Robert Heinlein, a popular, controversial science fiction author, or so the covers of his books tell me. I’ve read two of his titles, not a vast amount of experience with the author i'll grant. But the problem for me is the sanctimonious tone, and how awfully preachy these two books were. What makes that worse is that they are preachy on completely far flung opposite spectrums. I'm referring to "Starship Troopers", and "Stranger in a Strange Land" The first one is a portrait of the virtues of a fascist society that believes in corporal punishment, and in which only military veterans are true citizens. (it is not, as the movie would lead you to believe, about people killing bugs in space, although they do that too) The second is about a human being who grew up in a strange alien culture who has been returned to earth, this device is used to show off the short fallings of our own cultures, and tends to embody the idea that anything is better than what we are doing! It also contains some psychology, and philosophy that L. Ron Hubbard stole to make his "Dianetics". These books are totally on opposite sides of the spectrum, does either one accurately reflect the personal beliefs of Heinlein himself, or was that his thing; Writing, with a completely strait face, about other possible ideologies that he himself would not state he believed in or didn't? Also, reading "Stranger in a Strange Land", I think I have identified the character, Jubal Harshaw, as sort of a self insertion kind of character. Is this accurate? If so, does that mean Heinlein was a misogynist (evident that the character is thorough the book) who was into scat (Inferred from one obscure line in the book which may be ambiguous)?
I personally have read a great deal of Heinlein, and when I was younger thought he had an oedipal complex. Now, I don think he had, but its a close run thing. Hubbard also stole from every phsychoanalytical technique he could, as well as General Semantics. Now, a lot of people have said that Heinlein didnt actually htink of things like in starship troopers and other books, but in fact, i think he does. If you read more of his later ones, the end tone you come away with is that there are superior people, who can do anyting they like, within their personal moral code, and by implication, the author is one of them. So this annoys me greatly, so I dont read much of his any more. If you look deeper into "stranger" its nearly like Starship troopers anyhow. Heinlein cant quite bring himself to do the "other way" striaght, and messes about with angels and things, which make it simply confusing and annoying. Look at the similarities between the sergeants and officers and stuff in troopers, with many of the people and ideals in stranger. I think they are more akin in outlook, even though they seem to extol different virtues. Anyway, the odd thing is, that almost 20 years since he died, although he is sometimes acknowledged, not a lot more is said of him. for all the plaudits and worship he recieved 30, 40 years ago, in retrospect, he peaked in the 40's through 60's, and declined thereafter. (if its actual science fiction your after.) Maybe Heinlein was peculiarly american, or something, but somehow he seemed to be at the forefront of everything, despite not actually being so. Alright, partly he was writing for a definite audience, the USA of that period, so that restricted his style and subject matter. But even when he had all the reputation and money he could want, he didnt seem to do anything amazing with it. Ok, so I'm probably being a little harsh here. Ahh well. Its too late and I need to go to bed. I leave you with this: http://www.enter.net/~torve/contents.htm Alexei Panshins website, wherein you can read his book on Heinlein and various thoughts, which have massively influence me in my understanding of heinlein. I urge you all to read it.
I have to say although I'm experiencing a turn off to Heinlien that may be like how you described feeling about him, I am intreuged about what he was *really* like. In both Troopers and Stranger I have marvled at how unquestioningly he seems to convince you that he as the author is trying to enlighten you, but then there are odd twinges of incencerity, and I'm truly curious about what that says about him personaly. I mean, maybe he was just a story teller and though he needed a good angle for each story, but it seems a little far out. Anyway, as far as that link in your last post, can ya tell me what I need to click on to get to the thoughts on Heinlien, cause waiding through the other stuff is a bit of a chore.
I was thinking, L.Ron Hubbard is a good topic of discussion himself, though I know even less about him. I read all of battlefield earth (which he must have been getting payed by the page for, ugh) and about a third of dianetics before saying to hell with this guy. Scifi was weird back then though. I remember in a film history class trying to explane to the others why 2001 ends like that. Im only 20 years old so it went something like "Man, thats just how oldschool scifi writers did it."
If this is what you got out of Starship Troopers, then you didn't read it very carefully. First off, military service was not required for the right to vote, only some term of public service.(For instance, a Medical student could work in a public hospital for his service) I also would be hard put to define the society as "fascist"(One which puts the needs of the state before the needs of the people). The book is meant to be a homage to the common foot soldier.
I've read a couple of nonfiction essays by Heinlein that have made me think that the purpose of Starship Troopers was to convince people that we needed to strike first against russia. The essays i read give the impression that Heinlein was very scared of the russians and was conviced we need to nuke the shit out of them just to survive. In the book the bugs were baisicly super-commies trying to exterminate the democratic humans. Most of the book is a justification for war. This has made me realize that heinlein was a very scary guy. Im pretty sure it was military service that was required. The idea was that only a person who was willing to risk their own life to protect their country was qualified to vote. I dont know if he actualy believed this but i do think he was fed up with the fact that we dont have anyway of deciding wheather a voter is qualified to make the right choice. He believed that voting is not a right it's a responsibility and that military service is perhaps one way of shoing that a person has taken the responsibility to act in their county's best interest. Im really not sure what he was getting at in Stranger in a Strange Land. He preaches about so many things but doesn't really take a strong stand on anything. Perhaps he was just trying to get people to think about some of the issues adressed in the book without heavily influencing them. But I dont know. I read most of Heinlein's books about five years ago and thought he was a geinus (probaly because i was 15 and he was the first serious author i read). Recently i reread a couple of his books and now i think he was a dirty old man with delusions of grandure.
http://www.enter.net/~torve/critics/lounge.htm Thats it, his title page for the heinlein stuff. Ultimately, the ideal of the society in starship troopers was fascist. The state, as voted for by people whove been through the same process and brainwashing, knows best beyond the simple stuff of letting everyone live in a free market capitalist state. All it takes to overtrurn the ideal put forwards is to think of the actual brainwashing that takes place when you join the military, considerations of how people aught to have a voice in decisions that affect them, and the massive scope for idiocy in the army. Whatever its local effects, and the heroics of the common foot soldiers, the army is simply a problem solving machine (the problem is: these guys over there want to kill us.) which makes mistakes like everyone else. I agree with Neutrino al;batross, Heinlein is great when your young and stupid. When you grow up you start on odder stuff. Anyone read any Brian ALdiss? L Ron Hubbard, well, one of my friends read the battlefield earth stuff, purely for the sheer cheesiness. Spy moose: "Scifi was weird back then though." It still can be, once you get past the studied and expected weirdness of space opera and all the other hackneeyd crap out there just now. But thats another of my rants. And yes, it was weird back then, as they explored and pushed the boundaries apart as much as possible. Once, Heinlein was in the forefront of that, but that was early in his career.
Nope, only military veterans could vote. This is outlined in the political heart of the book, the scene very early on where the hero is being asked about the difference between a citizan and a civilian. This was such a critical point of the theme that it even made it inot the movie which tossed pretty much everything else out. I do believe that the bugs were indeed refered to as ultmate communists, but I seem to remember that the passage that refered to them as such seemed to convey a certain amount of respect at thier ability to achieve such. So I cant be totaly convinced that the bugs were Russia and the humans were the US. The humans were fascists, and the only negative side to the bugs was that they didnt like us. Do the skinnys fit into that allegory? I dont believe he was writing a tribute to the common soldier either, he insults the common soldier several times in the book, emphisizing how these starship troopers are the real cream of the crop, and other people who would have qualified for military service in the past are sent to unimportant jobs where they will never see combat, not to mention that he mocks military orginization and how many support personel it takes for ever fighting man, stating that if you are a starship trooper everybody fights. Furhtermore the way he treats the idea of soldiers in Stranger in a Strange land is out right hostile. He calls them goons and thugs and other such.
Ya, i could be reading to much into it and there's a good chance im wrong. But the bugs are communist and alot of the book seems to be definding of the concept of war so it is a definite possibility. Don't know about the skinnys unless they represent the minor neutral powers that US and russia tried tried to control. Why do you think that the society was fascist? As far as i could tell everyone had a lot of personal freedom, there were elections, and if i remember right they had a congress not a single dictator. To me it was more of a limited democracy than fascism. Well i think thats a bit of an overstatement. He was a good writer and i still like some of his earlier less pretentious stuff (Door into Summer, Puppet Master, etc.) I even think Starship Troopers is a good book that presents an interesting (if perhaps misguided) worldview. Stranger in a Strange Land on the other had is just too damn preachy.
Guthrie, thanks for the link. Ive covered all the stuff that comes before the actual book (and boy there was a lot of it) but I think it really helps put Heinlen in perspective for me. Heck, I think I know folks like that.
