Sci-fi authors you (and I) should NEVER read

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by radius

The context of the quote that you seem to be ignoring is that most of Heinlein's protagonists believe that a) you need to be responsible for your own choices and actions, and b) you must take the universe as it is and not as you wish it to be. So in the above quote, the character is saying that behaving a certain way may make it more likely that a rapist may choose you as a target instead of someone else (ie: the world as it is) but this is entirely separate from saying that it is legally or morally your fault if that happens (ie: the world as it should be).

A lot, unfortunately, is culturally determined.

Consider the curious institution of the duenna in South America. It seems to be changing now, but at one point, Latin American men were taught that they were hot blooded and passionate, and left alone with a nubile young woman, would be unable to resist her charms and would have their way with her. Women were taught that they were feminine, weak, and passive, and would be unable to resist the male's attentions. The culture got around the obvious possible problems by making sure that young unmarried women weren't left alone with men. They were accompanied by the duenna, an older married female relative or friend, who served as a chaperon. (A Hispanic friend informed me that was mostly an upper class phenomenon, which made sense for various reasons.)

Social controls are always present. The question is where they reside. Our culture assumes men can behave themselves, and that the needed controls will be internal. Latino culture assumed men couldn't control themselves, and the controls needed to be external.

You can make a case that the Latinos ultimately got it from the Arabs, as Moorish Arabs conquered and dominated a good chunk of Spain, till their advance was finally stopped by the Franks under Charles Martel. The burka of Arab countries stems from the same underlying assumptions - men can't control themselves, and women must avoid giving any provocation.

The issues get thorny indeed. There was an interesting case in WWII, when hundreds of thousands of US GIs were bivouacked in Britain, waiting for the Joint Chiefs to select D-Day and they would invade across the English Channel. High Command got a lot of complaints from one British village about the behavior of the GIs in a nearby encampment. The girls claimed the GIs were "pushy" and "sex crazed". The GIs thought the girls were prudes or whores.

A little investigation revealed what was going on. A GI would take a village girl on a date. They would like each other, and things would go well. He would escort her home, and try to kiss her good night.

In Britain, at the time, the kiss was a specifically erotic act that did not occur until much later in the relationship. The boy though he was just saying "That was fun. I like you! Let's get together again!" The girl though she had to either scream and run, or get ready for sex. A step in the mating behavior chain was in a different order in Britain than in the US, and endless confusion resulted. And this was between two peoples with a common language and a common history till and hundred and fity years or so previously.

Now consider the potentials for disaster between more divergent cultures. You can see any number of examples just reading the daily papers. An awful lot of rape cases come from precisely such crossed signals, with behavior being interpreted in ways not intended.

In the case of Starship Troopers, I don't believe that Heinlein thought that was any kind of ideal basis for society at all. In fact, in the novel itself I think one of the characters says that they stick with it because it works, not because it has any kind of theoretical basis for good government (again, take the universe as you find it...) I don't see any connection to Scientology personally.

Nor do I. RAH knew Hubbard, and credited him with introducing him to another major story form -- "The man who learned better", but was never involved in Dianetics. (You have to cast your gaze at A.E. Van Vogt for that.)

There has been a lot of powder burned over just what the government in Starship Troopers was, with one group claiming it was a military dictatorship. I thinks it's a bit more complex than that.

What we do know is that rather before ST there was a major war, but it's not clear either side actually "won". What seems to have occurred is that the stresses destabilized both sides, and the governments collapsed. The returning veterans filled the power vacuum and restored order, with the major issue being that they more or less trusted each other, but no one else. So to have a say in how things were run, you had to be a fellow vet.

The government Johnny Rico lives under is a democracy, but suffrage is not universal. You don't get the franchise because you exist -- you earn it by successfully completing a term of government service. That service does not have to be military. Indeed, Johnny finds himself in the MI after his other choices are rejected because he isn't qualified. (A personnel officer looks at his school transcript and bluntly asks why he hasn't studied something useful...)

Don't forget that there are many other kind of societies in RAH's stories as well. Some are slave-based. Some are quasi-monarchies. There is at least one theocracy. And so on...

How is this any different from, say, Margaret Atwood's work?

It isn't, really.

_Stranger In A Strange Land_ is not an entirely successful book. It was written over a period of years in about four different attempts, as RAH tried to find a form that fir the story he was trying to tell. What he settled on was essentially Voltaire's Candide. It shares a characteristic with _Starship Troopers_. RAH was brought up in the Midwestern Bible Belt, and one way to read his work is to see it as RAH systematically examining the assumptions he was raised in and saying "does this make sense?" Often, his answer is "No, it doesn't."

His possible alternatives may not make sense either, but he at least asked the questions.
______
Dennis

[EatingPie]

I'm going to do two posts, one for each book. Hope that's okay.

Originally Posted by radius

However, I think that you also have mistaken some of his characters' viewpoints for his own.

Yes, that is the danger of any fictional work. However, the context of this particular quote (teaching Mike), Heinlein using characters to "preach," a common trait seen in other books (Starship Troopers already cited), and the acceptance of this as wisdom by Mike -- mixed in with other things the woman was telling him here, also acceped as wisdom -- suggest that Heinlein really believed this himself.

With respect to your quote from SiaSL, don't forget that in many, many other stories the women go about in extremely scanty, or even scandalous, clothing without the expectation that they might be raped, and that they deserved it if so.

Indeed, and if you find those quotes, we can certainly analyze them and see if the author is suggesting this as truth. But that certainly does not justify Heinlein making this suggestion, the context of this thread led to why I cited him in particular.

The context of the quote that you seem to be ignoring is that most of Heinlein's protagonists believe that a) you need to be responsible for your own choices and actions, and b) you must take the universe as it is and not as you wish it to be. So in the above quote, the character is saying that behaving a certain way may make it more likely that a rapist may choose you as a target instead of someone else (ie: the world as it is) but this is entirely separate from saying that it is legally or morally your fault if that happens (ie: the world as it should be).

I agree here. However, there's that little bit that says, and I quote, "it's at least partly her own fault." A very, very dangerous suggestion (fortunately, while much of SiaSL was revered by the '60s culture, this particular aspect was not).

Even in the context of personal responsibility being important, this is a totally irresponsible statement. Because the personal responsibility is that the rape is partly the woman's fault!

Okay, that's part 1.

-Pie

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yes. And even the Writer's of the Future Contest seems to be legit, though they will send you flyers to try to sell you his fiction.

Yep.

Everything I know indicates the the Writers of the Future contest is legit. While Hubbard may have been a very successful con artist, thank you, in later life, he was a working professional writer earlier, and Writers of the Future seems rooted in a honest desire to nurture and develop younger writers. I think Hubbard shared Heinlein's concept of "Don't pay back, pay forward." Instead of trying to repay people who helped you, turn around and help someone else.

The late Algis Budrys got suspicious looks from a lot of folks when he agreed to serve as editor of the project -- "Geez, has Algis gone Scientologist on us?" -- but as far as I know, no, he hadn't. He was simply a skilled editor and teacher, trying to instruct in his craft, who would have publicly walked away if any attempt to push Scientology had been made as part of the contest.
______
Dennis

[EatingPie]

Annndd.... Part II!

In the case of Starship Troopers, I don't believe that Heinlein thought that was any kind of ideal basis for society at all. In fact, in the novel itself I think one of the characters says that they stick with it because it works, not because it has any kind of theoretical basis for good government (again, take the universe as you find it...) I don't see any connection to Scientology personally.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Absolutely not. Neither atheism nor Scientology are part of the underpinning. (To my knowledge, RAH was agnostic and Libertarian.)

I'm stringing you guys together of give a better (hopefully!) response.

As taught in my Science Fiction class, Heinlein was frustrated by his inability to fully serve in the military. Frustrated even further that he had very good ideas for military theory and strategy that he thought would benefit the country. But his illness cut his career short, and he didn't have the chance to gain a rank in which to properly convey his ideas.

Starship Troopers is born from this frustration, so to speak. It lays out his ideas on military theory that he could not while actually in the military. But who was going to read a bunch of military essays by a civillian science fiction writer? So he wrapped it all up in a Novel of sorts so it would be more palatable to the masses.

Again, this comes straight from my college science fiction class.

The book's structure is as I said above. You have a set of short stories -- missions -- that tie together by the war. But in between each story, there is classroom time (!!), where the cadets (!!) are giving military theory lessons by the wise, battle-hardened Sergeant. (In Stranger, Heinlein had a similar character: the wise old man, who taught Mike.)

Starship Troopers is a "coming of age" story, which I believe was originally intended for the Scribners Juvenile/YA line he did an assortment of earlier books for. Johnny Rico grows up and learns to take responsibility, first for himself, as a Trained Private in the Mobile Infantry, then for others, as a non-commissioned officer in the MI, and finally for the human race, as a commissioned officer. His moral development can be charted by the different answers he gives to "Why we fight" at different stages of the book.

You may disagree with the author's philosophy, but you won't get very far if you don't at least recognize what kind of book the author was writing.

The very point I'm making is that I do recognize the type of book he was writing! You are confusing "type of book" and "audience of book."

The target audience was probably the YA market. And were I Heinlein, I would have thought that perfect! Young, moldable minds that he could influence with his notions of military theory. Certainly having a young soldier, and three (or so) short stories about his battles, make great YA fiction. But the military theory is still there, between missions.

Note that what I am saying does not contradict anything said about Johnny Rico. The theme of personal responsibility is there, sure. But the military theory is there too. A (very politically minded) friend of mine loves to cite Heinlein's philosophy that only those who served in the military could vote or (I believe) hold office. You had to earn it, to prove your mettle, or to prove you cared.

It isn't, really.

Ah, but it is...

The difference lies in the source... or the purpose. Heinlein wanted to teach his military theory, and that's exactly what he does. And he takes those theories to their logical conclusion, so to speak.

Many authors -- Atwood included -- want to convey themes in their books, sure. It's similar in that regard. Handmaid's Tale uses a post-nuclear theocracy (of sorts) to convey the dangers of rampant blindly accepted religious beliefs. Does she believe in that's happening? Dunno, but she certainly came across as concerned about blind faith influencing society.

Heinlein, as I stated, had a more distinct purpose. Not just theme but an actual didactic work, theories and ideas he wanted to teach directly through the voice of a... teacher!

Absolutely not. Neither atheism nor Scientology are part of the underpinning. (To my knowledge, RAH was agnostic and Libertarian.)

I saw many elements of Dianetcs in the book, particularly the early chapters in the classroom. I recall something about a cat, and that being a key metaphor that was rooted in Dianetics. I admit this isn't the strongest evidence, but it's been over 10 years since I read the book, and I am not really very excited about pulling open the crappy thing right now (see thread topic! ).

Heinlein was friends with Hubbard, and the earliest form of Dianetics first appeared in "Amazing Science Fiction" magazine, published by John Campbell... who I believe was already noted as Heinlein's editor for a while. So Dianetcs was very much known to him, and while Heinlein may not have accepted the philosophy, it proved a good basis -- a bottom-floor philosophical framework -- to justify the military society.

Did he believe in Dianetcs? Don't know. It was a basis, a philosophical justification that fit. But that wasn't the important part. The part he wanted to teach, the military theory, that is what was important, and that's what we see in much of the book's classroom time.

-Pie

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

e"

Glad you said "most". His early works are good. Before he got into that weird stuff.

My suggestion is to burn the "Dune" series......and the author.

I'd stay away from ALL of Hubbard's self-indulgent tripe. Battlefield Earth might have book ok if he'd have cut it down by at least 1/2. It was too long, too wordy, too many places that it should have ended. It's just easier to stay away from anything he's written.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by PhishStyx

By all means, avoid later Heinlein works such as Number of the Beast, which is literally nonsensical.

On the other hand, early Heinlein, such as Starship Troopers, remains both readable and classic,

I tried reading The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and ended up giving up after chapter 7. What a load of shite.

[kennyc]

I just keep learning more and more about Jon's taste in books.

[DoctorOhh]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

As taught in my Science Fiction class, Heinlein was frustrated by his inability to fully serve in the military. Frustrated even further that he had very good ideas for military theory and strategy that he thought would benefit the country. But his illness cut his career short, and he didn't have the chance to gain a rank in which to properly convey his ideas.

Starship Troopers is born from this frustration, so to speak. It lays out his ideas on military theory that he could not while actually in the military. But who was going to read a bunch of military essays by a civillian science fiction writer? So he wrapped it all up in a Novel of sorts so it would be more palatable to the masses.

Again, this comes straight from my college science fiction class.

Let me start by saying that I appreciate the effort and thought put into this response. I also concede that you may or may not be correct. It has been a while since I read Starship Troopers so I am not prepared to argue specifics.

I just want to say that I am so glad that this comes straight from your college science fiction class. This surely must end any argument because there is no way that anything said in a college class could ever be biased, slanted, opinionated or just plain wrong.

The bottom line is that even though I had to swallow many large grains of salt I do enjoy reading your opinions. Please keep your thoughts coming and ignore the cynical old man behind the curtain.

Much Karma to you!

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

I'm going to do two posts, one for each book. Hope that's okay.


Yes, that is the danger of any fictional work. However, the context of this particular quote (teaching Mike), Heinlein using characters to "preach," a common trait seen in other books (Starship Troopers already cited), and the acceptance of this as wisdom by Mike -- mixed in with other things the woman was telling him here, also acceped as wisdom -- suggest that Heinlein really believed this himself.


Indeed, and if you find those quotes, we can certainly analyze them and see if the author is suggesting this as truth. But that certainly does not justify Heinlein making this suggestion, the context of this thread led to why I cited him in particular.


I agree here. However, there's that little bit that says, and I quote, "it's at least partly her own fault." A very, very dangerous suggestion (fortunately, while much of SiaSL was revered by the '60s culture, this particular aspect was not).

Even in the context of personal responsibility being important, this is a totally irresponsible statement. Because the personal responsibility is that the rape is partly the woman's fault!

Okay, that's part 1.

-Pie

I'm going to respond here with much trepidation. I'd like to twist it around a bit, and include factual occurrences from my youth. The broad question raised is, "Do you have any responsibility for bad things that happen to you?"

Well, every incident is unique, and the scale can go from 0% to 100%, and is usually between the two extremes. Note, I said usually. We can both pull up examples of the 0%, but not every incident will qualify. Don't believe me? Well, let me give you an example from my youth...

I was raised in a rough part of San Antonio, Texas. Virtually every evening on the news, was a bar or pool hall shoot-out. It was so common that as a 10 years old, I parodied named the 10 PM news there as DieWitness News (Eyewitness news), 12 Star Funeral (12 Star Final), and 4 Big News as More Bad News.

Why am I going on about this? As a late teen-ager, I wouldn't go to local bar or pool hall. I valued my personal survival. My two best chums thought I was a wimp. They started shooting pool at a local pool hall (without me). Their business. They were shooting pool when a disgruntled person came in and sprayed the place with a full clip from a M1 carbine. They got under the pool table and weren't hit. Several of the patrons weren't so fortunate. Sheer luck and good reflexes. Question, if they had been hit, would it have been partially their fault?

Absolutely, yes! If they hadn't been shooting pool in a "shooting gallery" (as I referred to such places as), they wouldn't have been shot at. They had all the news from all their formative years warning them of the environment, and I clearly pointed it out to them before the occurrence. They chose to discount the risk anyway. Their decision, their risk - and their responsibility. And if it killed them, they would have borne part of the blame, in my mind. Afterward, I was not consider a wimp, just a practical paranoid. And they didn't go shooting pool anymore....

This is an actual true occurrence, in 1976. So...what's the difference, between the quote that offends you and my youthful reality? The nature of the crime (rape vs. bar shootout)? Or that a class of human beings are held blameless, no matter what they may do, because they're special (and of course my friends weren't)?

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by dwanthny

I just want to say that I am so glad that this comes straight from your college science fiction class. This surely must end any argument because there is no way that anything said in a college class could ever be biased, slanted, opinionated or just plain wrong.

LOL. I totally didn't think of that.

One ironic thing about my literary studies was that the literature T.A.s, who were grad students, were far more closed minded and opposed to free thinking than the professors. Three times, I received "C"s on my first paper, to jump to an "A" on my second... simply by listening to the T.A.'s "opinion" on my topic. Guess who graded the papers!

Just for clarification, the "College Science Fiction class" (not taught by a T.A.!) was meant as a reference or a citation, not as a shutdown or argument winner. I figured that was better than saying "I heard somewhere that Heinlein did something!" And you can bet I wasn't about to go to Wikipedia, which somewhere in the back of my mind I've always thought was edited by Literature T.A.s.

-Pie

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

...
This is an actual true occurrence, in 1976. So...what's the difference, between the quote that offends you and my youthful reality? The nature of the crime (rape vs. bar shootout)? Or that a class of human beings are held blameless, no matter what they may do, because they're special (and of course my friends weren't)?

This is a very easy question to answer.

Nine out of ten times is the quote in question. It is the assertion by Mr. Heinlein. Ninety percent of rapes are at least partly the woman's fault.

[Deleted 4 real rapes for brevity.]

My point. I cannot find it in me to say at all that the girl bears any blame in any of these situations. In at least one case, the guy wanted sex because the girl looked pretty. So we put blame on the girl for being beautiful? Or is she just the 1%?

Heinlein is a scumbag for even suggesting such a number, and I think it's made all the worse by doing so through a female character. I personally believe the only reason we discuss this as possibly legitimate is that Heinlein is a well-loved writer, and Stranger in a Strange Land is considered a cultural classic. It's easy to test this theory. Just imagine George W. Bush saying the exact same statement from the Presidential podium. How's that quote sound now!?!

-Pie

[DoctorOhh]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

I submit as evidence a quote from Stranger in a Strange Land.

"...But I was coping with wolves when you were still on Mars. Nine times out of ten, if a girl gets raped, it's at least partly her own fault. That tenth time - well, all right. Give him your best heave-ho to the bottomless pit. But you aren't going to find it necessary."

I am ashamed to say I read right over this, and it was not until a girl in my SF class expressed her anger at such a statement. Justifiably so. This is delivered in all seriousness, and it's difficult to conclude that RAH didn't really believe this was true.

Having read several Heinlein books, I cannot conclude anything but is an old-school scumbag. "That tenth time"? Give me a freakin' break.

The expressed anger by the girl in your class over words written about a half a century ago is equivalent to someone taking offense to the language of Huckleberry Finn and labeling the book racist even though the book for its time was clearly anything but racist.

She certainly could have been disappointed and given what we know today confused that large parts of society may have believed that statement in the past. But her anger was not justified and should have been abated quickly in the ensuing discussion.

Originally Posted by EatingPie

I agree here. However, there's that little bit that says, and I quote, "it's at least partly her own fault." A very, very dangerous suggestion (fortunately, while much of SiaSL was revered by the '60s culture, this particular aspect was not).

Even in the context of personal responsibility being important, this is a totally irresponsible statement. Because the personal responsibility is that the rape is partly the woman's fault!

This novel was written in the 50s and like it or not this was mainstream ignorance in the 50s. Today we can easily say that we would drop 9 out of 10 offenders down the bottomless pit and the other 1 might be questionable for many reasons.

Times change, society learns. This quote from one book of fiction is not "A very, very dangerous suggestion" for its time. In hindsight this statement was wrong, but not "a totally irresponsible statement."

Old-school scumbag? Maybe. But I don't think so and would recommend any of his books to fans of science fiction.

Next thing I know someone (not you) might suggest that Huckleberry Finn (racist as it is) shouldn't be allowed read in any school.

[DoctorOhh]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

It's easy to test this theory. Just imagine George W. Bush saying the exact same statement from the Presidential podium. How's that quote sound now!?!

A quote from, say about 1959 (when he was writing), taken out of context and said by a politician in 2009...

...maybe while were at it good old George could say a few things to his friend Colin Powell just the way Huck talked to Jim. On 2nd thought let's not because it proves nothing!

You weren't even comparing apples to oranges. The theory is not so easily tested after all.

Good Luck with your studies.

[Dr. Drib]

Just a few words again to all contributors, to say "Thank you" for writing about the authors and books we DISLIKE, but managing to do so in an informative, fun-filled, and intelligent discussion that is sure to turn heads here.

As one Moderator with a very strong opinion about books and authors - and I may be alone in this thinking - I feel ANY discussion on books and authors is merited - as long as we remain civil and respectful toward one another as we express our strong opinions.

THIS THREAD - along with a couple of other threads - HAS THE PROMISE OF PAVING THE WAY TOWARD SOMETHING NEW.

THANK YOU TO ALL CONTRIBUTORS!


Don
(Moderator)

[kennyc]

Oh gawd, I hate new! Can't we just get along?



Seriously though Don, you are right. It is important to be able to disagree and still respect others choices. That doesn't often happen on the internet.