Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!nbires!hao!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: Heinlein's panegyric for the Bomb Message-ID: <1646@ames.UUCP> Date: Wed, 10-Sep-86 01:20:40 EDT Article-I.D.: ames.1646 Posted: Wed Sep 10 01:20:40 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 10-Sep-86 23:57:58 EDT References: <1071@hoptoad.uucp> <20812@styx.UUCP> <1076@hoptoad.uucp> Distribution: net Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 76 Xref: mnetor net.sf-lovers:8327 talk.politics.misc:17 From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney): >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. > >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". No, "Hugh Farnham" stated it. And he said "might be", not "was". And, yes, I know that HF is one of Heinlein's "mouthpiece" characters. But a mouthpiece is not necessarily a parrot. HF is a character in a book where the war has already happened. Moreover, it's naive to think the protagonists always speak for the author, and especially so when it's an author whose business is speculations on politics and sociology, as well as physics. Why do the protagonists of STARSHIP TROOPERS like elected government with the franchise limited to vets, while those of GLORY ROAD believe in monarchy, those in DOUBLE STAR believe in constitutional monarchy, and those of THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS are rational anarchists? Could it have as much to do with the reality within the book as with Heinlein's own precise opinions? FARNHAM'S FREEHOLD is one of the most pessimistic books that Heinlein (normally an optimist; maybe *that's* why he's popular, Tim) ever wrote, and Farnham is one of his least likeable protagonists. And one way to read it is to see it as showing Farnham was wrong. Heinlein shows us a *very* unpleasant far future (people raised for food, ala Wells' TIME MACHINE) coming out of the nuclear holocaust. Not the way *I'd* write it, if my purpose were to show the advantages of nuclear war. Rather than looking at Heinlein through the murky medium of fiction, let's look at a bit of his non-fiction. You chose to quote his non-fiction essay, "Pie From The Sky", in attempting to support your point: >"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. I'll make the generous assumption that you saw this quote somewhere, in isolation, and are yourself not intentionally quoting out of context. Let's read on, to see what the "improvements" are that Heinlein refers to: "There is that dame upstairs, for instance, the one with the square bowling ball"; "No more soap operas"; "No more alarm clocks"; etc. I doubt I need to clarify the concept of "irony" to YOU, Tim :-). But if anyone else is perhaps uncertain, let me add a quote from the close of "Pie From The Sky": "If you really want to hang on to the advantages of our slightly wacky pseudo-civilization, there is just one way to do it, according to the scientists who know the most about the new techniques of war - and that is to form a sovereign world authority to prevent the Atomic War." Heinlein is a political maverick, and has opinions to irritate almost anyone. Considering some of the consistent themes that run through most of his fiction (elitism, iconoclasm, extreme individualism), I don't think it should be necessary to jump on isolated quotes or theorize unlikely opinions (have any of you *ever* met someone who was in favor of nuclear war?) in order to argue with him. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry