Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
Any book is a dialog, informed as much by what the reader brings to the book in the form of beliefs and expectations as by what the author attempts to put into it.
Things you find unconscionable depend upon the context in which they are viewed.
One of the functions of SF is to play "What if?", and one of the things Heinlein was doing in his fiction was re-examining the beliefs he was raised in and saying "Does this make sense?" He often concluded that it didn't, though what he proposed instead was not greeted with universal approval.
So part of the "what if" being played here is "What if some of your underlying notions are wrong?" What if the things RAH proposed that you find "unconscionable" are correct? The universe is what it is. What varies is our perceptions of what it is. What if his perception of the nature of reality and the actions of human beings is closer to true than yours?
|
Yeah... No. Sorry, I do not believe for a second this was a "what if?" scenario at all. The context does not support that in slightest. The context is more supportive of him making a statement he meant to be taken as the truth, which I argue
here and
here, and in subsequent posts.
Quote:
|
I think RAH would smile happily at that statement. You're annoyed because it's challenging your preconceptions. That was part of the point of the book.
|
Yeah, my "pre-conception" about assigning fault about rape is being challenged! Because it really needed to be!
And to suggest Heinlein is smiling because he suggested rape was women's fault? Seriously?
It's nice to talk in generic terms about books, but this is a specific statement I'm pointing out in this case. Calling it a "what if?," calling it a "dialog," in terms of
this specific case are sounding like
justifications to me. I can see why you might want to, as you enjoy Heinlein. But I had no pre-conceived prejudices going into his work. I came to my conclusion after reading, and am not hampered by any loyalty to him as an author.
-Pie