Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennD
I think what you're running into is a fairly sizable group of people who have read most of what Heinlein published as well as plenty of analysis of what he published. A single quote from a character in one of his books that contradicts many of the statements that other characters in his work say (and do) shouldn't be considered representative of his beliefs.
|
So, you say the rape quote (a throwaway line from one of the sympathetic characters in SiaSL) contradicts his other writing, and Renaldo says, "RAH chooses to go to the extreme position to present the same idea, this is something he does a lot and it's always shocking on the face of it, until you examine it."
Which is it? Did Heinlein expect us to reject the idea and the character voicing it (unlikely in the context), or was he propounding a larger theory of personal responsibility and merely using this idea for its shock value? I suggest it might be an idea for Heinlein apologists to work out a single story and stick to it
.
Frankly, I don't think Heinlein had the faintest clue what he was talking about, and didn't really care. Neither apology works in this case. If you look at the quote in context it's Jill telling Mike that she can look after herself in most cases and is part of a section describing Jill's sexual awakening as a 'showgirl'. A few paragraphs following this utterance Jill practices lewd poses for a photograph. Wow, man, that's deep....
It's the sort of adolescent wish-fulfilment I'd expect from a 14year-old boy with learning disabilities.
Quote:
|
After all, if I quoted you as saying "...I'd be turning myself into the police as a lunatic who needs to be locked up for my own good" and suggested that we not read your words because you've admitted you're a lunatic, you would rightfully insist that your comments be read in context. YOU haven't failed to communicate, but I have failed to represent your statement accurately.
|
I think it's reasonable for an author to expect readers to understand the concept of the subjunctive tense - that's basic grammar...
I'm not saying authors shouldn't employ satire or sarcasm either. But someone who can't write satire in a way that makes it reasonably clear what they're doing should steer clear of it.