Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!husc6!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-trillian!vis
From: vis@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Tom Courtney)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Heinlein's panegyric for the Bomb (actually, author's intents)
Message-ID: <1144@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 12-Sep-86 14:00:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-tril.1144
Posted: Fri Sep 12 14:00:30 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Sep-86 22:44:11 EDT
References: <1071@hoptoad.uucp> <8536@duke.duke.UUCP> <1083@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: vis@trillian.UUCP (Tom Courtney)
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Lines: 54
Xref: mnetor net.sf-lovers:8385 talk.politics.misc:56

In article <1083@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>>If Heinlein himself said (and not one of his characters) that he supports
>>nuclear was (no rational human being does and I believe Heinlein to be
>>rational) then you would have proof.  
>
>Surely you could not have missed the obvious fact that Heinlein's character
>was delivering a polemic of Heinlein's, as always happens in Heinlein's
>books.  The pedantic speechifying was obvious.

Surely you could not have missed the obvious fact that authors are not to be
trusted with regards to intent. In "Stranger In a Strange Land" (and in
Number of the Beast), Heinlein gives us an author who has no scruples about
writing specifically for the market, without ever trying to put his own
opinions into the writing. He's rather successful at it, too. 

Example 1:

Robert Frost was once asked by the head of a poetry circle what was the true
meaning of "Stopping By Woodside On A Snowy Evening". He replied that it was
about stopping by woodside on a snowy evening. The head of the poetry circle
went away, secure in the knowledge that he now knew what the poem was about. A
question is, did he?

I think it is more important to look at individual works on their own merits,
not without worrying about this "author's intent" issue. The questions you
raise then turn from "Is Heinlein in favor of nuclear war" to "Is Farnham's
Freehold an argument for nuclear war?".

Example 2:
Many years ago, on my English AP, I was asked to write an argument. There were
2 philosophy teachers at my school who incessantly argued over how to teach
kids. I answered the question by  writing down a typical conversation between
the two. Either part of the conversation could easily have been called 
"Courtney polemic mode", although I only agreed with one of the views.

I think both sides of a discussion tend to use authoritarian voice, in everyday
life. I think the correct conclusion is not that Heinlein has"mouthpiece"
characters, but that lots of his characters argue this way. 

Example 3:
In the "Summa Theologica", Thomas Aquinas uses a pretty strict form of
argumentation: he makes some attempt at convincing the reader of a straw dog
position of some form, then shows it to be false, then presents a new position
which he thinks must really be the case.

I think the section of "Farnham's Freehold" you cited is simply the straw dog
section of the argument. Seeing the results is the grim proving this position
to be in error.

Tom

Truth in advertising section: I've read and enjoy lots of Heinlein. Ditto for
Gordy Dickson, Larry Niven, Spider Robinson and Philip Dick. I'd have read a
lot of John Meyers Meyers if there were a lot of John Meyers Meyers to read.