Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw From: throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: Heinlein's panegyric for the Bomb Message-ID: <573@dg_rtp.UUCP> Date: Wed, 10-Sep-86 12:04:34 EDT Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.573 Posted: Wed Sep 10 12:04:34 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Sep-86 05:59:26 EDT References: <1071@hoptoad.uucp> <20812@styx.UUCP> <1076@hoptoad.uucp> Lines: 60 Xref: mnetor net.sf-lovers:8340 talk.politics.misc:20 > tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) > he stated outright that the > nuclear war was "good for the country". Go back and check the quote if you > don't believe me OK. Let's do. He frowned. "Barbara, I'm not as sad over what has happened as you are. It might be be good for us. I don't mean us six; I mean our country." Hardly saying that "nuclear war is good for the country". He's sad, but not as sad as Barbara. It *MIGHT* be good (but he does *not* say outright that he thinks it is a net benefit). In fact, he equivocates quite a bit during the course of your quote: might be ... seems to me ... may have ... may be ... not every case ... it is cruel Also note that "he" is a character, and not unambiguously mouthing Heinlein's thoughts. Add to that the fact that he is trying to find silver linings to cheer up "Barbara", and the fact that the rest of the story proves him wrong in no uncertain terms, and... what was that you were saying about "proof"? > 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. I'm not Mr. Berch, and Heinlein isn't really high on my list of "heroes", but I think it is you doing the misinterpretation. > 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. Well, I think Moorcock's (and, apparently, your) opinion of Heinlein have to do with three main factors. 1) Removing quotes from their context, 2) mistaking what characters say for what those characters beleive, and 3) (to a lesser extent) mistaking what those characters (supposedly) believe for what Heinlein believes. And I suppose I should make it clear that I'm not "supporting Heinlein". I'm simply offering criticism of a particularly silly argument against him. -- Nuclear war would really set back cable. --- Ted Turner A is for Atom; they are all so small, That we have not really seen any at all. B is for Bomb; they are much bigger. So, mister you better keep off of the trigger. --- Edward Teller, in an interview on PBS. -- Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw