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

[wayrad]

That reminds me, does anybody else feel irked when an author invents a society to illustrate his/her theories about how things should work, then makes the characters constantly point to how well such a society works in the novel as "evidence"? It always makes me wish I could deduct points or something. (edited to add: L. Neil Smith is another good example of this.)

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

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.

But it's still okay to call Heinlein a scumbag, right?

-Pie (aka the-guy-who-was-just-banned!)

[Slite]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

But it's still okay to call Heinlein a scumbag, right?

-Pie (aka the-guy-who-was-just-banned!)

Yes, as long as you do it nicely

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by wayrad

That reminds me, does anybody else feel irked when an author invents a society to illustrate his/her theories about how things should work, then makes the characters constantly point to how well such a society works in the novel as "evidence"? It always makes me wish I could deduct points or something. (edited to add: L. Neil Smith is another good example of this.)

That's what I (and others) call heavy-handed and when it's clearly obvious, it is annoying.

[radius]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

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

I knew you were a computer geek but had no idea that you are a literary criticism geek 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.

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.

Its possible that I am mis-remembering the book, but I believe that in Starship Troopers, any government service was enough to qualify someone for citizenship. It didn't need to be military service. Juan and his friends enlisted in the military, but there were other options. In fact, if you were unfit for service, the government was not allowed to refuse you the opportunity enter public service and would find some other kind of difficult job for you.

I think you could definitely argue that RAH felt you should participate in society in order to be allowed a say in it (was it RAH or Jerry Pournelle that wrote a story where Taxpayer was a separate class from Citizen?) but that is different from saying that only the military should be allowed a voice in government.

Actually, in Starship Troopers, the fact that the vote expanded from vets only to public service in general might show that RAH recognized you can't have government ruled only by military veterans.

As for the other part of his message (which I didn't quote above) that "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori", it isn't surprising that Johnny would be exposed to this a great deal in the novel because otherwise, what reason is there for a soldier to fight? Why put yourself in danger for the benefit of people you have never even met and who will likely never thank you? To me, this is the theme of the book, and Dennis already covered it, so I won't add anything more here.

Johnny's civics class isn't only about how only veterans are worthy of the vote. Its is called History and Moral Philosophy, and the teacher, Colonel Dubois, stresses that we may have peaceful ideals, but history shows that we must be ready to fight (ie: take the world as it is...) and uses examples to show that TANSTAAFL. I don't have a copy of the book with me, but I think that Dubois says morality must come from what Man is, not what we want Him to be. Now that I think of it, Starship Troopers seems very Hobbesian to me, more than anything.

To my mind, the fact that gaining citizenship must be difficult is another example of TANSTAAFL and not some kind of military propaganda.

Edit: I want to add that I can't imagine anything more horrifying than war and that if the time comes I will probably turn out to be a chicken or have my head in the sand, so don't think that I am defending Starship Troopers because I am some kind of jingo-istic war-monger :P

[wayrad]

Originally Posted by kennyc

That's what I (and others) call heavy-handed and when it's clearly obvious, it is annoying.

It's not just the heavy-handedness that's annoying, but the faulty reasoning behind it - if you get to invent the world, it's hardly remarkable that it works according to your rules, and trying to convince readers otherwise seems a bit silly.

[radius]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

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.

Hi Pie,

If some of your friends have been raped, I can completely understand where your sympathies lie, and your reaction to this quote.



That said, I still think you are mis-reading. Even if we grant that this is what RAH personally believed, and not what his character believes (which I am not ready to grant), whether he is to be censured for saying that depends on what causes rape.

It seems that today, the common understanding is that rape occurs regardless of the beauty or provocativeness of the victim (I personally believe this is true in the large majority of cases), in which case the quote can be seen as blaming the victim.

However, if the chance of a woman being raped does depend on her sexual attractiveness, then it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to see the quoted behaviour as being akin to dangling meat in front of the tiger, in which case of course the victim contributed in some amount, however small.

Also, don't forget that even if you think of this quote as blaming women for being vamps/minxes or whatever, in most of Heinlein's work it seems clear that it is the duty of men to defend, to the death if necessary, women's ability to behave in such a way if they want.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by wayrad

It's not just the heavy-handedness that's annoying, but the faulty reasoning behind it - if you get to invent the world, it's hardly remarkable that it works according to your rules, and trying to convince readers otherwise seems a bit silly.

Well right, heavy-handedness and an AGENDA - a bad combination.

Certainly a writer has to create an society and surroundings that support the story, but when it's pushing a particular idea in an attempt to convince the reader rather than support the story....that's when it's a particular PITA.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by dwanthny

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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

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."

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

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

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

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

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?

Originally Posted by radius

That said, I still think you are mis-reading. Even if we grant that this is what RAH personally believed, and not what his character believes (which I am not ready to grant), whether he is to be censured (emphasis Pie's) for saying that depends on what causes rape.

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

[radius]

Originally Posted by wayrad

That reminds me, does anybody else feel irked when an author invents a society to illustrate his/her theories about how things should work, then makes the characters constantly point to how well such a society works in the novel as "evidence"? It always makes me wish I could deduct points or something. (edited to add: L. Neil Smith is another good example of this.)

For me it depends.

I enjoyed reading _A Planet for Texans_.

On the other hand, there was a book I read a year or two ago with a similar premise (someone from earth ends up on a libertarian planet [where they eat spicy food] and learns private enterprise etc) which I could have sworn was from Baen and/or L. Neil Smith, that was a real stinker, but I can't find the title.

As long as the story is still entertaining, I'm willing to go along for the ride.

Edit: argh... I'm sure it was L. Neil Smith but I can't find anything in his bibliography that looks right. Can someone help me out?

[EatingPie]

In the following, dwanthny cut too much of my quote, so I put it back and bolded for proper context...

Originally Posted by dwanthny

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.

As I said, you cut too much. My assertion at this point was about holding RAH in reverence, and that influencing how we view this particular work/statement. Then testing that assertion by putting his words into someone whose mouth many people don't revere.

So in case you think cultural context is at play here, let my change my quote to more a contemporary of Heinlein.

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 Richard Nixon or Joseph McCarthy saying the exact same statement from the podium.

So I ask again, how's that quote sound now?

-Pie

PS I'm playing catch-up, so I will read other posts I might have missed or overlooked later (I see Radius made another reply I didn't read).

[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

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

As I said, you cut too much. My assertion at this point was about holding RAH in reverence, and that influencing how we view this particular work/statement. Then testing that assertion by putting his words into someone whose mouth many people don't revere.

So in case you think cultural context is at play here, let my change my quote to more a contemporary of Heinlein.

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 Richard Nixon or Joseph McCarthy saying the exact same statement from the podium.

So I ask again, how's that quote sound now?

-Pie

PS I'm playing catch-up, so I will read other posts I might have missed or overlooked later (I see Radius made another reply I didn't read).

<Shrug> The same. I long since learned to disassociate what was said from who said it. Something was not automatically wrong because person x said it, or right because person y said it.

Science fiction has been a literature of ideas, and stretching one's worldview. This has led to many controversial peices of fiction and quotes within it. Here's some other <nasty> books, as bad or worse than Heinlein. You might want to sample them for comparison...

Joanna Russ - The Female Man - The only good male is a dead male...

Norman Spinrad - The Iron Dream - An alternate history story about Adolf Hitler becoming a pulp S/F writer in the US...

H. Beam Piper - story - A Slave Is A Slave - About helping the underdog...

Mack Reynolds - Mercenary From Tomorrow - Note especially Joe Mauser's relationships with fans....

Aldous Huxley - Brave New Worlds - The joys(?) of conformity...

(Please note - I don't consider most of them badly written (even Russ wrote a well-structured book), but the all have or are hot button books. Just different buttons.)

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by radius

Hi Pie,
If some of your friends have been raped, I can completely understand where your sympathies lie, and your reaction to this quote.

Current statistics are that 1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted. I suspect the stats are that low because it's less common in rural areas; I don't personally don't know any women over the age of puberty who haven't been sexually assaulted, although I suspect about two-thirds have not been raped.

The amazing part isn't that so many men think "well, it was partially her fault"--it's that they then get *offended* when women treat them like Schrödinger's rapist--the guy who may or may not turn out to be a creepy molester at any moment.

I love Heinlein's works, but think that, in this case, he had a very flawed approach to the idea of women's self-empowerment. Yes, women should not rely on men to protect them from other men. No, that doesn't mean that going alone to a party was "asking for it." Flirting does not make rape "partially her fault," any more than flipping someone off on the freeway makes it "partially your fault" if someone shoots you for it.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I love Heinlein's works, but think that, in this case, he had a very flawed approach to the idea of women's self-empowerment. Yes, women should not rely on men to protect them from other men. No, that doesn't mean that going alone to a party was "asking for it." Flirting does not make rape "partially her fault," any more than flipping someone off on the freeway makes it "partially your fault" if someone shoots you for it.

If we can remove this idea from rape at the moment, I think this concept says something very interesting about our society.

Lets start with a simple fact, that the person committing a crime should never be held less culpable because of potential provocation. I.e., if I shoot and kill someone for any reason other than reasons specifically allowed for by law (generally the protection of self or others and perhaps protection of property), then I am guilty of murder regardless of what the person did to provoke me.

That being said, does that necessarily mean that the person who is the victim is automatically excused from all fault despite knowingly taking actions that could be considered risky or provocative? If I decide to take a walk in a bad part of town after dark, then to a certain extent, am I not at least partly responsible?

Lets look at it another way. If I drive irresponsibly and get into an accident, then it is my fault, period. Why should I also not bear some of the fault if I irresponsibly take actions that provide opportunities for criminals to harm me? Likewise, if I deliberately make obscene gestures or other wise provoke someone, why shouldn't also be considered at least partly my fault when they retaliate?

Again, I am not arguing against the perpetrator bearing the full legal burden of their crime. Rather I am pointing out that we need to take responsibility for ourselves -- taking responsible actions to minimize the opportunities for someone to make us victims and not taking actions that will provoke a criminal response.

To put it in simple terms, many murders that occur in the major US urban centers are essentially gang on gang violence. In these cases, where the victim and the perpetrator are both members of rival gangs, I think it is fair to say that the victim probably is at least partly at fault for their own death.


--
Bill