Robert Heinlein

[Weird Harold]

Another exciting space opera series featuring a virtuous, strong woman protagonist is Elizabeth Moon's Kylara Vatta series. Heinlien would highly approve of that series' contract-based merchant system!

Elizabeth Moon also wrote the Herris Serrano/Familias Regnant series -- beginning with Hunting Party and ending with Against the Odds.

I'm not sure RAH would have approved of the Familias Regnant political structure and the other political entities in the series, but he would have definitely understood them.

I'm not sure that David Weber, Elizabeth Moon, Lois McMasters-Bujold (the Miles Vorkosigan series) and other modern writers would be able to sell such politically detailed, character driven, series without RAH's influence on the Science Fiction Genre -- although Weber does sometimes gets tiresome with his mathematical descriptions of the dynamics of space warfare.

 

[Weird Harold]

He could spin a good yarn, can't argue with that. I loved Tunnel in the Sky when I was a kid. His politics and sexism sucked monkey bollocks though. A quote from Friday(apologies if it's a bit out, it's from memory): "rape isn't so bad if the guys breath doesn't stink"

I don't always agree with the atitudes and opinions RAH gave his characters -- or his successors give their characters, for that matter -- but he always made me stop and think about things like politics, gender roles, and religion.

Maureen Johnson-Long in To Sail Beyond the Sunset, among his other characters in amany other books, subscribed to the philospophy, "If rape is inevitable, lay back and enjoy it."

I've never seen that as an "endorsement of rape" or particularly sexist, but a survival strategy that goes beyond the sexual context -- and it does NOT preclude the option of getting revenge later. It's not "sexist", btw, because many of his male characters, notably the ubiquitous Lazurus Long, voiced the same philosophy of "Accept what you can't resist and make the best of the situation you can" -- often phrased as "If rape is inevitable..." because it's more colorful and emotional than, "If Life gives you lemons, make Lemonade."

 

[amicus]

What a marvelous thread...a thorough enjoyment...thanks to all...


Seattle Zack:


"...I met him once. Driving cab while taking classes at UC Santa Cruz about '86 or so. I picked up a journalist and her photographer from the airport bus, and we drove way the hell up into the Santa Cruz mountains. They were very secretive about who they were meeting, then finally revealed it was Heinlein. His house was a weird geodisic dome, powered by solar energy or something, where I dropped them off. I gave them my card, begged them to ask for me on the return trip, and asked if there was some way I could just shake his hand.

So, right at the end of my shift, the dispatcher says I've got a personal. I drive way the hell up there again, and this gal is waving me up as I pull up the driveway. I got out and went up there, kind of on the front porch of this funky weird house, and shook his hand. He had two canes, could barely walk, but his eyes were just bright as hell and he had a fierce grip. I felt like an idiot, mumbling how much I loved his books and how I wanted to write fiction and blah blah blah. Here I was, talking to one of the most influential authors of all time, and blathering like a moron.

He shook my hand and said, "Remember this, young man. Fiction becomes truth." Fucking A. How cool is that?

I ended up driving the journalists back to the SFO airport to catch their flight, fare was like $180. Returned my cab three hours late.

So, that's my Heinlein story..."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ever so cool! Thank you ever so much for sharing that, Zack, it brought back an incident in my life, which at the risk of being accused of thread-jacking, I relate..

I also met a rather famous writer a few years before his death, Philip Wylie, whom I doubt few are familiar with. I ran across him in the science fiction section of the library as the co-author of “When Worlds Collide” and the sequel, “After Worlds Collide” both of which greatly impressed a very young sci-fi fan in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s.

I read more of his works later in life, namely, “Generation of Vipers” and “Essay on Morals”, thus when I discovered he had retired in Hawaii, I made an appointment and was able to interview him briefly.

It was sad in a way in that he had great misgivings about the future of mankind, this was in the doomsday scenario’s of the cold war and a potential nuclear holocaust and the social upheavals of the 1960’s. He seemed surprised that I expressed an optimism about the future.

I also found it interesting that in the linked biography, both Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand are mentioned as contemporaries who shared much of the same philosophy and social outlook.

Once again, thank you for sharing your meeting with the great man, he is one of my all time favorites and I have read everything he has written.

And to the several people who seem to think Heinlein was a ‘sexist’, I suggest an acknowledgement of the time he lived and wrote and a consideration that in his ‘Time Enough For Love’ novel, he explored (after 2500 years of living) what it might be like to live another lifetime as a woman.

Rather than being an overt sexist, I considered Heinlein to be a sincere lover of women and femininity in general and that work was a salute to the magnificent differences between the genders, curious and challenging enough to tempt one to live again as a different gender.


http://www.answers.com/topic/philip-gordon-wylie

Philip Wylie
Born: May 12, 1902
Died: Oct 25, 1971
Occupation: Writer
Active: '30s-'40s
Major Genres: Comedy, Drama
Career Highlights: Island of Lost Souls, The Gladiator, Springtime in the Rockies
First Major Screen Credit: Island of Lost Souls (1932)
Biography

“…Philip Wylie was one of those rare writers who managed to have a major cultural impact as a provocative and bold essayist during the 1940s and 1950s, while also enjoying considerable success as a screenwriter and novelist from the late '20s until the end of the 1950s; many of his books also served as the basis for movies and television shows. …”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The entire biography is well worth the read but rather too lengthy to paste.

Regards….amicus…

 

[Weird Harold]

I also met a rather famous writer a few years before his death, Philip Wylie, ...

It was sad in a way in that he had great misgivings about the future of mankind, this was in the doomsday scenario’s of the cold war and a potential nuclear holocaust and the social upheavals of the 1960’s. He seemed surprised that I expressed an optimism about the future.

I'm really not all that surprised or saddened that Wylie, RAH, and so many other "Golden Age" science fiction authors were pessimistic about the future -- the future simply wasn't all that bright in that time period.

The title RAH chose for the story of Nehemiah Scudder's conversion of the US into a fundamentalist theocracy -- "If This Goes On..." -- pretty much describes how Science Fiction -- or "Speculative Fiction" as it was known then -- saw their place in the world.

Most of them saw themselves as social commentators and/or Cassandra who were disguising "unpalatable truth" as entertainment for the sole purpose of reaching as many people as possible.

RAH, was not totally immune to that self-image, or he wouldn't have been writing Science Fiction, but he was more interested in "entertainment" (and making a buck) than in "dire prediction."

 

[Sean]

Harold, I'm assuming you've read the whole canon. His view of women was sexist, there is no escaping that. All his female characters were victims in one way or another. A product of his age, I don't doubt it. You may as well condemn anti semitism in Shakespeare as condemn sexism in Heinlen, but it is there.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Harold, I'm assuming you've read the whole canon. His view of women was sexist, there is no escaping that. All his female characters were victims in one way or another. A product of his age, I don't doubt it. You may as well condemn anti semitism in Shakespeare as condemn sexism in Heinlen, but it is there.

"Anti-semitism in Shakespeare" is an apt comparison; Shakespeare reflected the prejudices of his day, perhaps, but nevertheless recognized the essential human-ness of Jews.

Shylock meets Sojourner Truth:

If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge?
And ain't I a woman?

Translation: Victims they may have been, I'll withhold judgement on that, but they were strong and noble characters, as much so as his men. As others have pointed out here, that compares favorably with some other authors of the era whose women were bubble-headed accessories to the real characters - the men.

 

[Weird Harold]

Harold, I'm assuming you've read the whole canon.

Yep, and I'm old enough that more than half of his work I got to read in first printings.

His view of women was sexist, there is no escaping that. All his female characters were victims in one way or another.

I think you must have a very narrow and restricted definition of "sexist" and "victim."

If by "sexist" you mean that RAH didn't subscribe to the modern social fiction that men and women are identical, then I can't argue with that. But men and women ARE different in spite of all the PC nonsense to the contrary -- and if you really look at the way RAH depicted women I think you'll find than any "sexist bias" in his work is lies in the direction of "Women are generally superior to men."

As for the women being "victims in one way or another," the same can be said for almost all of his characters, male, female and non-human -- Conflict and conflict resolution is the essence of a good story and RAH was first and foremost a good storyteller.

 

[SeaCat]

Yep, and I'm old enough that more than half of his work I got to read in first printings.



I think you must have a very narrow and restricted definition of "sexist" and "victim."

If by "sexist" you mean that RAH didn't subscribe to the modern social fiction that men and women are identical, then I can't argue with that. But men and women ARE different in spite of all the PC nonsense to the contrary -- and if you really look at the way RAH depicted women I think you'll find than any "sexist bias" in his work is lies in the direction of "Women are generally superior to men."

As for the women being "victims in one way or another," the same can be said for almost all of his characters, male, female and non-human -- Conflict and conflict resolution is the essence of a good story and RAH was first and foremost a good storyteller.

Bravo,

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Cat

 

[Guest]

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Sorry, WH, but I have to disagree with you. Heinlein's characters voiced that opinion often enough, but overall, the be-all, end-all goal for every single one of his female characters was pregnancy. That, imo, is pretty damn sexist.

Perhaps, but not necessarily. I think he had an Aristotlean conception of telos or purpose, which holds that all things have a final purpose, namely, to realize their implicit perfection. For humans, pursuing a career, raising a family, devotion to a creative vocation, and acquiring property are perhaps the most widespread of long-term purposes that make life meaningful according to such a philosophy. The fact that so many women feel it necessary to have a child in order to acheive full actualization of the self is evidence that such a view is widespread.

All that said, it's doubtful that Heinlein had a foolishly deterministic view of the concept as it applies to humans. My favorite example in this regard is Michelangelo - no kids there, and yet who can say he did not acheive his telos? I'm sure that Heinlein had a broad-minded view of such things.

 

[Weird Harold]

Translation: Victims they may have been, I'll withhold judgement on that, but they were strong and noble characters, as much so as his men. As others have pointed out here, that compares favorably with some other authors of the era whose women were bubble-headed accessories to the real characters - the men.

More importantly, from the viewpoint of someone who has been reading science fiction for most of the existance of the genre, his female characters are still more liberated and competent than most female characters in modern science fiction and fantasy.

Sorry, WH, but I have to disagree with you. Heinlein's characters voiced that opinion often enough, but overall, the be-all, end-all goal for every single one of his female characters was pregnancy. That, imo, is pretty damn sexist.

Podkayne was fixated on becoming a mother? -- she was, what, 12, 14 and thought boys were stupid gits, ruled by their hormones?

You've been reading a different version of Heinlein than I've been reading for the last fifty years.

Seriously, the difference between RAH and his contemporaries is his female characters has the choice to do the one thing that women can do that men can't. The fact that many chose to get pregnant reflects more RAH's belief that the purpose of society is to protect and nurture the next generation so that humanity will survive more than it reflects the cultural norm of his contemporaries that women should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

Balance that choice he gives his female characters against the minor detail that he is, to the best of my recollection, the very first author in any genre to mention, let alone advocate birth control or postulate "tubing" babies in artificial wombs.

A desire for children also isn't "sexist" even if it is prevalent or ubiquitous because his male characters also are "fixated" on children as the primary puropose for society to exist -- but they are more concerned about possible accidental pregnancy than the women are.

I don't think RAH could understand why any person -- male or female -- wouldn't want progeny, but he was definitely in favor of Planned Parenthood long before there was such an organization or even a coherent definition of the concept.

Within the context of that cultural blind-spot, RAH's female characters are still some of the most liberated and competent women in fiction in science fiction and fantasy -- and I suspect in ANY genre of fiction -- because they have the Choice of when and whether to get pregnant.

 

[Oblimo]

Perhaps, but not necessarily. I think he had an Aristotlean conception of telos or purpose, which holds that all things have a final purpose, namely, to realize their implicit perfection. For humans, pursuing a career, raising a family, devotion to a creative vocation, and acquiring property are perhaps the most widespread of long-term purposes that make life meaningful according to such a philosophy. The fact that so many women feel it necessary to have a child in order to acheive full actualization of the self is evidence that such a view is widespread.

Aristotle was very blunt on the final goal of human life: happiness.

He then wrote a few books trying to work out what "happiness" meant and explain the difference between accidental happiness and essential happiness, but he was paid by the word and so one must forgive him.

Was their any female character in Heinlein's books who was truly happy while not pregnant? I admit the last book of his I read was Friday, way back when, wherein he ended the whole book on that point (I am pregnant and happy at last so I can stop trying to fill my holes now, etc., etc.), so my view of his writings is skewed.

 

[Oblimo]

...because they have the Choice of when and whether to get pregnant.

Except Friday.

 

[cantdog]

Aristotle was very blunt on the final goal of human life: happiness.

He then wrote a few books trying to work out what "happiness" meant and explain the difference between accidental happiness and essential happiness, but he was paid by the word and so one must forgive him.

Was their any female character in Heinlein's books who was truly happy while not pregnant? I admit the last book of his I read was Friday, way back when, wherein he ended the whole book on that point (I am pregnant and happy at last so I can stop trying to fill my holes now, etc., etc.), so my view of his writings is skewed.

Aristotle was really not forgivable.

 

[Oblimo]

Aristotle was really not forgivable.

A very understandable opinion, but since we only have a tiny fraction of his actual writings, I have this little fantasy about the project that's using MRI techniques to reconstruct recently discovered texts from the Library of Alexandria: an authentic, late-in-life manuscript of Aristotle's saying in effect, "Oh, man, I was so full of crap back then. Sorry, I got it all wrong, and I'm starting over now. Jeez, I hope no one unearths my old nonsense and builds an entire civilization out of it; I'd be mortified."

 

[Weird Harold]

Was their any female character in Heinlein's books who was truly happy while not pregnant? I admit the last book of his I read was Friday, way back when, wherein he ended the whole book on that point (I am pregnant and happy at last so I can stop trying to fill my holes now, etc., etc.), so my view of his writings is skewed.

Maureen Johnson-Long for one. Hazel Stone for another -- she's only pregnant in one of her many appearances.

One point to consider about Friday: Friday was a "manufactured person" -- aka a clone or android -- and the whole book centers around her concern whether she was "human," as she felt and believed, or if she was a a "rogue machine" made of meat and bones as society maintained. For her, being accepted into a line marriage and being pregnant was the final proof that she was human.

Friday is a commentary on discrimination, not a sexist "salute to motherhood."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Aristotle was really not forgivable.

Yeah, to use Oblimo's words, "Aristotle was very blunt on the final goal of human life: happiness."

What a fucker.

 

[Cromm Crauch]

I always loved his work

I have always loved his work.

I loved how I will fear no evil ended. The main character goes from someone scared of his own death to someone who not only knows happiness and love but was willing to die for it. Her last thoughts were about her child to be not her own wellfare. How can you go wrong with someone who learns that without love you were or are not alive you merly exsist.

Starship troopers is very special to me because he does such a good job of helping me to cope with some of the military bull that I have to daily.

Stranger in a Strange land was magnificent any way you look at it.

Revolt in 2100 was realistic you dont always get what you set out to get but if you pay attention you can still find happiness.

Methoulas(sp) Children to me seemed tto carry to important messages. mankind imay not be the smartest or most efficent race in the univers and we may be our own worse enemy but it is our individualism that helps give us strength and defines us a people.

The second is the second you let the fear of your own death rule your life it is already over because your spirit has died your body just doesn't know to stop working yet,

Time enough for love was a great book because no matter what happened to him he always carries on even because not of his own strength but because of the people who love him. Mankind is at its strongest when he is surrouded by those who care for them.

The moon is a harsh mistrist seemed determined to show that you can't win if you give up or worse yet dont even care enough to try,

The number of the beast to me showed that your perception of the world determins if you are happy or not.

A cat who walks though walls to me seemed to say that their is a price to truely live. And of course TANSTAAFL
(There ain't no such thing as a free lunch)*(I believe that is the correct phrase he used)

Now I have to go read his books again.

(Thanks yall for reminding me to read some of my favorite books and to look for the meanings that are behind the story)

 

[Tom Collins]

Yep, and I'm old enough that more than half of his work I got to read in first printings.



I think you must have a very narrow and restricted definition of "sexist" and "victim."

If by "sexist" you mean that RAH didn't subscribe to the modern social fiction that men and women are identical, then I can't argue with that. But men and women ARE different in spite of all the PC nonsense to the contrary -- and if you really look at the way RAH depicted women I think you'll find than any "sexist bias" in his work is lies in the direction of "Women are generally superior to men."

As for the women being "victims in one way or another," the same can be said for almost all of his characters, male, female and non-human -- Conflict and conflict resolution is the essence of a good story and RAH was first and foremost a good storyteller.

Yes, WH...that's exactly what I was saying a few pages back to Jammies. I can understand why people think he's sexist because he doesn't treat them as carbon copies with innies or outies, but they were always at least equal. From everything I've read that was written by him he heald women in the highest esteem, and as you said, thought them not equal but better in many circumstances.

Jammies seems to have been the only one who believed me though. Maybe they'll believe you since you're a man?

 

[Weird Harold]

Yes, WH...that's exactly what I was saying a few pages back to Jammies. I can understand why people think he's sexist because he doesn't treat them as carbon copies with innies or outies, but they were always at least equal. From everything I've read that was written by him he heald women in the highest esteem, and as you said, thought them not equal but better in many circumstances.

The accusation of sexism is, as far as I know, a relatively recent turn of opinion. When his works were first published he was often accused of being a Rabid Feminist -- and occasionally denounced as a pornographer.

I really do think that anyone who really reads and understands what he's saying about the sexes will find he's not sexist -- even by modern definitions of "sexist" and certainly not by the standards of the society he was writing for.

 

[Weird Harold]

...because they have the Choice of when and whether to get pregnant.

Except Friday.

I had to dig out my copy of Friday to double check, and you're correct that Friday wasn't given a choice about being a host mother -- but then that's really the whole point of the book, her search for her humanity and the freedom to choose that she didn't have as "property."

But then Friday is also an example disproving the assertion that all of Heinlein's women want nothing more than to be pregnant -- Friday winds up on a colony planet without the medical technology to reverse her sterility. The epilogue is very specific that she wouldn't mind having children of her own but the important thing is that she is free and accepted as Human.

As she puts it, "My life has no more dramatic moments ... I like being a colonial housewife." Not because being a "colonial housewife" is a subservient or demeaning "woman's place" but because, for her, being a colonial housewife isn't a life filled with "Dramatic moments."

RAH's conception of "Happily Ever After" is clearly linked to large, loving, extended families -- the kind of "nuclear families" that were just beginning to vanish when he began his writing career. Nostalgic? probably. Utopian? Maybe. Sexist? no way, no how.

 

[Recidiva]

I had to dig out my copy of Friday to double check, and you're correct that Friday wasn't given a choice about being a host mother -- but then that's really the whole point of the book, her search for her humanity and the freedom to choose that she didn't have as "property."

But then Friday is also an example disproving the assertion that all of Heinlein's women want nothing more than to be pregnant -- Friday winds up on a colony planet without the medical technology to reverse her sterility. The epilogue is very specific that she wouldn't mind having children of her own but the important thing is that she is free and accepted as Human.

As she puts it, "My life has no more dramatic moments ... I like being a colonial housewife." Not because being a "colonial housewife" is a subservient or demeaning "woman's place" but because, for her, being a colonial housewife isn't a life filled with "Dramatic moments."

RAH's conception of "Happily Ever After" is clearly linked to large, loving, extended families -- the kind of "nuclear families" that were just beginning to vanish when he began his writing career. Nostalgic? probably. Utopian? Maybe. Sexist? no way, no how.

One of my favorite moments of Friday is her meeting a man who turns her down because he's engineered and afraid she'd reject him.

Heinlein was big on irony.