Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!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: <571@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Sep-86 11:27:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.571
Posted: Tue Sep  9 11:27:39 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Sep-86 05:38:18 EDT
References: <1071@hoptoad.uucp>
Lines: 64
Xref: linus net.sf-lovers:15119 talk.politics.misc:15
Summary: context-free quotes... this is "proof"?

> tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
> Because you demanded it, pilgrim, herewith the quotes proving Heinlein's
> support for nuclear war.  These are taken from "Ghastly Beyond Belief",
> an anthology of bad and embarrassing science fiction excerpts.

Aaaaaah yes, the old "quote out of context" ploy.  Most ingenious.

(   Also, as is often the case, "This must be some meaning of 'proof'
    with which I am not familiar."  Thank you, Arthur Dent.  )

> First, from "Pie in the Sky":
>
>       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.

I am not familiar with the context here.  But note well, he does
emphatically *not* (repeat *NOT*) say that the net effect would be
beneficial.  I would be unsurprised if the surrounding context of the
excerpt made this clear.

> Next, a typically didactic Heinlein monologue from "Farnham's Freehold",
> a post-holocaust novel of which Michael Moorcock wrote in the
> critical/political essay "Starship Stormtroopers", "It's not such a big
> step ... from *Farnham's Freehold* to Hitler's *Lebensraum*."

Oh, well, Michael Moorcock.  That's all right then.  It *must* be so.
And he compared him to *Hitler*?  Boy, that Heinlein must really be
eeeeevil.  My, oh my, how eeeeeevil he must be.  Now that we've all had
our little thrill of disgust, can we get on with it?  Thank you.

> Heinlein
> expounds on the wondrous improvements in America created by letting man's
> friend, Mr. Nucleus, have his way despite all this loose talk about the
> death of the planet.          [long quote omitted]

Here, I *am* more familiar with the context, and, as I suspected, the
quote in context is far less clearly nucleophilic.  Consider:  The quote
explores the hypothesis that a nuclear war would cull the "unfit", and
that hardy, freedomloving folk might selectively survive.  (Even so, it
is worth noting that again he did *not* say that the net effect would be
beneficial.) In any event, "Aha!  Thoughtcrime!" you say!  But the quote
comes from a portion of the novel before we find out the "true" result
of the war.  What was the "actual" reported result, (rather than the
hypothesizing of one of the characters)?  A canabalistic slave society.
Real cheerful.  Real pro-nuke.  Riiiiight.

Why are there so many bozos who seem to think that everything Heinlein
characters *say* is what Heinlien himself *believes*?  What nonsense.
His characters (even the protagonists) *often* say or say they believe
things that the actual events in the story contradict.  Using such
incidents to deduce what Heinlien himself thinks is like using the
"nobody hurt, only a nigger killed" line to "prove" that Mark Twain is
racist.  Or Mel Brooks, for that matter.

Sorry, Tim.  I just don't find your "quote out of context ploy"
very convincing.  Hardly what I'd call "proof".

--
Do not say things.  What you are stands over you the while,
and thunders so that I cannot hear what you say to the contrary.
                                --- Ralph Waldo Emerson
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw