RE: Robert A. Heinlein (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress



Message


CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Robert A. Heinlein (5/1/2009 6:33:06 PM)

quote:

One of his books had a millionaire who had his consciousness put into a woman's body. i read it a very long time ago and can't remember which one it was. Anyone know?


I believe that the book title you're looking for is I Will Fear No Evil, and the Character is Joann (or Johann Sebastian Bach Smith).




CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Robert A. Heinlein (5/1/2009 6:40:52 PM)

quote:

Though in fairness to Heinlein, this is more about people reading a coherent philosophy into his writing rather than him trying to push a watertight philosophy.


The thing is, Heinlein didn't espouse a given philosophy, and, in fact, he had some real issues with people who took his writing and lifted from it verbatim to form their own political, religious, or social-change groups (in particular, I remember his ire over the Church of All Worlds pagan organization). What he -loved- was debate. He got a right royal kick out of people talking about the controversial aspects of his books.

I think the thing I love the most about Heinlein are the HOURS.. ok, maybe -WEEKS- of cumulative conversation that came up over his fiction. (Close seconds in that category: Ayn Rand and Robert H. Rimmer). Their works -still- come up in just about every episode of Happy Tangent Land in our house.




angelikaJ -> RE: Robert A. Heinlein (5/1/2009 8:04:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ
Here's the thing though, in context, what he meant was vastly different.
In addition to handling any profession that a man was capable of, Heinlein revered women because [we] also give birth and nurse babies and run the home.


That's exactly what Peon just said, angelikaJ.  He just didn't try to romanticize it into some kind of "special privilege" to serve as broodstock, be powerless to participate in the economy or in politics, and serve as a slave in the household as an additional benefit.

Bob and other men like him can keep their "special privileges" for women who enjoy submitting to them.  Me, I'll take equal rights, equal pay and equal opportunity, thanks--along with the equal responsibilities that go with them.  Nor am I going to take it solely upon my shoulders to raise the children and clean up everyone's mess.

I'll take equality, and without a side order of shit sandwiches, thanks.  By force, if necessary.


Respectfully:
Actually, that is not what he said.
What he said was "..."Yes, precisely!  Women are so special and talented at staying at home and bringing up children.  They're also just so fab at cleaning, tidying and ironing lovely creases in men's shirts.  They should be duly adored, nay, worshipped, for doing just that!"."

And of all the adjectives I might consider as they pertain to the majority of the women in Heinlein's stories "powerless" would not be one of them.



I do understand the potential trap of this extention of thought: "What was worse was that the view that women could be all those things began to change such that they had to be all those things.  As so often, oppression through the back door, disguised as compliment or even adoration.  Finally, though, people began to argue, "hold on, there are only 24 hours in a day!" "







DemonKia -> RE: Robert A. Heinlein (5/1/2009 10:13:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

A variation of the conservative feminist theme  - and still a dodgy line, though.  This is pretty much identical to the "Cosmo Feminist" idea that became very fashionable in the 1980s.  A woman could be both a domestic goddess and smash her way through the glass ceiling at her City office with her big hair and shoulder pads. 

What was worse was that the view that women could be all those things began to change such that they had to be all those things.  As so often, oppression through the back door, disguised as compliment or even adoration.  Finally, though, people began to argue, "hold on, there are only 24 hours in a day!"


Peon, & I mean this in the sweetest way, guys who wanna get all more-feminist-than-thou make me all kinds of hot & bothered, lol . . . . . . . . You go right ahead, I'm gonna sit over here in my cave & make grunting noises at you occasionally . . . . .

[8D]




SnowRanger -> RE: Robert A. Heinlein (5/1/2009 10:58:58 PM)

Hello A/all,

First, I am gratified to see that there are very few holes in my reading list.  Judging by the debate, there are very few hole in my perception of what I have read.  Thank you all!

Starship Troopers is the book that made me a fan  I'd just turned eighteen.  Voting age had just been lowered from twentyone a few years ago.  I found the book evocative on subjects I was just becoming aware of.  Just what is this vote I'm casting?  What is the nature of citizenship?  What qualities make a good leader?..  A good officer?.. A good NCO?....  What does it mean to be a good man?

I am sure that the movie is fine on it's own merits. But, sans Powered Armor Suits or not, as an adaptation... it's... it's... (Where is my Lexapro?)....

I like ShaktiSama's explanation best... the guy is quoteable!

Heading to the Drop Room,
Mike
2nd. Ptn. G Coy. 3rd. Rgt. 1st Div. (Polaris)
The Roughnecks, a good outfit Mister Rico, proud and nasty!




ShaktiSama -> RE: Robert A. Heinlein (5/1/2009 11:20:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ
And of all the adjectives I might consider as they pertain to the majority of the women in Heinlein's stories "powerless" would not be one of them.


Really?  I'm not too impressed with them.  Tom Disch once pointed out that the women in Stranger in a Strange Land reminded him of the Manson Family--as always, his literary analysis was phrased with exquisite bitchitude, but he did have a point.  Were those women "powerful"?   I don't think so.




pinnipedster -> RE: Robert A. Heinlein (5/2/2009 12:35:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sambot

And I guess I'm the weirdo- because I liked Starship Troopers- both the book and the movie.  I wouldn't sell Verhoeven short- the book is written from a first person viewpoint of a teenage boy who's somewhat naive and grows up with the pain of war- Verhoeven's movie has a much more adult perspective from the get/go and I thought was a reasonable extrapolation from the book.  OK, so I was bummed the MI weren't bopping around in exoskeletal suits closer to Transformers, but having seen the movie once or twice more, that really doesn't detract much. 


Again, it isn't so much that I didn't like the movie -- it was OK for what it was.  (And even better, I liked some of the computer-animated series "Roughnecks", if you've seen any of that....)  The problem, for me, is that it didn't feel like a war movie; it felt like a monster movie: the bugs didn't seem to be all that intelligent -- and, for that matter, neither did the human soldiers: there wasn't a lot of strategy beyond "Charge!"  In the book, it's clear that an MI private is a professional, highly skilled soldier.  In the film, they felt much more like cannon fodder.  At least, that's how I remember it -- it's been a while.

So to me, it didn't succeed in really capturing what I think Heinlein himself thought of as the main theme of the book -- the glorification of the infantryman.  ("...shines the name, shines the name of Rodger Young!")




PeonForHer -> RE: Robert A. Heinlein (5/2/2009 4:00:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DemonKia

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

A variation of the conservative feminist theme  - and still a dodgy line, though.  This is pretty much identical to the "Cosmo Feminist" idea that became very fashionable in the 1980s.  A woman could be both a domestic goddess and smash her way through the glass ceiling at her City office with her big hair and shoulder pads. 

What was worse was that the view that women could be all those things began to change such that they had to be all those things.  As so often, oppression through the back door, disguised as compliment or even adoration.  Finally, though, people began to argue, "hold on, there are only 24 hours in a day!"


Peon, & I mean this in the sweetest way, guys who wanna get all more-feminist-than-thou make me all kinds of hot & bothered, lol . . . . . . . . You go right ahead, I'm gonna sit over here in my cave & make grunting noises at you occasionally . . . . .

[8D]


Thanks Kia.  I don't know that I want to set myself up as 'more-feminist-than-thou' - what I've said is really just ordinary stuff that I've taught here and there.  Though I've seen it in real life with my mother, sisters and good female friends.  Possibly it's all a bigger issue here in the UK than some other English-speaking countries because we recently had a female prime minister who pumped the 'tory feminist' line very hard indeed.  Many of us here found that line a touch loathsome.




samboct -> RE: Robert A. Heinlein (5/2/2009 6:35:19 AM)

"The problem, for me, is that it didn't feel like a war movie; it felt like a monster movie: the bugs didn't seem to be all that intelligent -- and, for that matter, neither did the human soldiers: there wasn't a lot of strategy beyond "Charge!"  In the book, it's clear that an MI private is a professional, highly skilled soldier.  In the film, they felt much more like cannon fodder.  At least, that's how I remember it -- it's been a while."

I agree with your assessment above with a couple of tweaks.  Yes, the MI in the movie were well trained.  Yes, they were used as cannon fodder.  Yes, they had really very little idea as to what made the bugs tick.  Here's where maybe I give Verhoeven too much credit.  Societies run by the military often follow along those lines. Who won the war- the Athenians or the Spartans?  The society depicted by Verhoeven is a take off on Sparta (and I suspect had something to do with Heinlein's inspiration as well.)  Military leaders often rely on throwing their young men into a meat grinder and assuming that their training will allow them to take what are effectively unbearable losses.  Look at the "strategy" that was shown on both sides in WWI.  The Germans with a culture that valued military service highly didn't do so hot against a bunch of Allied imbeciles.  The assumption that a society led by the military will be better prepared to take on all comers is in error-the military doesn't deal with dissent well- which is a touchstone of progress.  I think Verhoeven realized that and used it to show the flaws in the society that Heinlein envisioned.  But RAH may not have been too unhappy with what Verhoeven came up with- it sounds like he was the kind of guy who relished debate more than authoritarianism.

"Really?  I'm not too impressed with them.  Tom Disch once pointed out that the women in Stranger in a Strange Land reminded him of the Manson Family--as always, his literary analysis was phrased with exquisite bitchitude, but he did have a point.  Were those women "powerful"?   I don't think so."

If that's Tom Disch's take on Stranger in a Strange Land his analysis is either deeply flawed or shows an interesting conflation.  Since I haven't read it- I can't comment.  As noted above, Stranger in a Strange Land is an allegory.  How powerful are the women in the Bible?  For the most part, they're all peripheral characters.  Heinlein was just following the Bible for source and putting it into a different setting- a very thought provocative exercise.  It's why Stranger isn't about going to Mars- he's written plenty of stuff which deals with interplanetary exploration in a far more detailed manner such as Red Planet, Podkayne of Mars, Have Spacesuit, Will Travel, etc.  That's not the point of Stranger (and doesn't Heinlein make it pretty explicit with the chapter titles?)

Manson certainly had a messianic view of his actions and may have compared himself to Jesus Christ.  But Manson asked his followers to kill for him- and Mike asked his followers to love each other -and him!  Strikes me that there's a bit of a difference there, although in both cases, there are indeed followers willing to do a Messiah's bidding.


Sam




ShaktiSama -> RE: Robert A. Heinlein (5/2/2009 9:31:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct
As noted above, Stranger in a Strange Land is an allegory.  How powerful are the women in the Bible? 


They aren't.  The Bible was produced by not one, not two, but three cultures which regarded women as innately inferior to men, and women with any virtue or character as being the exceptions, never the rule.  The depiction of women reflects this, which is why the document makes such an enduring justification for male supremacy.




aidan -> RE: Robert A. Heinlein (5/2/2009 9:55:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinnipedster

quote:

ORIGINAL: sambot

And I guess I'm the weirdo- because I liked Starship Troopers- both the book and the movie.  I wouldn't sell Verhoeven short- the book is written from a first person viewpoint of a teenage boy who's somewhat naive and grows up with the pain of war- Verhoeven's movie has a much more adult perspective from the get/go and I thought was a reasonable extrapolation from the book.  OK, so I was bummed the MI weren't bopping around in exoskeletal suits closer to Transformers, but having seen the movie once or twice more, that really doesn't detract much. 


Again, it isn't so much that I didn't like the movie -- it was OK for what it was.  (And even better, I liked some of the computer-animated series "Roughnecks", if you've seen any of that....)  The problem, for me, is that it didn't feel like a war movie; it felt like a monster movie: the bugs didn't seem to be all that intelligent -- and, for that matter, neither did the human soldiers: there wasn't a lot of strategy beyond "Charge!"  In the book, it's clear that an MI private is a professional, highly skilled soldier.  In the film, they felt much more like cannon fodder.  At least, that's how I remember it -- it's been a while.


No, your recollection is pretty spot-on. The movie was lobotomized. But at least it had Nazi Doogie Howzer. That alone is worth the rental fee.




samboct -> RE: Robert A. Heinlein (5/2/2009 9:55:41 AM)

"They aren't.  The Bible was produced by not one, not two, but three cultures which regarded women as innately inferior to men, and women with any virtue or character as being the exceptions, never the rule.  The depiction of women reflects this, which is why the document makes such an enduring justification for male supremacy."

I agree.  But since RAH was using this for a source for Stranger- it's not surprising to me that the women in Stranger fall into the same mold.  I think that people that view RAHs view of women using this as a basis are probably making an error-critics should be careful not to conflate a writers viewpoint with his/her characters.  Writers often change their viewpoint in order to get into a character's head.

Sam 




SnowRanger -> RE: Robert A. Heinlein (5/2/2009 1:08:42 PM)

Okay, Back to ST....  In Heinlein's book The Federation was run by veterans and not the military.  Federal service ran a whole host of possibilties in addition to military service.  Citizenship was not granted untill completion of a term of service.  If you were a deaf, blind, quadraplegic; they were obligated to find something useful for you to do.




LadyHibiscus -> RE: Robert A. Heinlein (5/2/2009 1:12:39 PM)

I haven't read any Heinlein in more than twenty years, but thanks for reminding me of my dream date,  "Slipstick" Libby!  Is it any wonder that I lust after the Mythbusters guys?




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
5.078125E-02