Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!akgua!lcuxlm!whuxl!whuts!orb
From: orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Heinlein's panegyric for the Bomb
Message-ID: <974@whuts.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Sep-86 09:18:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuts.974
Posted: Tue Sep  9 09:18:43 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Sep-86 07:14:17 EDT
References: <1071@hoptoad.uucp> <15602@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 50
Xref: mnetor net.sf-lovers:8291 talk.politics.misc:9

> In article <1071@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes:
> >Because you demanded it, pilgrim, herewith the quotes proving Heinlein's
> >support for nuclear war.
>  ^^^^^^^
>    This is followed by an extended dialogue in which one of Heinlein's
> characters notes that certain positive consequences might ensue from
> a nuclear war.  Even if you take this as Heinlein's own opinion, it is
> vastly different from *supporting* nuclear war.
>    I can note that Nazi rule had certain favorable consequences for
> 1930s Germany (e.g., it certainly get them out of their depression,
> and built them into a world power in an extremely short time).  Does
> this mean that I *support* Nazi government.  The only person I can think
> of who might say that is...
> 
> >Michael Moorcock [,who] wrote in the critical/political essay "Starship
> >Stormtroopers", "It's not such a big step ... from *Farnham's Freehold*
> to Hitler's *Lebensraum*."
> 
>    This seems a far greater overstatement of the truth than anything
> Heinlein might have said.  Can we say the same for histories of the
> Third Reich, if they describe the increase in economic growth and
> stability in the late 1930s?
> 
>    -- David desJardins

I remember back in the 60's that Ramparts magazine had a number of
excerpts from Heinlein's remarks in support of Vietnam, nukes,
and a number of odious positions.  These particular quotes are not
the only ones in which Heinlein advocates unsavory views.  I recall
one of his stories in which he treats very sympathetically the carrying
of lethal weapons, a more advanced type of gun, and conducting regular
shootouts with them.  Heinlein treated such vigilantism as if it promoted
some sense of "honor".

Then there is, of course, Heinlein's series on the "Methuselah Complex"
in which a secret group of "genetically superior" people who have
secretly crossbred to attain incredible lifespans are persecuted
and envied by the mass of the "genetically inferior".

The only of Heinlein's works which contradicts the usual right-wing
stands of some of his novels is "Stranger in a Strange Land" which
seemed to me at the time to approach positively the whole counterculture
of the hippies of the 60's.

But then Dostoevsky was a reactionary too.
Such views do not necessarily negate the value of an artist's work.
Personally, however I would take Dostoevsky over Heinlein anyday
in terms of the depth of his writing and his attempt to present
and come to terms with the paradoxes of life.
                       tim sevener  whuxn!orb