[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

I very much disagree here. Her anger was definitely justified. To put it simply, in this case wrong is wrong, no matter what time period that comes from. And when the book is put forth in a class as revered by the '60s culture (or counter-culture if you will), that definitely opens it up to greater criticism. Why would a whole generation hold a book in reverence when it says something so terrible?

Her anger may have been justified at the idea, just like we can be angered by the fact that characters in a novel set in the first half of the 19th century thinks its justified for some people to be slaves. That doesn't mean that the anger is properly directed exclusively at the author.

The whole generation might have continued to hold the book in reverence precisely because in the 1950s and 1960s, before feminism really took off, it was not considered that remarkable. Even today, as horrible as it is, defense attorneys in rape cases will often try to blame the victim... because they know enough people in the jury might buy it. Is it right? Of course not. But it was the world Heinlein was writing in and for.

Standing up in front of 300 people, being brave enough to go against the grain, and make the statement the girl did... that's exactly how society changes its beliefs. We need more "angry" people like her if things are to be further changed!

Its good to discuss ideas in a literary class, however I would point out that people have often taken their views to extreme. Too many have attempted to ban otherwise worthy books simply because of the use of a word they find offensive.

Do you have evidence that this was mainstream ignorance at the time? It certainly may have been, but I'm curious if it really was.

I certainly don't recall Asimov, Bradburry, Clarke, Lem, Anderson, Pohl, Tiptree Jr., Herbert, Campbell, or any other Golden Ager -- contemporaries of Heinlein -- ever making such a suggestion, or anything even close. Especially when the suggestions looks very much to be something conveyed as an actual belief the author holds.

Well, I think we can toss out Lem... writing from behind the Iron Curtain means he is really writing from a very different culture. Tiptree was both a woman and didn't appear on the scene until the late 60s considerably after the Heinlein Novels in question. Asimov and Clarke both tended to avoid anything that even suggesed sex existed through the 1960s and early 1970s (In the entire Foundation Trilogy, only one married couple appears as an example). I haven't read enough Anderson or Bradbury to comment on their writing in the same degree, but neither of them appeared to delve into sexual relationships anywhere near as closely as Heinlein did.

As I said, in this case, wrong is wrong.


The very reason society changes is because people like that girl in my class stand up and say "this is wrong!"

Just curious.. when was this class? I get the impression it was decades after the novel was written. It appears to be more a case of this was wrong than this is wrong.

And, yeah, it was an irresponsible statement, even if it were a cultural idea. As I argued previously, Heinlein is conveying this as wisdom, not just some belief that happened to be misguided, but actually as a wise conclusion. This is emphasized even more by putting it into the mouth of a woman in the setting of teaching our main character. That just pours insult onto injury, and why I say it's "totally irresponsible."

I think it is unfair to Heinlein. Lets remember that prior to the 1970s, most people thought of rape as being a crime totally about sex, not about power as it is often seen these days. Through much of the 1960s, most people would have thought there was nothing remarkable about this position, including many women.

For me, I'd change "maybe" to "definitely" and "would recommend" to "would never recommend."


The thread is about science fictions we should never read. We are all suggesting these authors should not be read. Just about every single post in this thread. Why, then, aren't you taking issue with others who complain about Lem, Harrison, or Ringo? There's really no difference, except I gave a morally irresponsible quote as justification for my aversion to Heinlein. If you're going to make the leap that my argument might lead to censoring Huck Finn, why not argue that this whole thread in general will lead to the same?

I think the key here is this; most of the other authors are being criticized based on whole books, or in some cases lots of their books. In contrast, you take a single quote out of an author who had a rather large body of work, often filled with strong, competent women.

In fact, in some of Heinlein's other books, he swings the opposite way. If you had ever read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress you would have noticed him writing about a culture where a guy could get spaced for being too aggressive in his pursuit of a girl, regardless of how she was dressed or how she had flirted with him before hand. Kind of the ultimate No means No statement there.

Radius, I appreciate your response... even though I cut it all out!

Instead of repeating myself, I just wanted to point to my above paragraph. I am not suggesting Heinlein being "censured" any more than any other post in this thread directed at other authors. I could just as easily have said "Robert Jordan, stay away" and said "he's boring and pedantic and overrated" as justification, and don't see that as any different than my cry of "Robert Heinlein, run... run away... and don't look back!"

-Pie

I think it is less the fact that you are recommending against Heinlein than the reason why you are recommending against him. I would also point out that his work is so central to the genre, that it is really hard to understand the genre without being at least somewhat familiar with his work.

--
Bill