss "static typing? how quaint.."
// http://www.nexttoyou.de/~neuss/
// fax: (+49) 6151 16 5472
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <356CF08A...@pascal.org>,
Julie Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote:
>Tharsia wrote:
>>
>> I have a question about the etymology of the word troll:
>>
>> I noticed that the distinction was made between 'troll,' nasty chap who lives
>> under a bridge, and 'to troll,' infinitve, a kind of fishing.
>>
>> Both of which seem like appropriate roots for the usenet word 'troll' which
>> ccan be either verb or noun.
>>
>> (NB: where I was a kid, we pronounced the fishing verb 'trawl,' as in the kind
>> of boat called 'trawler,' though I believe the lines are called 'trolling
>> lines'.)
>>
>> So . . . does anybody know how the usage started? Was one of the words the
>> original? Is there just a serendipitous confluence of meanings here?
>
>because it sounds so cool. :-)
>
the specific type of fishing involves dragging a hook (or possibly
a net?) through the water.) I've even heard that the earliest trolls
weren't insults--they were errors, and the goal was to con people
into correcting them.
As time passed, and the first net culture was diluted by people
with smaller vocabularies, "troll" came to refer to the person
who made the post rather than the post itself, and it was assumed
to refer to the fantasy creature.
--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
May '98 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <199805250904...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Tharsia <tha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>The best comment I came across was in a fan magazine (which I was covertly
>reading behind a shelf at a bookstore) in which commentors said, "My National
>Guard unit could have eaten the Federation forces for lunch! Don't they know
>that if you all run screaming and shooting at a target, you all run out of ammo
>at the same time? What about 'stop, drop & reload' ?" and other words to that
>effect.
>
In a sudden fit of common sense, I didn't see the movie....but you're
saying that the Federation troops were using *pre-Roman* tactics?
*sigh*
I guess we're lucky that they didn't paint themselves blue.
Edward C. Stalker
Andy Mulhearn <Mu...@xnetcomuk.xco.xuk> wrote in article
<356f766f...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk>...
> On 27 May 1998 05:29:15 GMT, po...@stat.Berkeley.EDU (Travis C. Porco)
> interrupted a boring presentation with :
>
> >his works display a horror of even the idea of slavery (yes, that
> >includes Farnham's Freehold).
>
> The reference to Farnhams Freehold interests me. I've always thought
> of it as containing a rather heavy criticism of human nature, the way
> the Joe character becomes a slave master purely on the basis of his
> colour and then takes on the role with relish when called on it.
You, know, Basilisk and now you seem to be upset with Joe for "selling out"
but I can't see it. Joe was treated pretty badly by Hugh's wife and son -
seems like it would be nice to see a couple of slimeballs get what's coming
to them. He was attracted to Karen, and was genuinely saddened by her
death. He displays a lot of angst only with Hugh and Barbara(?) who were
nice to him, although nothing above-and-beyond.
He's an upwardly mobile kind of guy - when the chance to make a quantum
social leap presents itself, he grabs the ring - seems like I recall that
while he doesn't actively protest the cannibalism, he doesn't partake
either - seems like Ponse said he'd "eventually come around"
So, he takes advantage of the chance, he doesn't make stupidly futile
protests, and he helps Hugh and Barbara make the only real chance at
escape. What's so rotten about that?
Being a cannibal in our society is a BAD thing, probably the last really
major taboo in our society. Being a cannibal in the future world of FF is a
GOOD thing - or are you just having trouble checking your prejudices at the
door?
Personally, I'd have appreciated an explanation of why cannibalism is such
a big thing in the Master's society. Feeding humans solely for meat seems
economically unfeasible. Even the cannibal societies we know of only eat
dead enemy soldiers (essentially a no-cost protein supply), and they
usually seem to have a protein-deficient diet. I can't recall any that eat
their own people, or raise slaves solely for meat. Otherwise, cannibalism
only occurs in time of extreme starvation, and almost always strangers.
Even the reports I've read of cannibalism in North Korea from last winter
seem to indicate the victim is usually a refugee, unknown to those eating
them. In most cases, the person is dead before they become food. This ties
in with the reports I've read of cannibalism in the sieges of Stalingrad
and Leningrad.
On the subject of race, remember that when the subject of Joe and Karen
comes up, Hugh has no objection, and thinks it's a good idea...for 1963,
interracial marrage was a pretty racy idea.
High tides and green grass forever!
Ed
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <01bd884b$64541a40$7b4337a6@user>,
BASILISK <BASI...@MCIONE.COM> wrote:
>
>I don't believe Heinlein "hated" anybody who wasn't white. (I don't know,
>of course. Do you?) I do believe that Farnham's Freehold is an extremely
>racist work. Here's why...
>
>In "Farnham's Freehold" all the black characters are cannibals. This
>includes the 20th century african-american domestic servant character, who
>isn't in the future a week before he sells out his employer and starts
>eating people. Then we have Mrs. Farnham, who is described as older,
At what point does Joseph find out that he's eating people?
>unpleasant and unattractive, but whom the black cannibal king can't wait to
I get the impression that she's kind of cutely manipulative if you
don't know better. She's also a lot more tolerable if you have
the resources to give her what she wants. I suppose that wanting
her around is no weirder than voluntarily living with a cat.
Also, a lot of what makes her unattractive by current standards is
that she's fat. The future culture prefers fat women.
>add to his harem. Perhaps I simply lack the vision to see whatever
>non-racist point Heinlein was making here and if so, I look forward to your
>enlightening me. But from my own limited perspective, it looks, swims and
>quacks like a duck.
>
Try reading the details about how badly Joseph is treated by Grace, Duke,
and (minorly) Karen. The book has quite a bit about ordinary day-to-day
racism--and all of it's portrayed negatively. Also, I think that your
common or garden variety racist couldn't have created Ponce. Ponce
is intelligent, cultured, and self-controlled--hardly a common
stereotype.
FF also has one of the very few black-dominant high tech civilizations
in sf.
I believe that Heinlein was trying to write an anti-racist book, but
made some serious mistakes, especially by including cannibalism. I
respect the fact that he tried harder than a lot of other writers
in his period.
Nancy Lebovitz
><356a667f...@news.u.washington.edu>...
>
>> Let me give you some reasons for you to reconsider your judgement: If
>> you would look at the rest of his fiction it would be pretty damned
>> obvious that he has been putting non-white protagonists in his novels
>> since nearly the beginning - AGAINST the prevailing cultural norms.
>
>I'm trying to remember if that's the case or not... was Lazarus Long
>non-white? (sincere question; it's been a long time.) The protagonist
>from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (excellent book, in my view. More
>cerebral but less fun) was Russian, all the characters from Rocket Ship
>Galileo appeared to be white although it wasn't discussed to my
>recollection... which I believe describes most of his stuff. Can you cite
>examples?
>
Friday was described as having genes from all over the planet.
Alter S. Reiss
> >>
> >> So . . . does anybody know how the usage started? Was one of the words the
> >> original? Is there just a serendipitous confluence of meanings here?
> >
> >Ha! I vote for the "serendipitous confluence of meanings" just
> >because it sounds so cool. :-)
> >
> As I understand it, the original meaning was from fishing. (And I think
> the specific type of fishing involves dragging a hook (or possibly
> a net?) through the water.)
Not really an expert on the field, but I am pretty sure that
trolling is the dragging of a hook (usualy as part of a lure, like a
spinner bait or jig, or so forth, or with some bait on't.) through the
water, either from the back of a moving boat, or by constant casting and
reeling in from shore. Trawlers use nets, IIRC..
...
--
Alter S. Reiss --- www.geocities.com/Area51/2129 --- asr...@ymail.yu.edu
"My words in a turbid stream beat idly
Agaist a resistless tide of ruin"
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <01bd88f7$3c7a7580$234a37a6@user>,
BASILISK <BASI...@MCIONE.COM> wrote:
>
>Edward C. Stalker <sta...@inet.att.co.kr> wrote in article
><01bd888a$32979060$40c8f8cb@default>...
>
>> I always thought it was a satire, he was skewering everybody's sacred
>cows
>> in that book.
>>
>> Remember that RAH was from Missouri - I got the feeling that the basic
>> idea, was, generally, anybody who CAN be an oppressor, WILL be an
>> oppressor. This whole story is a twist on Isaac Asimov's reply to the
>claim
>> "The Jew's have never been oppressors." Asimov's reply - "except for the
>> Macabees, they never had the chance" The flip side of that is, anybody
>that
>> can be a slave, will be a slave.
>
>As in my previous post, the way to settle this is find out what Heinlein
>thought he was writing about. Otherwise all our opinions are just that:
>opinions.
>
Though you still seem rather attacted to yours.
>> Joe was the wanna-be upwardly mobile black man, who, faced with a good
>> situation, jumps right in. He felt no loyalty to most of the whites, and
>> only a little loyalty to Hugh - and rightly so. Even Hugh has to accept
>the
>> logic of Joe's behavior - certainly not like it, but accept it.
>
>Captain, I REALLY think you're stretching on this point. The good thing he
>found himself in on was a cannibal society that enslaved an employer who
>has treated him well. So he turns into a complete Judas, and starts eating
>people. I am willing to entertain the possibility that there are
>non-racist interpretations of this book, but I cannot believe that Heinlein
>was writing this particular character as anything but a villian.
>
I think Heinlein wrote him as a good guy through most of the book,
who then gave in to excessive temptation.
>> Mrs Farnham was overweight (for an American) and a social climber with
>> pretensions of granduer.
>> I think, the idea of Mrs. Farnham's fall from the genteel, prim lady to
>> Ponse's new sex toy was intended to reply to "Well, I never..." with
>"Yup,
>> you'd probably knuckle under and like it, fool." She wasn't so much
Interesting angle.
>> unattractive as one of those unpleasent society matrons, formerly pretty,
>> that become overweight, gossip and snipe at everybody, nip "a little" gin
>> at times, and think they're the ultimate authority on everything right
>and
>> proper.
>> I dunno, why Ponse would add her to his harem, but if you go to Africa or
From Ponse's point of view, she's *very* exotic. We don't know if he'd
get bored with her in a year or two.
>> the Middle East, you'll find that older, overweight Caucausian women are
>> popular acquisitions in some circles. I've run into more than a few of
>them
>> that drift down there from the US and Europe when they can't make a
>living
>> as a hooker back home. Must be an acquired taste. (And no, I was not a
>> customer of the girls, but the bars attached to whorehouses are often the
>> cleaner places to do your drinking in those areas)
>
>I had no doubt that was the case <eg>. But the way I took it, it was just
>another hateful reference to the stereotype that black men cannot stay away
>from white women. I'm going to see what I can turn up in the way of author
Was Ponce interested in Barbara as anything other than a bridge partner?
I can't remember.
>interviews, although even if I'm correct I don't expect to see him admit
>it. On the otherhand, if Heinlein says he was attempting to make the
>points you & Mr. Hu attribute to him, I'll have to admit I'm likely
>incorrect.
Alter S. Reiss
On Thu, 28 May 1998, Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
> >
> >The best comment I came across was in a fan magazine (which I was covertly
> >reading behind a shelf at a bookstore) in which commentors said, "My National
> >Guard unit could have eaten the Federation forces for lunch! Don't they know
> >that if you all run screaming and shooting at a target, you all run out of ammo
> >at the same time? What about 'stop, drop & reload' ?" and other words to that
> >effect.
> >
> In a sudden fit of common sense, I didn't see the movie....but you're
> saying that the Federation troops were using *pre-Roman* tactics?
> *sigh*
>
> I guess we're lucky that they didn't paint themselves blue.
Actually, I would have gone to see a movie working on that
premise...
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <01bd8929$b9233a40$4ec8f8cb@default>,
Edward C. Stalker <sta...@inet.att.co.kr> wrote:
>As I recall, Wyoming Knott was the only "white" person on the "Good guy"
>list in that book - RAH had white Americans as the major enemies in that
>book, seems to me.
I wouldn't say that Americans are the major enemies--India is at
least as big a political problem--but it's interesting that, in
a book that seems designed to appeal to Americans, the American
characters are mostly fools. This is especially surprising since
Heinlein was usually patriotic.
Matt Austern
nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
> In article <01bd8929$b9233a40$4ec8f8cb@default>,
> Edward C. Stalker <sta...@inet.att.co.kr> wrote:
> >As I recall, Wyoming Knott was the only "white" person on the "Good guy"
> >list in that book - RAH had white Americans as the major enemies in that
> >book, seems to me.
>
> I wouldn't say that Americans are the major enemies--India is at
> least as big a political problem--but it's interesting that, in
> a book that seems designed to appeal to Americans, the American
> characters are mostly fools. This is especially surprising since
> Heinlein was usually patriotic.
Heinlein's idea of patriotism has rarely involved respect for his
country's government, and the foolish Americans we see are all
government officials.
Mark Blunden
Nancy Lebovitz wrote in message <6kk77l$o...@universe.digex.net>...
>In article <199805250904...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>Tharsia <tha...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>The best comment I came across was in a fan magazine (which I was
covertly
>>reading behind a shelf at a bookstore) in which commentors said, "My
National
>>Guard unit could have eaten the Federation forces for lunch! Don't they
know
>>that if you all run screaming and shooting at a target, you all run out
of ammo
>>at the same time? What about 'stop, drop & reload' ?" and other words to
that
>>effect.
>>
>In a sudden fit of common sense, I didn't see the movie....but you're
>saying that the Federation troops were using *pre-Roman* tactics?
>*sigh*
It's a while since I saw the movie, but offhand I don't recall them using
*any* tactics.
--
Mark.
mar...@netcomuk.co.uk
To e-mail me, remove the '.spamoff' from my address.
"There are plenty of people who believe that Elvis is alive, or that
aliens occasionally land here to do highly personal things to people,
or that the whole idea of evolution is a conspiracy of godless scientists.
Almost all of these people can vote and some of them have got guns."
- Terry Pratchett
Peter Meilinger
Mark Blunden (mar...@netcomuk.co.uk.spamoff) wrote:
: Nancy Lebovitz wrote in message <6kk77l$o...@universe.digex.net>...
: >In a sudden fit of common sense, I didn't see the movie....but you're
: >saying that the Federation troops were using *pre-Roman* tactics?
: >*sigh*
: It's a while since I saw the movie, but offhand I don't recall them using
: *any* tactics.
That's not true, and is grossly unfair. They did run like hell when
they realized they were outnumbered and were definitely going to die.
Pete
Andrew Shepherd
In article <01bd884b$64541a40$7b4337a6@user>, BASILISK
>
>> Right, open racism. Heinlein hates anyone who's not white. Like, say,
>> the 'macho gun-faggot' protagonist of that 'homoerotic ode to the
>> military', _Starship Troopers_.
>
>I don't believe Heinlein "hated" anybody who wasn't white. (I don't know,
>of course. Do you?) I do believe that Farnham's Freehold is an extremely
>racist work. Here's why...
>
>In "Farnham's Freehold" all the black characters are cannibals. This
>includes the 20th century african-american domestic servant character, who
>isn't in the future a week before he sells out his employer and starts
>eating people. Then we have Mrs. Farnham, who is described as older,
>non-racist point Heinlein was making here and if so, I look forward to your
>enlightening me. But from my own limited perspective, it looks, swims and
>quacks like a duck.
>
Just a small point, but isn't everybody in the future a cannibal - I'm sure that
"roast" is on the menu for everyone white and black (but it is some time since
I've read Farnham's Freehold).
Right, you lot start coding, I'll go and see what they want.
Andrew
Simon Slavin
In article <6kht0l$b0d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Y...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> [Loonie argot]
>
> Mostly Russian, yes. (Makes it such a delight to read for this Russian
> speaker! Very cleverly used.) Also a bit of German and Swedish. But what
> there was Chinese, and what in blazes is Strine?
Strine = Australian. It's how an Australian pronounces "Australian" if
(s)he's not taking care to pronounce it carefully. IIRC Oscar Gordon
uses the word at the end of _Glory Road_ when describing the way Rufo
uses English.
Simon.
--
Simon Slavin | [It] contains "vegetable stabilizer"
<http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk> | which sounds ominous. How unstable
Junktrap deletes unread >4 UBEs/day.| are vegetables?
Check email address for junk-guard. | -- Jeff Za...@pipeline.com
Andy Mulhearn
On 28 May 98 12:19:14 GMT, "Edward C. Stalker"
<sta...@inet.att.co.kr> interrupted a boring presentation with :
>Andy Mulhearn <Mu...@xnetcomuk.xco.xuk> wrote in article
><356f766f...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk>...
>> On 27 May 1998 05:29:15 GMT, po...@stat.Berkeley.EDU (Travis C. Porco)
>> interrupted a boring presentation with :
>>
>> >RAH is libertarian, and
>> >his works display a horror of even the idea of slavery (yes, that
>> >includes Farnham's Freehold).
>>
>> The reference to Farnhams Freehold interests me. I've always thought
>> of it as containing a rather heavy criticism of human nature, the way
>> the Joe character becomes a slave master purely on the basis of his
>> colour and then takes on the role with relish when called on it.
>> --
>You, know, Basilisk and now you seem to be upset with Joe for "selling out"
>but I can't see it.
I was not upset by the idea of selling out, simply thought of it as
being quite critical of human nature in general. What he basically
seems to be saying is that black or white, there is no real difference
in terms of mans ability to be cruel and enslave other men.
> Joe was treated pretty badly by Hugh's wife and son -
>seems like it would be nice to see a couple of slimeballs get what's coming
>to them. He was attracted to Karen, and was genuinely saddened by her
>death. He displays a lot of angst only with Hugh and Barbara(?) who were
>nice to him, although nothing above-and-beyond.
I, personally being a WASC (white anglo saxon catholic) didn't really
see it that way on first reading. On reflection it is there but Joe
could equally well have been white. Yes he is bitter, but I never read
that as a race thing. I do admit to being quite naive with respect to
racism, never having practised it or been closely associated with
people who do, I really don't have a feeling for it.
>He's an upwardly mobile kind of guy - when the chance to make a quantum
>social leap presents itself, he grabs the ring - seems like I recall that
>while he doesn't actively protest the cannibalism, he doesn't partake
>either - seems like Ponse said he'd "eventually come around"
>So, he takes advantage of the chance, he doesn't make stupidly futile
>protests, and he helps Hugh and Barbara make the only real chance at
>escape. What's so rotten about that?
Nothing really rotten, and in the circumstances who knows. But he was
rather dismisive to Hugh who as you mention later never treated him
badly.
>Being a cannibal in our society is a BAD thing, probably the last really
>major taboo in our society. Being a cannibal in the future world of FF is a
>GOOD thing - or are you just having trouble checking your prejudices at the
>door?
Chill a little, I have no prejudices re caniballism other than the
fact our society tends to frown on it.
>Personally, I'd have appreciated an explanation of why cannibalism is such
>a big thing in the Master's society. Feeding humans solely for meat seems
>economically unfeasible.
It is just the end of the chain where return is maximised. Work them
till they can't work. Then feed them to the other workers. Though
there is also the breed to feed component but I never really
understood that unless all other food animals died out?
[snipped discussion of background]
>On the subject of race, remember that when the subject of Joe and Karen
>comes up, Hugh has no objection, and thinks it's a good idea...for 1963,
>interracial marrage was a pretty racy idea.
>High tides and green grass forever!
>Ed
Yes, Hugh displays no prejudice and seems to treat Joe as an employee
rather than a slave. Perhaps that's why Ponse lets his escape. IIRC,
Joe didn't actually help that much, but Ponse let them go when he
could have stopped them.
--
Andy
Unfortunately we have seen that it is actually much easier for
government to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens
than it is for them to prevent crime or punish the guilty.
My mail address contains no Xs
Andy Mulhearn
On 28 May 1998 04:45:35 GMT, po...@stat.Berkeley.EDU (Travis C. Porco)
interrupted a boring presentation with :
>In article <356f766f...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk>,
>Andy Mulhearn <mu...@xnetcomuk.xco.xuk> wrote:
>>On 27 May 1998 05:29:15 GMT, po...@stat.Berkeley.EDU (Travis C. Porco)
>>interrupted a boring presentation with :
>
>Sorry, can't have a friendly discussion when you start out
>mean like that...:)
The presentation I left to read your message was boring, the message
is a fine example of the art :)
>
>>>RAH is libertarian, and
>>>his works display a horror of even the idea of slavery (yes, that
>>>includes Farnham's Freehold).
>
>>The reference to Farnhams Freehold interests me. I've always thought
>>of it as containing a rather heavy criticism of human nature, the way
>>the Joe character becomes a slave master purely on the basis of his
>>colour and then takes on the role with relish when called on it.
>
>You're right...part of the point is that freedom is a highly
>precarious thing; the book seems to me to be about criticizing
>the idea of necessary progress: if history were done all over again,
>the era of technical civilization might have social forms more
>reminiscent of our primitive past; we might not be so lucky the
>second time.
As in if events had taken a different course, whites might have been
the slaves seeking emancipation? I think it has more to do with the
idea that black or white makes no difference to mans wish to dominate
and enslave others.
Andy Mulhearn
On Thu, 28 May 1998 17:59:20 GMT, nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy
Lebovitz) interrupted a boring presentation with :
>In article <01bd88f3$1d4a9720$234a37a6@user>,
>BASILISK <BASI...@MCIONE.COM> wrote:
>>
>>
>>K. Hu <nospa...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article
>><356a667f...@news.u.washington.edu>...
>>
>>> Let me give you some reasons for you to reconsider your judgement: If
>>> you would look at the rest of his fiction it would be pretty damned
>>> obvious that he has been putting non-white protagonists in his novels
>>> since nearly the beginning - AGAINST the prevailing cultural norms.
>>
>>I'm trying to remember if that's the case or not... was Lazarus Long
>>non-white? (sincere question; it's been a long time.) The protagonist
>>from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (excellent book, in my view. More
>>cerebral but less fun) was Russian, all the characters from Rocket Ship
>>Galileo appeared to be white although it wasn't discussed to my
>>recollection... which I believe describes most of his stuff. Can you cite
>>examples?
>>
>Manny was mixed race, as were practically all native-born Loonies.
>
>Friday was described as having genes from all over the planet.
Significant American Indian IIRC.
Ogre
In article <6kk77l$o...@universe.digex.net>,
Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@universe.digex.net> wrote:
>Tharsia <tha...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>The best comment I came across was in a fan magazine (which I was covertly
>>reading behind a shelf at a bookstore) in which commentors said, "My National
>>Guard unit could have eaten the Federation forces for lunch! Don't they know
>>that if you all run screaming and shooting at a target, you all run out of
>>ammo
>>at the same time? What about 'stop, drop & reload' ?" and other words to that
>>effect.
>>
>saying that the Federation troops were using *pre-Roman* tactics?
>*sigh*
I think saying that the Federation troops were using any tactics at all
is being a bit generous.
--
"Most people learn from their past mistakes and in future lives go on
to grow into better people. Others, who don't, become ogres."
- E. A. Scarborough, _The Godmother_
Portrait of an Ogre: http://www.iglou.com/profile/view.cgi/ogre
Tharsia
><HTML><PRE>lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans) wrote:
>>On Wed, 27 May 1998 20:28:05 GMT, Y...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>roughly like "Strine" to American ears.
>
>yup.. whereas the language that can be heard on railway stations' public
>address system is referred to as 'Strain'. It seems a universal
>phenomenon that no matter how much technology advances, PA systems
>will always remain totally incomprehendable.
>
>"Attention please, all passengers booked on rrrruh rrruh rruh mumble.."
>
>Chris
I can't figure that one out either -- was at a major airport being renovated,
and you couldn't understand anything yet. No bets being taken on whether when
they're done with Dallas -Ft Worth it will have working loudpeakers, hey?
And it's only marginally better at O'Hare, considering. Though the music system
is pretty good, and they were playing 'Inca Sun' instead of muzak, so I'm not
complaining too much.
OTOH, R&D will spend a fortune on creating fine sound for the laptop computer
you'll be carrying through the airport with you!
Tha...@aol.com (aka joan barger)
--Whoever does not study history is doomed to repeat it
Live long and prospect!
--Motto of the Intergalactic Mining Association
Phil Fraering
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au.DELETETHIS (Joe Slater) writes:
> For five points and a chance to advance to the next round:
>
> Name another prominent SF writer who wrote a story about a planet
> filled with black cannibals.
>
> jds
Race not specified: Poul Anderson, "The Sharing of Flesh."
--
Phil Fraering "You will cooperate with Microsoft, for the
p...@globalreach.net good of Microsoft and for your own survival."
/Will work for *tape*/ - Navindra Umanee
Stephen Taylor
Y...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Yeah, what's up with that? I was surprised to read it. Why would English-
> speaking punks include Russian words in their slang? Is there a historical
> precedent, or was Burgess trying to prove some point?
I assumed that it was a science fictional clue, telling us that in the
world of the book, Russia had become sufficiently powerful and
influential for its culture and slang to slop over onto the rest of the
world, in much the same way that American culture does today. (Probably
not too crazy an assumption at the time the book was written).
An alternate reading is that the bits of Russian slang ('slavicisms'?)
are an act of teenage rebellion and taboo breaking designed to piss off
parents and teachers - much like metalheads wearing pentagrams on their
t-shirts, or goths basing their entire look around assorted blasphemies.
In fact, I remember when I was in England in '87 there was a wave of
communist fashion chic, where people were wearing hammer-and-sickle
earings, etc.
> Yisroel Markov Boston, MA
Steve
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Taylor st...@afs.net.au
Applied Financial Services
Phone: +61 3 9670 0233
Fax: +61 3 9670 5018
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <356ec3d2...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk>,
Andy Mulhearn <mu...@xnetcomuk.xco.xuk> wrote:
>
>I, personally being a WASC (white anglo saxon catholic) didn't really
>see it that way on first reading. On reflection it is there but Joe
>could equally well have been white. Yes he is bitter, but I never read
>that as a race thing. I do admit to being quite naive with respect to
>racism, never having practised it or been closely associated with
>people who do, I really don't have a feeling for it.
>
I suppose he could have been bitter about having to work his way
through accounting school as a houseboy, but he didn't seem to
be.
Craig West
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net) wrote:
+>In article <199805250904...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
+>Tharsia <tha...@aol.com> wrote:
+>>
+>>The best comment I came across was in a fan magazine (which I was covertly
+>>reading behind a shelf at a bookstore) in which commentors said, "My National
+>>Guard unit could have eaten the Federation forces for lunch! Don't they know
+>>that if you all run screaming and shooting at a target, you all run out of ammo
+>>at the same time? What about 'stop, drop & reload' ?" and other words to that
+>>effect.
+>>
+>In a sudden fit of common sense, I didn't see the movie....but you're
+>saying that the Federation troops were using *pre-Roman* tactics?
+>*sigh*
+>I guess we're lucky that they didn't paint themselves blue.
If we're going to make fun of the tactics and training of the troopers in the
movie, did anybody notice how the marine training was oriented entirely towards
fighting humanoid soldiers with guns, even though they were being trained to
fight large insectoids that generally used no mechanical technology at all?
This is particularly odd since in the movie, I believe it was stated that the
MI was formed specifically to fight bugs.
--
Craig West Ph: (905) 821-8300 | It's not a bug,
Pulse Microsystems Fx: (905) 821-7331 | It's a feature...
2660 Meadowvale Blvd, Unit #10 | acw...@echo-on.net
Mississauga, Ont., Canada L5N-6M6 | cr...@pulsemicro.com
Joe Slater
Bertman
In article <356E10...@afs.net.au>, Stephen Taylor <st...@afs.net.au>
writes:
>Y...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> Yeah, what's up with that? I was surprised to read it. Why would English-
>> speaking punks include Russian words in their slang? Is there a historical
>> precedent, or was Burgess trying to prove some point?
>
>
It's been awhile, but IIRC the copy I read had, in addition to a glossary,
a section on the origins of the slang Alex and his droogs spoke. (e.g.,
cockney rhyming slang).
"Don't praggle me boy, I'll quang you proper!"
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <356f1d38....@newsserver.cc.monash.edu.au>,
By the way, I suspect that Earth in _Farnham's Freehold_ wasn't
"filled" with anybody. That nature preserve might have been
the only open space on the planet, but I doubt it.
Ernest Sjogren
nospa...@u.washington.edu (K. Hu) wrote:
>On Tue, 26 May 1998 02:07:13 GMT, "BASILISK" <BASI...@MCIONE.COM>
>wrote:
>>
>>K. Hu <nospa...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article
>><3569e9ae...@news.u.washington.edu>...
>>
>>> Right, open racism. Heinlein hates anyone who's not white. Like, say,
>>> the 'macho gun-faggot' protagonist of that 'homoerotic ode to the
>>> military', _Starship Troopers_.
>>
>>I don't believe Heinlein "hated" anybody who wasn't white. (I don't know,
>>of course. Do you?) I do believe that Farnham's Freehold is an extremely
>>racist work. Here's why...
>
> Let me give you some reasons for you to reconsider your judgement: If
>you would look at the rest of his fiction it would be pretty damned
>obvious that he has been putting non-white protagonists in his novels
>since nearly the beginning - AGAINST the prevailing cultural norms.
>Sometimes he had to hide it because the publishers simply wouldn't
>allow such positive portrayals of non-white characters. Heinlein
>celebrates the goodness and competence of people - *all* people, of
>all cultures, "races", and genders.
>
Does this _really_ support your argument?
Consider this: _Starship Troopers_ and _Stranger in a Strange Land_
are right on the cusp of Heinlein's transition from writing to please
the public to writing to please himself once he had become
"established" and could afford to do so. _Starship Troopers_,
although still quite readable, was more of a rant than Heinlein's
previous books -- it certainly contained a higher proportion of
preaching and a lower proportion of action than the books that came
before it. In _Stranger in a Strange Land_, at least in some parts
of the book, Heinlein was even more self indulgent.
With a couple of exceptions, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ and (to a
lesser extent) _Podkayne of Mars_, Heinlein never again overcame this
self-indulgence in his writing. His Wise Old Man character, who
appeared in almost all of his books, and with whom Heinlein always
seemed to identify, nearly overwhelmed his writerly personality. In
consequence almost everything he wrote after 1960 is didactic,
self-indulgent, inferior fiction. Can anyone imagine _Time Enough for
Love_ being published -- at least w/o SEVERE editing -- if a
theretofore unpublished writer had written it?
Perhaps Heinlein was simply expressing his "true" feelings in
_Farnham's Freehold_, since his fiction would likely be published no
matter what he wrote.
Or, consider this: People as they grow older often grow more
conservative. Among writers, Wordsworth is perhaps the prime example
(or at least he's the one I remember from my college days :-)). From
a "revolutionary" poet in his younger days, he became stodgy and
boring as a writer (granted, like Heinlein, a few fitful exceptions),
and the revolutionary politics of his early days changed into
conservatism -- so much so that he became Poet Laureate and bored the
world with "effusions" on right-wing supporters of the monarchy.
Perhaps Heinlein, too, underwent such a change in later middle age,
the generous, liberal spirit of his younger days died, and he became
merely a reactionary, carmudgeonly racist by the time he wrote
_Farnham's Freehold_.
I'm NOT saying whether I think Heinlein was a racist or not -- I
haven't read him closely enough to hazard a guess. I haven't read
_Farnham's Freehold_ since I was fourteen. But to be convincing,
you'll have to say more -- as you offered to do.
-- Ernie Sjogren
>If you're genuinely interested, I can take this further, but, as
>others have warned, you sound very much like a troll; unless you
>demonstrate a serious intent to discuss this, I'm unwilling to spend
>more than the approximately five minutes I'll take on this post.
>
>>In "Farnham's Freehold" all the black characters are cannibals. This
>>includes the 20th century african-american domestic servant character, who
>>isn't in the future a week before he sells out his employer and starts
>>eating people.
>
>Is this it? If you've read _Stranger in a Strange Land_, you'd know
>how Heinlein really feels about cannibalism. This is Heinlein's poke
>at racist and hypocritical whites - he wants them to take it the wrong
>way, and sneer at the 'savage' cannibal blacks. "Look at the
>cannibalistic animals!" they'd say, and Heinlein would answer back,
>"You're not so far from 'savage cannibalism' yourself!"
>
>In short, Heinlein's more complex than you take him to be.
>
>You have also, btw, neglected to elaborate on your 'macho gun-faggot'
>remarks regarding _Starship Troopers_.
McCargar-Partlow Family
Matt Austern wrote:
(snip)
> country's government, and the foolish Americans we see are all
> government officials.
You don't count the civilians who flocked to ground zero when Mike
started tossing rocks? (Wonder if that's where the producers of last
summer "sf-blockbuster" (cringe, hawk, spit) ID4 got the idea for the
heroine's girlfriend on top of the downtown LA skyscraper?) RAH's
patriotism pretty much excluded all respect for racism, jingoism,
religious fundmentalism, and several other characteristically (though
not uniquely) American idiocies.
G.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
George Partlow/Linda McCargar/Michael McCargar-Partlow
-- Douglas,Alaska USA/Etats Unis/EE. UU./Usono/Verenigde Staten
Info Esperanto: <http://www.esperanto.net> RC: <http://www.rc.org>
Ernest Sjogren
Matt Austern <aus...@sgi.com> wrote:
snip --
>Heinlein's idea of patriotism has rarely involved respect for his
>country's government, and the foolish Americans we see are all
>government officials.
Oh, I don't know. In several of Heinlein's early stories and books
the protagonist has an interview with The President (of the USA) and
is so overwhelmed by the awesomeness of the Presence that he can
barely function. (I _know_ I'm not giving any examples here; if you
want them, I'm try to hunt them up.)
-- Ernie Sjogren
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <356e49db...@news.mindspring.com>,
"Magic, Inc." is pro-government, and damn near worships the FBI.
Ok, it's ambiguously pro-government--even local government is
overwhelmed by the complexity of the issues it deals with and
is quite vulnerable to demon-inspired laws, but there's a rant
about it being unfair to expect government to do better.
Anton Sherwood
Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@universe.digex.net> writes
: [Farnham's Freehold] also has one of the very few black-dominant
: high tech civilizations in sf.
A line from a forgotten story floats to mind: "I was just another
worthless blanco kid, wiping my ass with a used corn cob ..."
(That story, iirc, merely took our culture and switched the labels.)
--
"How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher at netcom point com
Rupert Boleyn
og...@iglou1.iglou.com (Ogre) wrote:
>In article <6kk77l$o...@universe.digex.net>,
>Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@universe.digex.net> wrote:
>>In a sudden fit of common sense, I didn't see the movie....but you're
>>saying that the Federation troops were using *pre-Roman* tactics?
>>*sigh*
>
>I think saying that the Federation troops were using any tactics at all
>is being a bit generous.
Of course they were. They were using good old fashioned human wave
tactics. The problem was that the Bugs were using the same tactics and
had more (& better) troops.
--
R. Boleyn <rbo...@clear.net.nz>
Palmerston North, New Zealand
"This weak, degenerate generation - even their sins are watered down.
The old pirates of my father's day could have eaten them all for
breakfast and digested their bones before lunch."
_The Warrior's Apprentice_, by Lois McMaster Bujold
K. Hu
On Fri, 29 May 1998 05:17:32 GMT, sjog...@mindspring.com (Ernest
Sjogren) wrote:
>nospa...@u.washington.edu (K. Hu) wrote:
>> Let me give you some reasons for you to reconsider your judgement: If
>>you would look at the rest of his fiction it would be pretty damned
>>obvious that he has been putting non-white protagonists in his novels
>>since nearly the beginning - AGAINST the prevailing cultural norms.
>>Sometimes he had to hide it because the publishers simply wouldn't
>>allow such positive portrayals of non-white characters. Heinlein
>>celebrates the goodness and competence of people - *all* people, of
>>all cultures, "races", and genders.
>
>Does this _really_ support your argument?
Yes.
>Consider this: _Starship Troopers_ and _Stranger in a Strange Land_
>are right on the cusp of Heinlein's transition from writing to please
>the public to writing to please himself once he had become
>"established" and could afford to do so. _Starship Troopers_,
Wrong, right off the bat. _Stranger in a Strange Land_ was plotted
years (as early as 1949) before it was finished and published. Many of
the ideas and themes he explored (sexuality, religion) were well
established in his mind before it was released. He discusses this
briefly in _Expanded Universe_. He says, essentially, that he knew the
book would be too controversial at the time he concieved it, and
decided to wait until the time was right ("I could see the public
mores changing").
So your so-called cusp of transition is not nearly as well defined as
you think it is.
>although still quite readable, was more of a rant than Heinlein's
>previous books -- it certainly contained a higher proportion of
>preaching and a lower proportion of action than the books that came
Sure, he wrote it to address a particular political issue. To that
end, it's got more didactic content than the ealier works.
As such, it's really not intended to be a gee-whiz slam-bang action
thriller to keep you on the edge of your seat, although personally I
find its action sequences to be some of the most exciting in science
fiction.
>before it. In _Stranger in a Strange Land_, at least in some parts
>of the book, Heinlein was even more self indulgent.
Just what does this mean? "Self indulgent"? You'll have to explain his
'self' before you explain how he indulged himself.
>With a couple of exceptions, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ and (to a
>lesser extent) _Podkayne of Mars_, Heinlein never again overcame this
>self-indulgence in his writing. His Wise Old Man character, who
>appeared in almost all of his books, and with whom Heinlein always
>seemed to identify, nearly overwhelmed his writerly personality. In
>consequence almost everything he wrote after 1960 is didactic,
>self-indulgent, inferior fiction.
In your (rather unconvincing) opinion. I find quality works througout
his career.
>Perhaps Heinlein was simply expressing his "true" feelings in
>_Farnham's Freehold_, since his fiction would likely be published no
>matter what he wrote.
Perhaps you can't understand _Farnham's Freehold_. Given your track
record in this post thus far, I wouldn't doubt that.
Just what do you find racist about _Farnham's Freehold_? Do you think
because the black master race in this fictional future world is cruel
it somehow indicates that Heinlein views all blacks this way? How can
you prove this magical transference? Does this mean Colin Campbell,
black hero of _Cat Who Walks Through Walls_, is actually a villain in
Heinlein's 'racist' eyes?
>Or, consider this: People as they grow older often grow more
>conservative. Among writers, Wordsworth is perhaps the prime example
>(or at least he's the one I remember from my college days :-)). From
>a "revolutionary" poet in his younger days, he became stodgy and
>boring as a writer (granted, like Heinlein, a few fitful exceptions),
>and the revolutionary politics of his early days changed into
>conservatism -- so much so that he became Poet Laureate and bored the
>world with "effusions" on right-wing supporters of the monarchy.
This does not convince. Wordsworth was not Heinlein, that's pretty
obvious. No one is Heinlein but Heinlein. Anectdotal evidence that
Wordsworth changed later on in life says exactly *nothing* about
Heinlein.
>Perhaps Heinlein, too, underwent such a change in later middle age,
>the generous, liberal spirit of his younger days died, and he became
>merely a reactionary, carmudgeonly racist by the time he wrote
>_Farnham's Freehold_.
>I'm NOT saying whether I think Heinlein was a racist or not -- I
>haven't read him closely enough to hazard a guess. I haven't read
>_Farnham's Freehold_ since I was fourteen. But to be convincing,
>you'll have to say more -- as you offered to do.
Fine. Simply consider the portrayal of non-white characters in his
later "inferior, self-indulgent, curmugeonly racist" novels. Generally
speaking, they are no different from his white heroes and heroines.
The aforementioned (black) Colin Campbell (1985) and the mixed-race
Friday (1982) are portrayed as courageous, moral, etc etc. Surely, if
your theory was correct, Heinlein wouldn't have written such
portrayals of non-white characters, since he would have already been
well into his conservative, racist, curmudgeon phase, right?
As I see it, we have two theories we can explore:
1) You're right, and he turned into a racist in 1960.
* Advantage: Would explain seemingly negative portrayal of blacks in
_Farnham's Freehold_ (1965)
* Disadvantages: Does not explain positive portrayals of blacks and
other 'minority' characters like Manny from _Moon_ (1966, just one
year after _Freehold_), or Colin Campbell from _Cat_(1985), or Friday
from _Friday_(1982).
2) I'm right, and Heinlein stuck to his guns and remained the
freethinking, rational, non prejudiced person he had been since early
on in his writing career.
* Advantage: Fits his characterization of minority characters in an
overwhelming majority of his works, a disregard of race as a
determining factor in a person's worth, ability, or potential.
* Disadvantage: Does not readily explain the nasty blacks in
_Freehold_.
There you have it. I submit that Heinlein's heroes are people at their
best; they fulfill the potential that he thinks all humans are capable
of. 'Race' never enters the equation.
Vidal A Rodriguez
I would have to agree with you on this one. I think that whoever you are
replying to has the misfortune of believing that a role of a harsh person or
group is in fact racist, however they never seem to get that if they used
common sence then they would know there are bad and good in all groups and
has a whole the group could change the course for all. One example of goo
and bad effecting there groups would be Martin Luther King and the bad eddi
amien.
So whoever you where responding to was and is an idiot.
Cambias
There are some strong hints in _Mistress_ that the USA as we know it no
longer exists. In the novel there is reference to the "North American
Directorate" which apparently came into being after something called the
Wet Firecracker War. It's not at all clear if the "Directorate" is some
sort of domestic dictatorship or an imposed "occupation" government.
Of course, Heinlein was no fool -- people are people no matter what the
name of the government happens to be. So the North Americans are still
prone to idiocies of morality and general foolishness. It's quite
impressive to recall that "super-patriot" Heinlein made America one of the
major _opponents_ to the Lunar independence movement. Almost any other
writer would have had the good old USA siding with the Loonies.
And I suspect his target list for the catapult bombardment was in part a
reflection of his love of travel: Heinlein got to blow up all his
favorite cities. To be fair, he also pummelled his own house (near
Cheyenne Mountain) into dust.
Cambias
Robert Pearlman
nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>In article <356e49db...@news.mindspring.com>,
>Ernest Sjogren <sjog...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Matt Austern <aus...@sgi.com> wrote:
>>
>>snip --
>>
>>>Heinlein's idea of patriotism has rarely involved respect for his
>>>country's government, and the foolish Americans we see are all
>>>government officials.
>>
>>Oh, I don't know. In several of Heinlein's early stories and books
>>the protagonist has an interview with The President (of the USA) and
>>is so overwhelmed by the awesomeness of the Presence that he can
>>barely function. (I _know_ I'm not giving any examples here; if you
>>want them, I'm try to hunt them up.)
>>
>I'd like to see examples--I can't think of any.
[snip to end]
Example: Solution Unsatisfactory. He's got a good word for the King
of England, too. Government seems to work responsively in -- blast!
what's the name, the story that begins, "Put down that wrench!"?
RAH thought criticism of the President at that time, that is, in the
middle of a war, to be treason. See a letter to JWC in "Grumbles from
the Grave." I do think that he thought discussion of public policy
legitimate, but I can't recall any evidence one way or the other.
Pearlman
Robert Pearlman
nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>In article <01bd8929$b9233a40$4ec8f8cb@default>,
>Edward C. Stalker <sta...@inet.att.co.kr> wrote:
>>As I recall, Wyoming Knott was the only "white" person on the "Good guy"
>>list in that book - RAH had white Americans as the major enemies in that
>>book, seems to me.
>
>I wouldn't say that Americans are the major enemies--India is at
>least as big a political problem--but it's interesting that, in
>a book that seems designed to appeal to Americans, the American
>characters are mostly fools. This is especially surprising since
>Heinlein was usually patriotic.
To judge from his writing, RAH thought that most of the present
generations of Americans are behaving foolishly. He wrote for the
rest.
Pearlman
Sea Wasp
> >Ernest Sjogren <sjog...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>Matt Austern <aus...@sgi.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>snip --
> >>
> >>>Heinlein's idea of patriotism has rarely involved respect for his
> >>>country's government, and the foolish Americans we see are all
> >>>government officials.
> >>
> >>Oh, I don't know. In several of Heinlein's early stories and books
> >>the protagonist has an interview with The President (of the USA) and
> >>is so overwhelmed by the awesomeness of the Presence that he can
> >>barely function. (I _know_ I'm not giving any examples here; if you
> >>want them, I'm try to hunt them up.)
> >>
> >I'd like to see examples--I can't think of any.
> [snip to end]
>
> Example: Solution Unsatisfactory. He's got a good word for the King
> of England, too. Government seems to work responsively in -- blast!
> what's the name, the story that begins, "Put down that wrench!"?
"Blowups Happen".
Another example is in "The Puppet Masters" -- Sam gets quite
tongue-tied in the presence of the President, who is presented as being
rather more effective than some other parts of his government. To be
fair, however, it's shown that the President is not effective enough.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;;
_Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at http://www.hyperbooks.com
David Gibbs
In article <199805282347...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Tharsia <tha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
(Not sure of attribution for double indented bit)
>>yup.. whereas the language that can be heard on railway stations' public
>>address system is referred to as 'Strain'. It seems a universal
>>phenomenon that no matter how much technology advances, PA systems
>>will always remain totally incomprehendable.
>>
>>"Attention please, all passengers booked on rrrruh rrruh rruh mumble.."
>>
>>Chris
>
>I can't figure that one out either -- was at a major airport being renovated,
>and you couldn't understand anything yet. No bets being taken on whether when
>they're done with Dallas -Ft Worth it will have working loudpeakers, hey?
The problem is interference.
Think of a quiet pond... if you toss in one pebble, you get nice clear
pretty radiating circles. If you toss in two pebbles at the same time,
you still get a mostly clear pattern... but if you toss in a handful
of gravel (scattered for multiple hits) all you get is a mess. Well,
having multiple speakers putting out sound-waves at the same time from
lots of different points is kind of like the handful of gravel. If you
are right near a speaker, you'll probably get mostly clear stuff, but
farther away all the different soundwaves interfere with each other.
And, how each particular wave interferes depends on the distance from
each speaker and the frequency of the wave.
And, just to add to the problem, you also get reflected sound from the
walls, ceiling, floor, and bits of furniture.
And if the person making the announcement doesn't know how to use a
microphone, or the microphone isn't a very good one (say using a
telephone handset), then you would be starting with an initially poor
signal as well.
It is not a simple problem to solve, and airports (or train stations)
are rarely built with acoustical issues in mind.
-David
--
David Gibbs
dag...@qnx.com
Matt Austern
sjog...@mindspring.com (Ernest Sjogren) writes:
> Matt Austern <aus...@sgi.com> wrote:
>
> snip --
>
> >Heinlein's idea of patriotism has rarely involved respect for his
> >country's government, and the foolish Americans we see are all
> >government officials.
>
> Oh, I don't know. In several of Heinlein's early stories and books
> the protagonist has an interview with The President (of the USA) and
> is so overwhelmed by the awesomeness of the Presence that he can
> barely function. (I _know_ I'm not giving any examples here; if you
> want them, I'm try to hunt them up.)
There's a reason I said "rarely" instead of "never". I don't recognize
those stories you're thinking of---in fact, I can't think of any
stories where a Heinlein character has talked to a US President---but
I can think of a few Heinlein stories that do show some respect for
governments. (Glory Road, Double Star, and The Puppet Masters, to
name a few.)
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <6kmlbt$m...@qnx.com>, David Gibbs <dag...@qnx.com> wrote:
>
>The problem is interference.
>
>Think of a quiet pond... if you toss in one pebble, you get nice clear
>pretty radiating circles. If you toss in two pebbles at the same time,
>you still get a mostly clear pattern... but if you toss in a handful
>of gravel (scattered for multiple hits) all you get is a mess. Well,
>having multiple speakers putting out sound-waves at the same time from
>lots of different points is kind of like the handful of gravel. If you
>are right near a speaker, you'll probably get mostly clear stuff, but
>farther away all the different soundwaves interfere with each other.
>And, how each particular wave interferes depends on the distance from
>each speaker and the frequency of the wave.
>
>And, just to add to the problem, you also get reflected sound from the
>walls, ceiling, floor, and bits of furniture.
>
>And if the person making the announcement doesn't know how to use a
>microphone, or the microphone isn't a very good one (say using a
>telephone handset), then you would be starting with an initially poor
>signal as well.
>
>It is not a simple problem to solve, and airports (or train stations)
>are rarely built with acoustical issues in mind.
>
for the space--and I think that the average quality of PA systems
has improved.
Neil Thomson
On Wed, 27 May 1998 20:28:05 GMT, Y...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>there was Chinese, and what in blazes is Strine?
As others have pointed out, Strine is the way Aussies pronounce the
word Australian... Aus-trayl-yun -> Stray-yun -> Stroyun => Strine.
I had a book some years ago called "Let Stalk Strine" (Let's Talk
Australian) can't remember the author, but it contained many fine
examples.
--
regards,
Neil
Richard Mason
Stephen Taylor wrote:
>
> Y...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Yeah, what's up with that? I was surprised to read it. Why would
> > there a historical precedent, or was Burgess trying to prove some
> > point?
>
> in the world of the book, Russia had become sufficiently powerful
> and influential for its culture and slang to slop over onto the
> rest of the world, in much the same way that American culture does
> today. (Probably not too crazy an assumption at the time the book
> was written).
I dimly recall reading a foreword by Burgess which suggested that
the kids picked up words from subliminal Russian propaganda.
--
Richard Mason (mason at robby dot caltech dot edu)
"When I think about myself and the life I've led, I feel self-loathing,
shame, disgust; I'm a waste and a failure... But when I imagine myself
as a character in a novel, well, I think I'm pretty interesting" - JF