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

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Guys, please, can we just drop this.

We could but...

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

No, merely laughed at.

...I don't think enough feathers have been ruffled yet!

Originally Posted by junkml

Or start another thread for it?

Maybe DrDrib could give a recommendation here. I personally feel this is still fairly on topic, since we're talking about why not to read Heinlein (et al.), but I am biased.

-Pie

Oops. Obviously I didn't catch Don's last post on the previous page before making this and the following. Moderator, feel free to delete.

[EatingPie]

Lots of interesting respones. I am sort of addressing them "in general."

I am fine accepting the notion of "personal responsibility," though as Elfwreck argues, there are times when we take that too far. How responsible are we for someone committing a crime against our person? I am in agreement that in the case of "nine out of ten times" and the other examples he cites, it's beyond any reasonable definition of "personal responsibilty."

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.

In terms of the Heinlein's rape quote, I still argue that it is something Heinlein is selling as the truth, and not just something we should justify by saying it's really all about "personal responsibility." And I do so specifically with context in mind! In that regard, I would like to cite an external source.

This comes from a comparison between Stranger in a Strange Land and Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale.

Warning: PDF Link
<http://www.uscupstate.edu/uploadedFiles/academics/arts_sciences/Language_and_Literature/Livesay%20English%20436%202009.pdf>

Originally Posted by Lori C. Livesay, New Sexual Ethics, Same Old Gender Constructs

In Handmaid, the character Janine is forced to tell her story of being gang raped by a group of boys when she was fourteen, and even worse, is forced to say it was her own fault, she led them on, she deserved it. In Stranger, there is a scene where Jill tells Mike that "Nine times out of ten, if a girl gets raped, it's partly her fault" (Heinlein 287). Despite having contradictory attitudes towards sexuality, both societies view rape as a failure on the part of the victim, the woman.

Very relevant. In two cases, society places the victim at fault. This transcends mere "personal responsibility" to actual fault. And, as I have stated previously, similar to Elfwreck, in this case, I cannot resolve the notion of a woman's personal responsiibilty when the crime is perpetrated against her. Especially when Heinlein uses the term "fault" not "responsibility."

And even if the woman were dressed sexy, being a tease, kissing a guy seductively, when she says no, that's a line that should not be crossed. She mave have helped create sexual arousal. But it is the man's own personal responsibility to control his arousal and use it appropriately. The man is responsible for his response, not the woman.

On the the next paragraph in the essay...

Both novels indicate that the future clearly still objectifies women, as is evidenced by the immediate follow-up to this exchange in which Jill poses in "naughty" positions for Mike just because he expresses a casual interest in it. There are several sections of the book that extol the pleasures of women's naked or barely dressed bodies, and even the women get a chance to see themselves as men do, and they enjoy giving men this pleasure. We are led to believe they enjoy being seen as nothing but a body, a source of sexual stimulation.

In SiaSL, I never get the impression that this "objectifying" women is wrong. Women are hot, sexy babes that are to be enjoyed for that reason. Now, is it that reason alone? Maybe, maybe not. However, in this context we see women at least partly blamed for their own rapes. So where does the personal responsibility play a role here? I just don't see how it works. Women are hot, sexy objects, and that's great! And when a man wants them for that reason, and that reason alone, when it's against the woman's wishes, we still ascribe at least some blame to her... because she is a hot, sexy object.

Charleski says something similar, but in fewer words...

Originally Posted by charleski

It's the sort of adolescent wish-fulfilment I'd expect from a 14year-old boy with learning disabilities.

(Or Michael Bay. Oh wait, you just said that! )

In Handmaid's Tale we have a very similar societal notion of women bearing blame for rape. Indeed, women are raped constantly throughout the book and even actively blamed via religious zealotry and fervor. But at no time does Atwood ever suggest that this is okay. It's always clear that this is a horrible, evil act. The woman is blamed by the characters, but Atwood's belief is quite obviously the opposite.

In comparison, Heinlein never conveys that rape is a horrible, evil act. Indeed, 90% of the time, it's partly the woman's fault! Okay, it's horrible and evil that one time... but not all those others. And there is no sense that all those others are even that bad. Pile on top that, then, we have the woman saying these things pose seductively for Mike. She is nothing more than a sex object at this point... and if Mike were to take her against her will, how could we conclude that Mike was in the wrong? And throughout the book could we ever conclude that Mike would have been wrong? Or that rape is as Atwood would say, a terrible act perpetrated against women?

So, based on context, I make two conclusions. The first is that Atwood herself does not believe rape is a woman's fault, not even in any of the cases outlined in her own book. The second is that Heinlein does believe rape is a woman's fault -- not just her "personal responsibilty" but actual fault -- and because he conveys such an attitude as though it's wise, I will never recommend a book of his. Indeed, I would post his name at the top of a thread just like this one!

Ironically, I actually despised Handmaid's Tale because it was so heavy handed. Though this the only book of Atwood's I've ever read, I would also not recommend her on the "NEVER read" list.

-Pie

[radius]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Eternal thanks to bill_mchale, Xenophon (nice tux!) and Elfwreck (nice... er... hat!) for adding summations of Starship Troopers. You saved me from having to read that piece of crap again!!!

And thanks you you, EatingPie, because I decided to re-read Starship Troopers because of our discussion and I discovered that I have three copies of the book!

Also, what you are including here would be a part of what I'm calling "military theory." The emphasis in the book was on the military, how the military should be structured, and how society should be structured when considering the necessity of a military. It's "social theory" at the end of the day, but I am using the term "military theory" to key in on what I saw as Heinlein's emphasis. How the military should be structured, and how society should be built around that.

I tried hard to understand how you could see any "military theory" in the book, but it still eludes me. There is some explanation about how the regiment is structured, but that is meant to address why-we-fight, and not to advocate a particular composition for the *actual* American armed forces, which, you must remember, do not have powered armour to fight in.

Then there are some comments about how the government is run (which I remembered incorrectly, it is not all civil service which makes you eligible to vote, it is that the military have taken over all civil service) but I, and others, have addressed that many times in this thread already (and I don't think you read my previous post, to be honest )

Looking at Heinlein's work as a whole, I don't remember any other society which comes close to being run by the military or veterans. The only other story which I find similar in tone is Space Cadet (also a bildungsroman about a young man who joins the military), where a worldwide military organisation exists. However, in this book, Matt, the protagonist, joins the Space Patrol which is contrasted with the Marines. The Marines are very much like the cap troopers from Starship Troopers who believe there is no higher duty than to die for ones' country, but the Space Patrol are characterized as "professors". The Marines are looked at by the Space Patrol almost as regrettably necessary cannon fodder.

So the only two novels where the main characters join the military show a different viewpoint of military ideals, and no other novels push this kind of agenda. This doesn't sound to me like someone advocating for a change in government or military structure.

If I remember correctly, in my copy of Haldeman's Forever War, he tells a story about being nervous the first time he met RAH, because it could be seen as a sort of rebuttal to Starship Troopers, but Heinlein put him at ease instead. Where is the polemicism you detected?

You don't have to like the book, but I feel you misunderstood it (and maybe disagree with the central message) and it definitely doesn't warrant an "Avoid at all costs!" label for Heinlein based on that alone.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by radius

I tried hard to understand how you could see any "military theory" in the book, but it still eludes me. There is some explanation about how the regiment is structured, but that is meant to address why-we-fight, and not to advocate a particular composition for the *actual* American armed forces, which, you must remember, do not have powered armour to fight in.

I'm a bit mystified by that, too. You can infer some military theory behind the deployment and tactics used by the MI, with early engagements essentially commando raids to keep the enemy off balance while the Federation rebuilds after the disastrous first attempt at taking Bug homeworld Klendathu.

But it's not really about military theory. As you comment, the book is largely about "why we fight", and told from the perspective of a grunt who has little initial view of the big picture. It's a story of moral growth, and the answers Johhny Rico give to that question at different points chart his development.

Then there are some comments about how the government is run (which I remembered incorrectly, it is not all civil service which makes you eligible to vote, it is that the military have taken over all civil service) but I, and others, have addressed that many times in this thread already (and I don't think you read my previous post, to be honest )

You can argue it either way.

The government described in ST is the result of returning vets filling a power vacuum after a war destabilized their society. They more or less trusted each other, and the outcome was that you had to be a vet to get a say in how things were run. By the time Johnny Rico joins the MI, lots of non-military jobs qualify as terms of service leading to the franchise, and it's made clear that serving military personnel do not get the franchise. You must successfully survive, serve your term, and be honorably discharged before you may vote. (RAH's characters were well aware of the dangers in a pure military government.)

Looking at Heinlein's work as a whole, I don't remember any other society which comes close to being run by the military or veterans. The only other story which I find similar in tone is Space Cadet (also a bildungsroman about a young man who joins the military), where a worldwide military organisation exists. However, in this book, Matt, the protagonist, joins the Space Patrol which is contrasted with the Marines. The Marines are very much like the cap troopers from Starship Troopers who believe there is no higher duty than to die for ones' country, but the Space Patrol are characterized as "professors". The Marines are looked at by the Space Patrol almost as regrettably necessary cannon fodder.

So the only two novels where the main characters join the military show a different viewpoint of military ideals, and no other novels push this kind of agenda. This doesn't sound to me like someone advocating for a change in government or military structure.

One of the underlying themes in a lot of RAH's work was the relation between authority and responsibility, and that you could not have the first without the second without chaos as a likely result. One of the issues RAH highlights is just how you go about making the leaders responsible to the people and accountable for their actions. One answer is the one in ST - a say in how things are run is not a right you get by existing - it's a privilege you earn by doing something that will benefit your society (and may be personally dangerous to you.)

If I remember correctly, in my copy of Haldeman's Forever War, he tells a story about being nervous the first time he met RAH, because it could be seen as a sort of rebuttal to Starship Troopers, but Heinlein put him at ease instead. Where is the polemicism you detected?

I don't see it. _The Forever War_ can be read as an answer to ST, but not exactly as a rebuttal. Heinlein was an officer invalided out before being able to serve. Haldeman was a grunt on the line who did see combat. It gave a different perspective to his work. Other authors with Haldeman's sort of view are David Drake, who served with the Black Horse in Vietnam, and David Sherman, co-author with Dan Cragg of the Starfist series, who was a Marine in Vietnam. (Sherman tells stories about doing things like moving in and pacifying a village, then protecting the villagers from both the VC and their own landlords...)

You don't have to like the book, but I feel you misunderstood it (and maybe disagree with the central message) and it definitely doesn't warrant an "Avoid at all costs!" label for Heinlein based on that alone.

When you can take a comment made by a secondary character in another novel as representative of the author's thinking, all bets on your judgment are off.

Pie was incensed at Jill's comments on rape in SIASL, and assumed they represented Heinlein's beliefs. Determining the author's viewpoint character in a book is always fraught, but in SIASL, Jubal Harshaw is pretty much universally assumed to the the RAH viewpoint character. If Jubal said it, it's a decent bet it's what RAH believed. Any thing any other character said was another matter.

And it leads to a larger and thornier question. Most authors tell stories with good guys and bad guys, and the bad guy's thoughts, statements, and actions can be horrific. At what point do we let our distaste for them lead us to believe it's what the author thinks as well?

Statements I make damning the author for the thoughts, words, and actions of a character probably say a lot more about me than about the author, and what they say isn't very good.
______
Dennis

[boydcarts]

And to think no one has even brought up "Time Enough For Love" yet. It's the only RAH book I was ever able to finish, and I wish I hadn't.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by boydcarts

And to think no one has even brought up "Time Enough For Love" yet. It's the only RAH book I was ever able to finish, and I wish I hadn't.

Oh man, you cut me to the core. That is a WONDERFUL book!

[DoctorOhh]

Originally Posted by boydcarts

And to think no one has even brought up "Time Enough For Love" yet. It's the only RAH book I was ever able to finish, and I wish I hadn't.

I read it so long ago that I don't recall specifics, but I know I enjoyed it tremendously.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Oh man, you cut me to the core. That is a WONDERFUL book!

Me, too. I read this when it came out in - what? 1973? - and loved it.

I'd like to go back and re-read many of those classics I enjoyed as a late teenager and early-twenties "sort-of-person."


Don

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

Me, too. I read this when it came out in - what? 1973? - and loved it.

I'd like to go back and re-read many of those classics I enjoyed as a late teenager and early-twenties "sort-of-person."


Don

That is actually one of the few books I've re-read several times.

The Notebooks of Lazarus Long passages are worth it just by themselves.

[FA_Q2]

rant
Maybe this has been said before but… ANN RICE.
I cannot stand this pseudo porn disguised as a book. Granted the vampire books were much better than the witch books but even those used the phrase “throbbing ****” far too often to be considered real novels. I like it when it enriches the storyline but instead it replaces the storyline. What were those books about anyway?
/rant

[boydcarts]

I really liked TEFL too . . . until it got to the part dealing with Lazarus' last sexual encounter. I won't mention the specifics so as to not "ruin" the ending. (I think RAH did a good enough job of that himself). I like to think I'm pretty open minded, but that pairing is pretty cringe inducing.

[radius]

Originally Posted by FA_Q2

rant
Maybe this has been said before but… ANN RICE.
I cannot stand this pseudo porn disguised as a book. Granted the vampire books were much better than the witch books but even those used the phrase “throbbing ****” far too often to be considered real novels. I like it when it enriches the storyline but instead it replaces the storyline. What were those books about anyway?
/rant

Hmmm... I'm no Rice fanatic (I liked the first two vampire books and first witches book) but I think that in this case the sexual content is at least partly defensible.

I think that the "stimulation" that Lasher provides helps to explain why the women in this family are willing to accept the costs of their strange, almost symbiotic relationship. And this is contrasted with the more grounded, normal sexual relationship with the male protagonist (Michael? been a while since I read the book).

I don't know what women's romance fiction used to be like before Rice, but reading through some of the freebies offered by Sony and Harlequin, gothic or paranormal romance novels seem to be *actual* pornography nowadays.

[radius]

Originally Posted by boydcarts

I really liked TEFL too . . . until it got to the part dealing with Lazarus' last sexual encounter. I won't mention the specifics so as to not "ruin" the ending. (I think RAH did a good enough job of that himself). I like to think I'm pretty open minded, but that pairing is pretty cringe inducing.

I tried very hard to make some kind of joke about women in Heinlein novels and Boris Vallejo covers, but I couldn't find a way to make it funny and inoffensive at the same time. Damn.

The medical exam in that book didn't disturb you? Or how about the short story All You Zombies?

[boydcarts]

I have to admit it's been several years since I read TEFL, but since I don't remember the surgery scene, it must not have bothered me. I never read "All You Zombies", but after a summary from the web, I think there's a difference. Lazarus actively pursues and is fully aware of who he is doing, and the guy in AYZ was apparently "tricked" into his actions.

[radius]

Originally Posted by boydcarts

I have to admit it's been several years since I read TEFL, but since I don't remember the surgery scene, it must not have bothered me. I never read "All You Zombies", but after a summary from the web, I think there's a difference. Lazarus actively pursues and is fully aware of who he is doing, and the guy in AYZ was apparently "tricked" into his actions.

D'oh! I was probably thinking of "To Sail Beyond the Sunset" when I wrote that; specifically when Maureen has her father perform her first pelvic exam.