FridgeMagnet
Administrator
He didn't. Early Heinlein is all like that, and his progression into Libertarianism isn't going that far away; it's not like he suddenly turns into a communist.Johnny Canuck2 said:
Stranger in a Strange Land By Robert A. Heinlein
- Thread starter ChrisC
- Start date
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
And while I am here, Hein;ine did something unforgivab;e in 'The Number Of The Beast'
Not only do his characters travel through lots of famouse literary universes (unforgivable IMO) the characters then travel through one of Rob's fictional universes. It is th ultimate in literary onanism and was almost as offensive as the essays of his that I read.
Not only do his characters travel through lots of famouse literary universes (unforgivable IMO) the characters then travel through one of Rob's fictional universes. It is th ultimate in literary onanism and was almost as offensive as the essays of his that I read.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
FridgeMagnet said:
Interesting comment in Wikipedia about the allegations of fascism. Seems to be the new kneejerk reaction on the internet any time Heinlein is mentioned:
"Another accusation is that the Terran Federation is a fascist society, and that Starship Troopers is therefore an endorsement of fascism. These analogies have become so popular that two of the corollaries of Godwin's Law state that once Heinlein is brought up during online debates, it is inevitable that someone will compare the book's society to that of Nazi Germany.[44] One could argue that the most visible proponent of these views is Paul Verhoeven, whose film version of Starship Troopers portrayed the Terran Federation wearing Nazi-like outfits and using fascistic propaganda.[45]; however, given that Verhoeven admits that he never finished reading this book, this "criticism" is not taken very seriously. Most of the arguments for this view cite the idea that only veterans can vote and non-veterans lack citizenship. However, according to Poul Anderson, Heinlein got the idea not from Nazi Germany or Sparta, but from Switzerland.[10]
Defenders of the book usually point out that although the electoral franchise is limited, the government of the Terran Federation is democratically elected. There is freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of conscience. The political system described in the book is multiracial, multi-religious, and multi-ethnic. The protagonist Juan Rico is Filipino and others in his training group are American, Armenian, Japanese, German, and Turkish or Arab, and one or two have recognizably Jewish last names. Also, significant number of African-Americans are seen in the film adaption. No racial tension seems to exist because the hate has shifted towards the alien threat. Many also argue that Heinlein was simply discussing the merits of a "selective versus nonselective franchise."[35] Heinlein made a similar claim in his Expanded Universe.[46] The novel makes a related claim that "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers#Controversy
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
FridgeMagnet said:
He's a libertarian, not a communist, and his early writing isn't fascistic. Simplistic maybe at times, but not fascistic.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Btw, why are we discussing Starship Troopers? This thread is about Stranger in a Strange Land, a much more important book imo.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Whatever people on Wikipedia say about it, Starship Troopers is most definitely fascist. The society is based on the primacy of the state over individuals, the idea of perpetual war, the value of force, that the only valuable citizen is one who corresponds to those ideals... and the narrative encourages that, going beyond mere description.
It would be interesting to write a pastiche of Starship Troopers from the perspective of a dissident in that society.
It would be interesting to write a pastiche of Starship Troopers from the perspective of a dissident in that society.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
His early writing is extremely fascistic.Johnny Canuck2 said:
Well, it portrays fascist societies and tropes in a relentlessly positive light. If that's not fascistic I'm not sure what is.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
People are going to bring up his other works in that context.Johnny Canuck2 said:
I don't think SIASL is a fascist work at all - I think it's crap, but I don't think it's fascist....
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
FridgeMagnet said:
Which books?
Did you read the wiki comment how the characters span a number of minorities, there is widespread suffrage, sexual equality, etc. Doesn't sound like any fascism I know.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Traditional concepts of racism and discrimination aren't the defining point of a fascist portrayal of society by any means.Johnny Canuck2 said:
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
FridgeMagnet said:
How about the existence of the democratic process, and freedom of thought?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
p.s. which other early books are fascistic?
We've both read them all, I expect, so I'll know which ones you're referring to.
We've both read them all, I expect, so I'll know which ones you're referring to.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Another interesting wiki comment:
"The major themes of his work were social: radical individualism, libertarianism, religion, the relationship between physical and emotional love, and speculation about unorthodox family relationships. His iconoclastic approach to these themes led to wildly divergent perceptions of his works. For example, his 1959 novel Starship Troopers was widely viewed as glorifying militarism. By contrast, his 1961 novel Stranger in a Strange Land put him in the unexpected role of pied piper to the sexual revolution and the counterculture."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein
"The major themes of his work were social: radical individualism, libertarianism, religion, the relationship between physical and emotional love, and speculation about unorthodox family relationships. His iconoclastic approach to these themes led to wildly divergent perceptions of his works. For example, his 1959 novel Starship Troopers was widely viewed as glorifying militarism. By contrast, his 1961 novel Stranger in a Strange Land put him in the unexpected role of pied piper to the sexual revolution and the counterculture."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
In ST, those don't exist. Well, everyone has freedom of thought, there are no brain implants preventing that... but there is no avenue for any opinion outside the fascist perpetual war consensus that could have influence.Johnny Canuck2 said:
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
You know, it's been a while, I'll have to think back. I don't want to make specific references until I've had the time to check my bookshelves.Johnny Canuck2 said:
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
FridgeMagnet said:
You made a definite statement. I said that if Troopers was fascistic, then it deviated from his beliefs. You said that his early writing was 'extremely fascistic'. I assumed that you had concrete examples in mind.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
FridgeMagnet said:
You'll recall that his parents don't want him to join up. It's not portrayed as if this was a subversive thought in the least.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
I had to throw a lot of books away when I moved, and I don't have exact passages memorised, as, as I've stated, I don't consider him a particularly important writer. I had to dump a lot of Lensman stuff as well.Johnny Canuck2 said:
If you wish to disregard my statements based on lack of chapter and verse that is of course up to you; do feel free.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
FridgeMagnet said:
Chapter and verse isn't necessary, but if you're going to accuse a writer of producing fascist writing, imo you should be able to point to the books where this takes place.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Fuck knows I can't remember the exact titles, and I'm not going to argue about it. Okay, for the sake of argument, restrict the "fascist" comments to just Starship Troopers, which was (a) early and (b) fascist. If there's a telling counter-example I'd like to hear about it, as it indicates something I've not read....
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
FridgeMagnet said:
I said that if ST was fascist, then it went against his beliefs.
You said that wasn't true, because his early books were all fascist.
I don't believe ST is fascist, so the counter example, is any of his early works. None of them are fascist.
Dhimmi
Half Man Half HobNob
Given Heinlein's life it seems a little odd to hear him described as a fascist, especially when you've got men like Asimov describing him as a "flaming liberal" from Heinlein's early life.
I think he's written widely, and encompassed a lot of subjects from all kind of angles, and some readers seem to have read some of those through non-perscription specs. For me he writes with three main motivations or components; stimulating ideas, mechanical/physical accuracy and the desire to sell a pile of copies. I see nothing fascistic to that.
It's probably fortunate that no-one's touched on any of the sexual themes he's expressed. Jill's thoughts on homosexuality in Stranger in a Strange Land have been labelled homophobic but without regard for charactor's relatively neutral thoughts in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress and their positive thoughts in I Will Fear No Evil. None of this charactorisation neccessarily reflects the author's position.
If you look at a book published around the same time as both SiaSL and ST, say To Kill a Mockingbird. It features some harsh charactors, and a grim situation but could we claim Harper Lee is a racist because she features bigoted charactors, or is she defending the act of rape, or even the scapegoating of black men for judicial and social convenience?
Of course we could claim this, but we'd be wrong. Which makes me wonder why folk make the effort to make harsh and unsupportable claims against well established and highly regarded writers. The web seems stuffed with such claims, matching the conspiracy theories for both width and shallowness.
Perhaps it boils down to two major parts, the first a form of bandwagon jumping, because it's much easier for one's theories to be found and read when attached to someone else's fame, which brings us to the second; it's much easier to do that than compete with and better those you're slating.
It's a worrying development, a mix of claimed moral superiority, a puritanical judgement on the quality not of the literature but the writer, supposition of political bias and the attempted blacklisting of books which might contain "ungood" charactors.
I would draw a comparison with Fahrenheit 451 but as Ray Bradbury was a queer beating, baby eating, woman hating, anthrax snorting, kiddy fiddling, member of the KKK I'd better not.
I think he's written widely, and encompassed a lot of subjects from all kind of angles, and some readers seem to have read some of those through non-perscription specs. For me he writes with three main motivations or components; stimulating ideas, mechanical/physical accuracy and the desire to sell a pile of copies. I see nothing fascistic to that.
It's probably fortunate that no-one's touched on any of the sexual themes he's expressed. Jill's thoughts on homosexuality in Stranger in a Strange Land have been labelled homophobic but without regard for charactor's relatively neutral thoughts in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress and their positive thoughts in I Will Fear No Evil. None of this charactorisation neccessarily reflects the author's position.
If you look at a book published around the same time as both SiaSL and ST, say To Kill a Mockingbird. It features some harsh charactors, and a grim situation but could we claim Harper Lee is a racist because she features bigoted charactors, or is she defending the act of rape, or even the scapegoating of black men for judicial and social convenience?
Of course we could claim this, but we'd be wrong. Which makes me wonder why folk make the effort to make harsh and unsupportable claims against well established and highly regarded writers. The web seems stuffed with such claims, matching the conspiracy theories for both width and shallowness.
Perhaps it boils down to two major parts, the first a form of bandwagon jumping, because it's much easier for one's theories to be found and read when attached to someone else's fame, which brings us to the second; it's much easier to do that than compete with and better those you're slating.
It's a worrying development, a mix of claimed moral superiority, a puritanical judgement on the quality not of the literature but the writer, supposition of political bias and the attempted blacklisting of books which might contain "ungood" charactors.
I would draw a comparison with Fahrenheit 451 but as Ray Bradbury was a queer beating, baby eating, woman hating, anthrax snorting, kiddy fiddling, member of the KKK I'd better not.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
i found the first half or so pretty interesting until it turned into a hippy wank fantasy. was amazingly disappointed with it.
FridgeMagnet said:
Just because a society is militaristic doesn't automatically make it fascist. Nazi Germany, and 1930s Italy embarked on military adventures as a consequence of being fascist states, I read troopers as being a militaristic society as a result of an outside (bugs) threat, which is somewhat different.
fractionMan
Custom Title
FridgeMagnet said:
I'll say it again. Writing about a fascist distopia does not make you a fascist.
Similar threads
