What on EARTH are Baen playing at?

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Except, among other things, one of the themes of the book informed, not unquestioning, patriotism. That's the point of the History & Moral Philosophy class that forms an important part of the story: understanding the foundations of the society and its beliefs -- that is, being a citizen, not just a blind follower.

Yes, I too was impressed by the foundations of that fictitious society:

The Major added, “Can anyone define why there has never been revolution against our system? Despite the fact that every government in history has had such? Despite the notorious fact that complaints are loud and unceasing?”

One of the older cadets took a crack at it. “Sir, revolution is impossible.”

“Yes. But why?”

“Because revolution -- armed uprising -- requires not only dissatisfaction but aggressiveness. A revolutionist has to be willing to fight and die -- or he’s just a parlor pink. If you separate out the aggressive ones and make them the sheep dogs, the sheep will never give you trouble.”

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

In any case, I believe you're right about the right-leaning aspects of science fiction. It's one of the reasons I stopped reading the genre early on. It's altogether baffling that fiction about what might be possible leans toward ideologies that are most resistent to change.

Ha. Read some scifi by the Scottish Authors. Banks, Gibson, MacLeod, Stross...
Not to mention Richard Morgan, too, northern UK but not Scottish.

Left. Massively, massively left. Start MacLeod with The Cassini Division, by the way, not The Star Fraction. (Which was published first, but...it's better this way, trust me)


And the best thing about Starship Troopers the movie? The armour has been used in a lot of much better TV series and films, like Firefly

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Ha. Read some scifi by the Scottish Authors. Banks, Gibson, MacLeod, Stross...
Not to mention Richard Morgan, too, northern UK but not Scottish.

Left. Massively, massively left. Start MacLeod with The Cassini Division, by the way, not The Star Fraction. (Which was published first, but...it's better this way, trust me)

That's sort of what I was thinking. By "science fiction authors" they seem to mean mostly "military science fiction authors." Every author you mentioned in the first sentence is amongst my favorites-- and (by design) almost all SF I read is "massively, massively left."

[SameOldStory]

2 cents worth of fuzzy thinking.

Science Fiction seems to look to the past, and project that forward. Hence a need to use "fighters" to protect the future. The protagonists are usually older and had some capasity for combat (even if they don't recognize it at first).

Fantasy seems to focus on what could/should be, and the antagonists are almost always militaristic. The protagonists are usually young and independent in nature.

Yes, we all could come up with a lot of stories counter to that. But overall that's how it seems to me.

[dorino]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

That's sort of what I was thinking. By "science fiction authors" they seem to mean mostly "military science fiction authors." Every author you mentioned in the first sentence is amongst my favorites-- and (by design) almost all SF I read is "massively, massively left."

Kurt Vonnegut
Philip K. Dick
Issac Asimov
Edward Bellamy
George Orwell (Anti-Stalinism, pro socialism!)
Gene Roddenberry

the list goes on...

Sci-fi deals a lot with utopias, and politics will inevitably play a part. Bellamy, for instance, envisioned a utopia 100-odd years in the future (10 years ago now) where socialism had made the world a paradise.

Of course, there's just as many conservative utopias to be found as liberal ones.

Generally, though, it seems to be libertarians and liberals authoring sci-fi. Conservatives seem to be a minority.


“It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea.” --Robert Anton Wilson

Politics change, and sci-fi authors seem to, as well.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

That's sort of what I was thinking. By "science fiction authors" they seem to mean mostly "military science fiction authors." Every author you mentioned in the first sentence is amongst my favorites-- and (by design) almost all SF I read is "massively, massively left."

I'll happily read either, unless the politics gets too blatent (or, in a few cases like Stross, they are personally complete [word edited out - Moderator] towards me. What Stross did, in particular, I am never going to forgive).

I refuse to read Kratman, and I've not been able to stomach the last few Macleod's either.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

I'll happily read either, unless the politics gets too blatent (or, in a few cases like Stross, they are personally complete [word edited out - Moderator] towards me. What Stross did, in particular, I am never going to forgive).

Larry Niven.

[DawnFalcon]

Yea, it happens.

End of the day, I am darn serious about wanting to stop big media cold, *as a creator*. This...get up some of the left's noses. The right don't *fight* me on it, they just disagree.

(I have theories why, but I'm not going there)

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Ha. Read some scifi by the Scottish Authors. Banks, Gibson, MacLeod, Stross...
Not to mention Richard Morgan, too, northern UK but not Scottish.

Left. Massively, massively left. Start MacLeod with The Cassini Division, by the way, not The Star Fraction. (Which was published first, but...it's better this way, trust me)


And the best thing about Starship Troopers the movie? The armour has been used in a lot of much better TV series and films, like Firefly

I said I gave up science-fiction early on. I gave it up when my politics were still forming and I discovered much more interesting books that did not rely on space-gimmicry or revel in machine fetishism and glorifying war (again an impression, not the Gospel truth). The tropes of the genre (as most genres) stopped interesting me after puberty, the settings hold no interest and for the most part I find the writing to be pedestrian at best (I haven't read everything, so no, I can't say for everything. But what I have read I can quite honestly say the writing has been average).

Since then I've read Banks (met him too, he's an arse, which didn't help), Gibson (dense, pseudo-intellectual pulp), Stross (couldn't finish even half of a chapter) and the latest golden boy, Neal Stephenson (boring beyond any of his subject matter). I still like some of the more socially aware writers of the 60's such as Harry Harrison, Philip K. Dick, and I really love those writers who hover around the edges of Sci-Fi like J.G. Ballard, William S. Burroughs, Ray Bradbury and Kurt Vonnegut. but beyond that it holds no interest to me as a reader, and especially not as a writer. Left or right wing, it all feels juvenile and outdated, especially the Baen stable of works, but I pretty much have the same reaction to all outright genre these days. Familiarity really does breed...well in my case, disinterest.

The Verhoeven approach is well documented both in written and filmed interviews. Here's the one where Verhoeven says:

"Robert Heinlein's book is on the edge of militarism and fascism. I believe that all things that happened in Starship Troopers.... is me and Numeier opposing Heinlien and his vision."

For the record, I don't like Starship Troopers, not even when it is watched with Verhoeven's intentions fully in mind.

The Starship Troopers stuff starts at 4:20 (but the whole interview is worth watching)

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by dorino

Kurt Vonnegut
Philip K. Dick
Issac Asimov
Edward Bellamy
George Orwell (Anti-Stalinism, pro socialism!)
Gene Roddenberry

the list goes on...

Sci-fi deals a lot with utopias, and politics will inevitably play a part. Bellamy, for instance, envisioned a utopia 100-odd years in the future (10 years ago now) where socialism had made the world a paradise.

Of course, there's just as many conservative utopias to be found as liberal ones.

Generally, though, it seems to be libertarians and liberals authoring sci-fi. Conservatives seem to be a minority.


“It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea.” --Robert Anton Wilson

Politics change, and sci-fi authors seem to, as well.

I'd like to claify that Orwell was not pro socialist, nor was he a science fiction writer, he was more in line with the anarcho syndacilists and he saw in socialism (at least organised socialism at the time) the same dangers as he saw in communism, stalinism etc. His only work that edges near to science fiction is 1984, but it so transcends all the restrictions of genre, I don't believe it deserves that name. Just as Animal Farm is not a 'children's book', 1984 is not 'science-fiction'. Orwell was a great writer and there endeth that story, you can't lump him in with people like Asimov and Dick, that's an insult to his capability. It's like putting James Joyce in a list with Maeve Binchy. *shudder*

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Yeah, they're Tea Partiers. But they're DRM-free Tea Partiers.


Except, among other things, one of the themes of the book informed, not unquestioning, patriotism. That's the point of the History & Moral Philosophy class that forms an important part of the story: understanding the foundations of the society and its beliefs -- that is, being a citizen, not just a blind follower. Which is something people on all sides of the political spectrum need to start doing before we dig ourselves in any deeper than we already are. And that goes for every citizen of every country.

For that matter, deference to power is no more fascist than it is communist, or a lot of other -ists. It's not just human nature, it's nature, period. We just rationalize it more, instead of the rest of the animal kingdom's uncomplicated understanding of "if the big guy doesn't like what I'm doing, he's gonna bite me," but it's the same thing. We're primates that rationalize excuses for our instinctive behavior.


Very, very, very roundabout. So roundabout it missed the point entirely and went whirling off into cloud-cuckoospace.

And the humans are "the wrong side"? Might I point out who started the war? Even with Verhoeven's best efforts to turn the humans into the bad guys -- making Sergeant Zim a gratuitous sadist, for instance, and the whole business with the SS uniforms -- they're still the people trying to fend off an invasion by an enemy intent on eradicating the entire human race.

But in any event, it wasn't Starship Troopers. All political content aside, the Starship Troopers M.I. are one-man doomsday machines in powersuits ... not cannon fodder in T-shirts who apparently have no long-range weapons, no grenades, no air support, no artillery, and no tactics aside from suicidal human wave attacks. The Bugs were a technologically-advanced species with starships, not intergalactic FTL farts! You might agree or disagree with the themes of the book, but at least it wasn't mind-numbingly stupid. Verhoeven lost any chance he had to convince me that the book wasn't what I thought it was when he decided he could disregard anything from the book -- or from science -- that didn't fit his worldview and replace it with something that did.

Seriously, intergalactic bug farts?

Your assessment may in all likelihood be true, but as I'll never read the book, I'll probably never know. I was just passing on an interesting titbit about Verhoeven's approach that I saw in an interview and confirming with the poster above me the right-leaning aspects that I see in science-fiction (this political bent is also found in most mainstream and genre fiction). I don't like Starship Troopers, it was a terribly acted, horribly violent, pointlessly gory excercise in bland. Whatever Verhoeven's intentions they didn't reach me. Although I fully appreciate that he can do whatever he wants with the material at hand as is his want as a creative artist. And I do believe that he believed in his vision. I saw that vision in his early Dutch-language films and in his only successful (to me) American film; Robocop.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Your assessment may in all likelihood be true, but as I'll never read the book, I'll probably never know.

Mm-hum. Starship Troopers is something everyone should read. Like Ender's Game (although not it's sequels), it's far less important that it is sci-fi than it is an important story.

"I'd like to claify that Orwell was not pro socialist"

Neither are MacLeod's Star Fraction books. They discuss various forms of anarchy, communism and collective societies. And... your blunt dismissal of a lot of authors is saying a lot to me about your taste in reading.

This isn't a slam - I personally don't have any problems reading pulp scifi and I have much the same reaction as you...but to Fantasy books (and indeed, most comics*). I find scifi, even pulp scifi, tends to far less addicted to generic and predictable story structures than even low fantasy, let alone high fantasy. What I think about Tolkien is unprintable (well it's not, it's just rude, but yea hype )

*I like The Authority. This probably says a lot about me. I don't care

Scifi's "what if's" endlessly fascinate me.

*Goes back to reading Hospital Station*

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Mm-hum. Starship Troopers is something everyone should read. Like Ender's Game (although not it's sequels), it's far less important that it is sci-fi than it is an important story.

"I'd like to claify that Orwell was not pro socialist"

Neither are MacLeod's Star Fraction books. They discuss various forms of anarchy, communism and collective societies. And... your blunt dismissal of a lot of authors is saying a lot to me about your taste in reading.

This isn't a slam - I personally don't have any problems reading pulp scifi and I have much the same reaction as you...but to Fantasy books (and indeed, most comics*). I find scifi, even pulp scifi, tends to far less addicted to generic and predictable story structures than even low fantasy, let alone high fantasy. What I think about Tolkien is unprintable (well it's not, it's just rude, but yea hype )

*I like The Authority. This probably says a lot about me. I don't care

Scifi's "what if's" endlessly fascinate me.

*Goes back to reading Hospital Station*

I wouldn't read anything by that gay-hating Mormon nutjob Card. He will never get a penny of my money, nor a moment of my time, no matter how ground breaking or whatever his book may be (plus the story sounds about as enticing as a cold shower on an even colder day).

I've tried to read Heinlein, a long time ago (when I still thought Iron Maiden rocked) but I could never get into it at all. Fantasy is just... I don't have any words for how ridiculous that whole genre is to me. My blunt dismissal (as you call it) is the end result of what I've read, what I like, what I've studied academically and what I deem relevant to myself. I loved genre (mystery mainly) up until quite recently, when I realised that I was re-reading the same stories over and over again, they just had different names on them. Now I search for individual voices that don't fit into genre fiction.

I'm not young enough to find genre exciting any more, most of it (whether accurate or not), looks childish to my eyes. I mean I'm not going to waste time reading Asimov and Card when I could be reading Camus and Mitchell.

[DawnFalcon]

Ooookay. I am backing away from you slowly.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Ooookay. I am backing away from you slowly.

Huh? Wha...?