Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!caip!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!zen!cory.Berkeley.EDU!chapman From: chapman@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Brent Chapman) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: Heinlein's panegyric for the Bomb Message-ID: <121@zen.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Mon, 8-Sep-86 20:57:39 EDT Article-I.D.: zen.121 Posted: Mon Sep 8 20:57:39 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 10-Sep-86 20:10:05 EDT References: <1071@hoptoad.uucp> <20812@styx.UUCP> <1076@hoptoad.uucp> Sender: news@zen.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: chapman@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Brent Chapman) Distribution: net Organization: UNIXversity of California at Berkeley Lines: 114 Xref: mnetor net.sf-lovers:8297 talk.politics.misc:10 In article <1076@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >In article <20812@styx.UUCP> mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: >>> [quotation from FARNHAM'S FREEHOLD in which the protagonist states, >>> inter alia, that the just-occured nuclear war had a few positive >>> effects, in that it killed off the fat, useless stay-at-homes rather >>> than the best & brightest young men; that it killed off the "stupid" >>> who did not plan for war, rather than the cream of the crop...] >> >> The fact that Heinlein's character (and I will allow that he speaks with >>the authorial voice, as many of RAH's heroes do) dryly notes some of the >>beneficial effects the war had compared with previous wars hardly marks hims >>as being in FAVOR of a nuclear war. I fear this passage, and the other one >>quoted, were a little too subtle for Mr. Maroney. > >When reason fails, there's always insult, eh, Mr. Berch? But I suppose I >should thank you for showing your true colors on the issue right off the >bat. Your statements are clearly emotional, not rational. Wait a sec, here.. WHO's being insulting? WHO's statements are emotional, not rational? I think I missed something... >Mr. Berch speaks with the fervent preconception of a fundamentalist >inventing excuses for the slaughter of the Midianites. Heinlein was clear; >he did not dryly note a few positive effects; he stated outright that the >nuclear war was "good for the country". Go back and check the quote if you >don't believe me (and I'll grant you, it's hard to believe). He then went >on to say that it had "turned the tide" toward the triumph of freedom, and >that the net effect would be to "improve the breed". Not hesitantly, not >dryly, not in passing - Heinlein states outright and enthusiastically that >nuclear war would be a wonderful thing! Mr. Maroney, are you capable of making the distinction between a fictional character and the real person (actor or author) behind that character? Granted, in many cases the character will reflect the artist and his/her views, but this is NOT a "given". >I know Heinlein is probably one of your heroes, Mr. Berch, but you simply >must face facts. The book says what I quoted it as saying, not what you >would like it to have said. And "Pie in the Sky" is even more unambiguous: >"There are so many, many things in this so-termed civilization of ours which >would be mightily improved by a once over lightly of the Hiroshima >treatment." You can twist and turn and try to divert the issue into long >lists of irrelevant Heinlein statements on other matters (which you did, and >which I have omitted), but these are the things he said, and you can't >change that by wishing it away. Are you denying that there are bad things about our culture? Logicly, a nuclear holocaust would remove those "bad things" by removing the culture. That it might also create worse things is beside the point. That the process is abhorrent is beside the point. The issue is that it would do the job. >Moorcock's essay "Starship Stormtroopers", which you can get in the >collection "The Opium General", deals not primarily with the fascism of many >science fiction writers, but of the peculiar phenomenon of their support by >people who disagree with their views; Mr. Berch has given us a fine example >of this. While Moorcock makes no broad conclusions about the reasons for >this, I would speculate that it has to do with two chief factors. You seem to have the same attitude toward Mr. Moorcock as you accuse Mr. Berch (and will doubtless accuse me, too) of having toward Mr. Heinlein: that his words are gospel and therefore not subject to question or discussion. >First, we all started reading Heinlein at around age ten or earlier, before >the development of a real critical faculty. Ideas firmly implanted at this >age are very hard to dislodge later, as every organized religion knows. >(For me, the break with Heinlein was when, at sixteen or so, I tried to >re-read "Starship Troopers", which I had liked at twelve, and found it to be >perhaps the most appalling book I had ever read.) Second, science fiction >readers have a sort of siege mentality, reinforced through imbecilic >articles in Harper's and so forth on how awful the field is; and this >creates a predilection to view criticism of those authors generally viewed >as the bright lights of the field as an attack on the field itself, and to >respond to this perceived attack viscerally. Oh, how I love paternalism and holier-than-thou attitudes.. "Well _I_ can make the distinction between and , but we should protect those poor, innocent, uneducated folk who can't..." Bullshit. Do you happen to know Mr. Berch? I do. Mr. Berch is a (ex? You'll have to ask him) legal type. He seems to cringe at illogical, emotion-based arguments. His relatively rare postings tend to be reflect his legal background, in that they are invariably articulate, well thought out, well ordered, and well argued. Even if I don't agree with him, I have nothing but respect for his postings. Which is more than I can say for some people. >-- >Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot and Damn Proud of It Wonderfully appropriate signature.. I don't see the quotes from RAH's stories as an endorsement of nuclear war. I _do_ see them as a comment that such an occurrence is not strictly negative, which is something vastly different. I see these comments as a different expression of the same theme found in many of his other books: that the human race _AS A WHOLE_ (despite grave hardships to individuals and societies) will benefit from an exodus to space, or some other method of large-scale genetic selection. I don't necessarily agree with either the practicality or desireability of this theme, but he argues it well, and is as certainly entitled to his opinion as anyone else. On a slow burn, Brent -- Brent Chapman chapman@cory.berkeley.edu or ucbvax!cory!chapman