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

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Your recollection is faulty. He doesn't "get" women at all until some time after his return. ("Get" used in the sense of "understand".) He's been raised by a species that has nothing in common with humanity, including sex. He eventually learns enough about humanity to engage in sex and romance with fair success, but they are never the point of his exercise.

It's too bad that Heinlein felt it necessary that the main character should learn that one particular thing about human sexuality.

That's where a lot of folks got introduced to him. 12 is widely considered the "golden age" at which to be introduced to SF. It happened for me somewhat earlier, but that was happenstance.

Which makes that one particular thing even more horrible, as it is there potentially influencing young and impressionable minds.

Yeah, it's my opinion that some of Heinlein's writing is unconscionable, but I have distinct reasons for that opinion.

-Pie

[DiapDealer]

Which makes that one particular thing even more horrible, as it is there potentially influencing young and impressionable minds.

Oh you didn't.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

I would hope people would be more polite than that.

But this is the Internet...

Not just the Internet.

Any subject matter domain has a canon of basic information anyone who professes expertise in that area is expected to know. If you profess expertise, and you don't know significant parts of the basic canon, "pointed to and laughed at" may be the polite form of the response.

More likely, you'll simply be ignored as not worth talking to.

Yeah I find his viewpoints off putting. That was why I would say put certain of his books in the NEVER read category. I mean, isn't that the point of this thread? Everyone is expressing their opinions about certain authors and books, but that does not mean we all have the gospel on what is good or bad.

And I think I mis-spoke. I don't simply find some of his viewpoints off-putting, I find them completely unconscionable. But we already discussed that earlier in this thread.

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?

Totally agree! More people should realize it's an annoying word from an annoying book with annoying ideologies.

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.
______
Dennis

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

....

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.
______
Dennis

and a often a big part of any SF not just RAH.

[EatingPie]

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.

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

[kennyc]

I really don't think you should read any more fiction.

[snipenekkid]

this conversations is STILL HAPPENING? good gawd!!

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by PhishStyx

I edited it because I realized that I should've posted it in the fantasy thread.

Nonetheless,

DAN BROWN!!!!

Yeah... not sci-fi, but ugh... I'd never read any of his work, but was recently in the library and saw an audiobook of The DaVinci Code. Remembering that it had been popular and somehow I'd missed the whole phenomena I figured that I'd listen to it to see what the hubbub had been about. It's driving me crazy. I'm finishing it because I have always hated giving up on a book, but the 'suspenseful' parts are so obvious that I just want to yell at the radio...

For example:

Spoiler:

Yes, he DID give you the account number... seriously? Was it that hard to figure out? Yeah, I guess I would have been scary to put it in knowing that you only got one chance, but did it really take that long to figure out that the numbers on the floor had something to do with the missing account number?

Is it REALLY that hard to read mirrored text? Seriously? Two professors could look at mirrored English text and not realize what they were looking at? I can read mirrored text at almost full speed, and I don't think that it's anything all that special.

Oh well... 3 CDs left... I guess I'll finish it... at least the voice actor is good. :-)

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

It's too bad that Heinlein felt it necessary that the main character should learn that one particular thing about human sexuality.

Which makes that one particular thing even more horrible, as it is there potentially influencing young and impressionable minds.

Nothing horrible about it, and it's one of the things I was talking about when I spoke of context earlier.

Note that statement is made by a female character. RAH didn't make it up out of his own head. It's exceedingly likely he got that notion from his wife Virginia, who was by all accounts a very impressive lady.

And as much as it may put you off, you can make a case for it.

Mating behavior is an intimately choreographed dance, with a set of steps that must be taken to reach a conclusion. What if one party has a different idea of the steps than the other, or they are dancing to different tunes?

Think back on your own romantic encounters. You find a woman attractive. Your question is whether she reciprocates, and might be willing to mate with you. How do you know whether she does and is?

It's not usually something explicitly stated verbally, where the guy says "You're hot! Wanna do it?" and the girl says "Sure" (or vice versa.) She communicates interest and availability in non-verbal ways, by dress, body language, and actions. It's your responsibility to correctly interpret the signals you are given and behave accordingly. It's her responsibility to be aware of the context she is in and what signals she is sending.

I once had an interesting conversation with a former lover. For various reasons I could guess at but could not change, she was often quite unaware of what she was signaling. She lived in her head, not her body, and had never learned certain basics of behavior. I watched her interact with a guy at a social event, and had to tell her afterward "If you do X, he will assume you are available. If you do Y, he will assume you are not merely available, but actively interested in him. If that is not the case, you should not do X and Y." She was quite unconscious of what she was communicating, with results that could have been tragic.

And they were tragic some time later after we'd broken up, when a guy visiting her got the wrong impression of how she felt, and didn't realize till too far into things the impression was wrong. I knew her very well, and if the guy was who I think it was, I knew him very well too, and could have predicted the outcome. From his perspective, she would have been broadcasting "Yes, I want it", and he wouldn't have had the perspective I did that would tell him his perceptions were incorrect. (He was a fundamentally nice and decent chap, and would not have knowingly forced himself on any one. He thought she was playing a game where she pretended reluctance but really wanted to be taken. It's a fairly common game, and fun as long as both parties are in fact playing it.)

I gets worse when cultural barriers are involved. Different cultures may have the steps in the action chain that constitutes mating behavior in different orders.

As an example, take a case during WWII. It was the build-up to the D-Day invasion. Hundreds of thousands of US G.I.s were bivouacked in Britain, waiting for the Joint chiefs to set the date on which they would climb into the landing craft for the Normandy invasion.

Allied high command got a stream of complaints for a British village about behavior of GIs at a nearby base. The village girls called the GIs "pushy" and "sex crazed". The GIs called the girls "prudes" or "whores". Investigation revealed what was going on.

A GI from the nearby base would take a village girl on a date. Things would go well, and they would like each other. The GI would take the girl home and try to kiss her goodnight.

In Britain, at the time, the kiss was a specifically erotic act, that did not occur until much later in the relationship. What the GI was attempting to communicate was "That was fun. I like you. Let's do it again!" What the girl got from it was that she had to either scream and run or get ready to have sex.

The steps in the action chain of mating behavior were in different orders between the two cultures, with dramatic results. And this was between two cultures that shared a common language and a common history till about 150 years before. Imagine what happens between men and women from really different cultures?

It's not always the case, and rape is a real and pervasive problem. But in many instances, it's valid. As one local put it in a different context "If you ain't sellin', you shouldn't advertise!", referring to girls who dressed as sexily as possible, then took offense when a guy noticed and propositioned them. Gee. If you don't want that kind of attention, perhaps you should choose a different mode of dress?

I understand the outraged reaction of your female friend, but I'm afraid RAH had a point.

Yeah, it's my opinion that some of Heinlein's writing is unconscionable, but I have distinct reasons for that opinion.

So you do. Whether they're valid is another matter.
______
Dennis

[BenG]

Right or wrong, it was a very common attitude in Heinlein's generation and it persists today. We may disagree, but it doesn't put him beyond the pale of society in his time.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by BenG

Right or wrong, it was a very common attitude in Heinlein's generation and it persists today. We may disagree, but it doesn't put him beyond the pale of society in his time.

If by "it" you mean the idea that rape is at least partially a woman's fault (I'm refreshing my memory on a very old thread), keep in mind that Heinlein also wrote about a culture where women were very much outnumbered by the men (I think it may have been the Moon is a Harsh Mistress), and if a woman so much as accused a man of looking at her crosseyed, he'd be shoved out the nearest airlock by a lynch mob.

I wouldn't take an isolated statement by a character in SiaSL as characterizing Heinlein's beliefs about rape, especially when it's contradicted by statements in his other work.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I really don't think you shouldn't read any more fiction.

Gee and I was under the impression reading was about being open minded and willing to engage in the thoughtful discourse with the author and other readers.

So you do. Whether they're valid is another matter.

Indeed, your long discourse is valid opinion, but mine is not. I get that... com. plete. ly. Way to engage in discourse!

I am happy to discuss Heinlein's work, as proof by this thread I obviously have the dissenting opinion. But, really, this whole "opinion" thing is silly. It's merely an attempt to elevate your opinion above someone elses, and it's the poorest form of debate. Let your argument stand on its merits, don't attack the idea that we are expressing opinion.

-Pie

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Gee and I was under the impression reading was about being open minded and willing to engage in the thoughtful discourse with the author and other readers.

...

.

Exactly my point.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

.It's merely an attempt to elevate your opinion above someone elses, and it's the poorest form of debate. Let your argument stand on its merits, don't attack the idea that we are expressing opinion.

-Pie

No it's not. It's to point out that your opinion does not mesh with the opinion of most everyone else. You are an outlier. You're welcome to have your opinion, but you must also realize that it is not in alignment with the majority or people.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

It's not always the case, and rape is a real and pervasive problem. But in many instances, it's valid. As one local put it in a different context "If you ain't sellin', you shouldn't advertise!", referring to girls who dressed as sexily as possible, then took offense when a guy noticed and propositioned them. Gee. If you don't want that kind of attention, perhaps you should choose a different mode of dress?

I understand the outraged reaction of your female friend, but I'm afraid RAH had a point.


So you do. Whether they're valid is another matter.
______
Dennis

Wow! I have to inject myself into this once more. If you are suggestion that when a woman dresses in a sexy manner that it is a valid point of view that she is inviting rape, that her attire should play as a defense for a man who rapes her sorry but no way. Wrong today, wrong in Heinlein's time, just wrong.

I guess I return to my original assessment in large of Heinlein that he had real problems with his views on women and sexual roles in society.