Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!styx!twg-ap!amdahl!hplabs!tektronix!reed!jeanne
From: jeanne@reed.UUCP (Jeanne DeVoto)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Heinlein's panegyric for the Bomb
Message-ID: <4085@reed.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Sep-86 04:12:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: reed.4085
Posted: Fri Sep 12 04:12:14 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Sep-86 03:51:04 EDT
References: <1071@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: jeanne@reed.UUCP (Jeanne A. E. DeVoto)
Organization: Reed's Fine College
Lines: 63
Xref: mnetor net.sf-lovers:8435 talk.politics.misc:81

In article <1071@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes:
[quotes which purportedly "prove" that Heinlein supports nuclear war]

In the words of Spider Robinson, I grow weary of hearing someone I care
about slandered.  Let us examine Tim's charges:

>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.

Tim...this is called *irony*.  The fact that it is not festooned with :-)'s
may have misled you, but if you had bothered to read the article rather
than taking an out-of-context paragraph from some anthology, I'm sure you
would have caught the intended meaning.
Herein the first paragraph of the essay in question
(from _Expanded_Universe_, c. 1980 by Robert A. Heinlein, p175)
	"Since we have every reason to expect a sudden rain of death from the
	sky sometime in the next few years, as a result of a happy combination
	of the science of atomics and the art of rocketry, it behooves
	the Pollyanna Philosopher to add up the advantages to be derived
	from the blasting of you apartment, row house, or suburban cottage."
Clearly RAH is in dead earnest here.(:-), for those who, like Tim, are
afflicted with atrophy of the sense of (black) humor.)

>Next, a typically didactic Heinlein monologue from "Farnham's Freehold",
[condemnatory quote from critical essay of Michael Moorcock, followed by
dialog between two characters in "FF" in which the hero states his belief
that nuclear war would result in genetic improvement of the species through
culling]

Point the first:  the opinions of the characters--even the opinions of the
hero--cannot necessarily be assumed to be identical to the opinions of the
author.  This is a problem seen in a lot of criticism of fiction, and for
some reason it seems to crop up especially often in discussions of RAH's
work.   ***Robert Heinlein != Hugh Farnham ***
Point the second:  which is that Farnham's statements are perfectly true.
ANY disaster which results in widespread death and destruction, in which a
person can improve his/her chances of survival by being prepared and other-
wise exercising his/her intelligence, will bring about an increase in the
average intelligence of the affected population.  This is, as "Barbara"
states, elementary genetics.  But it is a far leap from accepting the
idea that nuclear war would select for intelligence to espousing the
proposition that such a war would be a desireable occurrence, and that's not
something I can see either Hugh Farnham or RAH saying.

So, considering the first point above, what do we *know* of RAH's opinion?
Here he is, speaking in the first person, in the introduction to the article
titled "Pie in the Sky" from which Tim quoted:
	"Here are three short articles, each from a different approach,
	with which I tried (and failed) to beat the drum for world peace.
	Was I really so naif that I thought that I could change the course
	of history this way?  No, not really.  But, damn it, I had to try!"
		(quoted from _Expanded_Universe_, pp146-147)
This is *not* some critic's speculation on what RAH *really* meant, *not*
Tim Maroney's interpretation of RAH, *not* what some fictional character
said...this is straight from the horse's mouth, circa 1980.

The defense rests.

>Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot and Certified Catholic Theologian
Tim, you have lived up to your .signature.