The LA Times interviews some young idiots in fandom:
As the literary and academic worlds open to science-fiction and genre writing, Heinlein lacks the cachet of J.G. Ballard, Ursula LeGuin, Octavia Butler, Neal Stephenson, cyberpunk pioneer William Gibson and others. Films based on Dick’s books, good and bad, keep coming. But Heinlein’s film adaptations, in the last half century, since 1950’s “Destination Moon,” culminated in 1997’s “Starship Troopers,” widely disliked by his fan base.
Non-SF writer William Burroughs probably has more influence inside the genre’s literary wing than Heinlein, who won four Hugos (the award voted by the fans), sold millions of copies, and was termed the field’s most significant writer since H.G. Wells.
“His rabid fan base is graying,” said Annalee Newitz, who writes about science fiction for Wired and Gawker. “To literary readers, the books look cheesy, sexist in a hairy-chest, gold-chain kind of way. His stuff hasn’t stood the test of time,” because of characters’ windy speechifying and their frontier optimism.
“Here at the store I actively resist promoting him, because he was a fascist,” said Charles Hauther, the science fiction buyer at Skylight Books. “People don’t seem to talk about him anymore. I haven’t had a conversation about Heinlein in a long time.
And you’ve obviously never had an intelligent one.
“Shakespeare, Wells, Verne and the original SF novel, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, escape the dated trap by being set in the writer’s past or present.”
Nice try.
Bill Maron – the SF novel by Mary Shelley you’ve (probably) not read is her book “The Last Man,” set in England in around the year 2000. Parts of Well’s “The Time Traveler” are obviously set in the future, but so far from us that it’s irrelevant. I’m not coming up with any famous works by those authors not set in their present or past – maybe you could point out a title or two?
You can download 54 Heinlein books, including many of those mentioned in the conversation above, for free as a single PDF here.
Heinlein was an anarchocapitalist and his views on politics and economics were probably closer to Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises than to any fascist ideology.
Ed Minchau:
Does his estate get royalties on any of this free stuff? If not, why not?
Paul Verhoeven, who directed the Starship Troopers movie set out to make the story set in a fascist society. He said as much in interviews. Anyone who hasn’t read the book, and read Heinlein’s own defense is just flaunting their own ignorance of the subject – and more than likely taking the movie version as their cue.
Just one of many examples of why leaving control of your culture in the hands of actual fascists is killing American freedom.
@Will McLean “Does his estate get royalties on any of this free stuff? If not, why not?”
I’m guessing “not,” and “because they’re free.”
And is the stuff free because the copyright holders consented, or for some other reason?
I’ll take option B there Will… while Wells is out of copyright, I’m pretty sure that RAH’s works aren’t.
Chris: Well’s Shape of Things to Come does spring to mind. But I suspect there aren’t that many who’ve read it. It dates badly mind you, as do the near future sections of Stapledon’s fantastic First and Last Men.
It seems to me that from Stranger in a Strange Land on, Heinlein wrote an inordinate number of novels in which important male characters acquired a harem of hot babes eager for lots of nonjudgmental polyamorous sex.
I don’t think this authorial quirk has aged well.
Is Heinlein out of fashion, or is all old sci-fi out of fashion? The Economist thinks the space age is over. Their attitude reflects the current vogue of ‘well that was somewhat interesting’.
If you think about it, after Apollo was cancelled the STS program inspired a popular attitude towards space that I feel is best captured by Star Trek TNG. Brainy academic types had plenty of amazing things left to do in space. Think of all the science we could learn!
I hate to sound elitist, but mass media starting with cable and ending with 24/7 cell phone access to social networking has made it so that lowest common denominator cultural memes thrive most. Combine that with an academic, media and even political world literally run by the 60’s former radicals, and you have a hopeless culture. If a college student in the 60’s is now the boss this means that in 1980 the boss would have been possibly part of the greatest generation.
“Frontier Optimism” is exactly what does not exist in this culture. The only frontiers that exist for today’s intrepid are those which involve saving the world from some utter capitalistic doom or another.
The one question I’m left with is historical. Surely there’s a period of history where ‘frontier optimism’ died down for a while. I want to say the 1910’s, but think of the advances in aviation and industry even then. Maybe the 20’s? The 40’s? There’s great ‘sci-fi’ in almost any decade of this century. Even today, there are innovations and technological progress despite the cultural mood.
I’d love it if any history buff could point out a period of recent history where the cultural mood is similar to today.
Starship Troopers, is on the reading list for Marine NCO’s for purposes of the importance of identity and moral. The Story isn’t the story. The story of the book is the practical application of “History and moral philosophy.” The book isn’t about war, it’s about how conflict molds the moral nature of event he most selfish person, like little johnny Rico who really only wanted to catch the girl.
I used to “give classes” all the time when I was in the service, and the big thing I would always say, is that “Whatever you were or you intended when you joined, you know damn well that isn’t where you are now.” anyone who equates the movie to the book is an illiterate.
@ Will McClean perhaps, there was an unusual sexual aspect to his later books, but the sex was present in all of his books that I can think of, and another thing all those books had in common. The women were the ones who chose.
In Moon, Manny is only described as being with Wyoming once, and that is on the wedding night just before manny is possible to die. In all of the lazarus books the protagonists, with the exclusionary exception of “The Number of the Beast” are women, and the female computer programmer quickly takes charge in that book until they meet up with Lazarus.
Yes, he wrote strong male characters who tended to be the in fact heroes, but based on the support of equally strong female characters. You can say the same with most of his stories. The only times women play secondary roles are almost entirely in his serialized stories, like orphans of the sky and such, but those are more treatise AGAINST fascism.
The man might have had some problems in some of his writing, but when he was on, he was ON!
Starship Troopers (the book) is a bit cheesy but it introduces a lot of interesting concepts and has a good enough plot. Some of the characters, like Zim, are priceless.
As for the Verhooven movie, that was his own take on the subject. The guy directed Robocop, so you definitively know his views on society and his way of directing. He did it over the top which was fun. He mocked at the whole way the government worked. He made the uniforms of the officers look like Nazi “lite”. Then there are the splatter movie elements. It is certainly much better than the rather putrid “mother tree” crap you see in movies like Avatar. If you want something more faithful to the Heinlein book you can see the “Roughnecks” animated series. It is probably on Amazon.
Then there is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. The book is basically flawless and I think it was one of the best books I ever read.
I’m on record in a different thread saying that I think that all of the SF that RAH published post-The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is really bad, except for maybe 10% of Time Enough for Love (primarily “The Tale of the Man Who Was Too Lazy to Fail” and “The Tale of the Adopted Daughter”, although the descriptions of the Midwest in 1916 have the ring of authenticity). At that point, Heinlein was well enough known (for Stranger in a Strange Land at least) that his novels would sell well due to his name value.
I agree that some of his more “adult” fiction hasn’t aged all that well (most of the non-Future-History short stories fall into this category), but stuff like “If This Goes On-“, “Methuselah’s Children”, and pretty much all of the juveniles hold up extremely well. Beats the crap out of most of the so-called New Wave. Even somebody as different from RAH as Harlan Ellison acknowledges a debt to Heinlein. But there were detractors of RAH, mostly with the “fascist” tag, way back in the ’70s (there was a great deal of controversy about his Worldcon GoH gig in that timeframe).
But I’m confident that RAH’s works will weather this storm as well; there will always be new freethinkers in need of some inspiration…
This touches on a subject I blogged about long time ago. Public education taught me to hate reading. Exposure to Catcher in the Rye and A Separate Peace in the same lifetime DEPRESSED THE LIVING HELL OUT OF ME.
I hated reading, but I liked sci-fi in TV/film, so at the age of 21 I tried sci-fi reading. I bought a number of used paperbacks at a local comic book/used book shop in Corpus Christi, TX, a side hobby of Judge Margarito Garza.
Some titles were Heinlein. Farmer in the Sky. Time for the Stars. The Door Into Summer. Tunnel in the Sky. The Star Beast. Glory Road. Frontier optimism rocks, big time. It’s fun. The characters are fun. The stories are interesting. haven’t read the novels newer than Stranger in a Strange Land (couldn’t quite get into that one) or Time Enough for Love.
I would annoy both the lefty pinhead types and Bill Bennett. Here’s the latter’s list of books that every high schooler should read. Um, isn’t this overdoing it? Childhood lasts only so long – there’s time for only so much reading.
(Crime and Punishment AND War and Peace? Can we use a TARDIS for those assignments, teach? I promise not to use it to go back in time to slap John Knowles.)
There’s got to be balance between the challenging stuff and fun reading, so kids have a chance to like reading.
On another note…I have never read Starship Trooper. Just watched the Verhoven film and listened to the Yes song. (Which is less unlike the book?) When I get around to reading it, I will look for the answer to two questions:
1. Does the government have any fascist elements?
2. Does the author imply any bias toward or against the government? Or is it presented in a “we report, you decide” fashion?
I like Heinlein. Always have. Every now and then I pull down some raggedy paperback I bought for 95 cents in 1977 and re-read it, with the pleasure of meeting an old friend and running through the same old jokes. I can say that about a mere handful of authors.
But I’ve never taken him all that seriously that I wonder whether it might be right to bone your mom or play silverback dominance games like Lazarus Long. It’s just a story.
The way I saw it, Heinlein was just revolting against the navel-gazing angsty tendencies of sf from the 30s and 40s, what Campbell liked, plus the LSD-lite OMG We have such Visions you peasants can barely comprehend! of Philip Jose Farmer and Harlan Ellison, who both suck, from the 50s and 60s. Heinlein was just a big slap upside the head: no, you sillies, technology and cleverness are actually simple and helpful things, and it doesn’t take a whole lot of brains to avoid falling into some Dickian psycho horror show when using them. Just because we have airplanes doesn’t mean we started practising infanticide, and just because we get computers or robots doesn’t mean we’ll turn into the Morlocks.
I see him as just giving one decades-long finger to the pretentious depressive Alas Poor Yorick and There Are More Things In Heaven And Earth, Horatio modes of fiction writing. A good goose, a strong vote in favor of gung-ho, a bit of Kipling in spaceboots. I’d be surprised if he himself took it all that seriously (and to the extent any of his writer characters are autobiographical, that seems to be what he was hinting, that it was just a way to make a buck more honestly than theft).
My impression of why it isn’t as much in favor with a younger set is that that set is more feminized than we old-timers. Raised on diversity pie and moral relativism and making everybody in the classroom feel included instead of arrogantly blowing away the slackers with your brilliance, they are more in touch with their inner woman, and like seeing Captain Picard wrestle with his conscience more than seeing Captain Kirk blow holes in the Gorn with his homemade howitzer. De gustabus non disputandam. I wouldn’t like gladiatorial games.
Chris Gerrib Says:
July 6th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
When they were set and whether the technology was dated or not wasn’t what made them good, it was the story. It’s always the story. That was my point.
One of the attractions of some kinds of SF is plausible and effective worldbuilding. Heinlein was frequently working in that niche, and was spectacularly overoptimistic about how well some technology would work. That’s a suspension of disbelief problem for a lot of readers now, compared to when they were written.
His best work is good enough on other merits to overcome the handicap, but it’s still a handicap.
Douglas:
Sure, when there was a harem in Heinlein, the women chose, because Heinlein wrote it that way. Just like the space babe of the week chose to throw herself at Captain Kirk.
It still seems like male wish fulfillment fantasy, particularly after the third time it happens.
And I found the treatment of rape in Friday to be pretty squicky.
I realize this is a waste of time, but to fisk:
Leland – I did not bring up my book or my Amazon ranking, Ken did. If Ken thinks Amazon rankings are relevant, then he needs to defend that statement.
And you think your defense is to remark about Ken’s book?
Nothing I said hinders in any way Ken’s ability to express his views. Nothing I said claims or implies that I have any rights not allowed to others.
It’s implied. And you have used the tactic routinely.
In addition, it would be nice if you responded to what I said, not read something in that’s not there and respond to it.
I responded exactly to what you said. I even quoted the part for which I formed a response.
Lastly, your “OMG Mommy they’re picking on me!” routine gets rather old.
I’m sorry you don’t like being picked on Gerrib, but you bring it upon yourself.
If you express your opinions forcefully in a public forum, others may do the same.
Indeed.
Oh come on, Will, aside from mystery FTL drives and sentient computers, which are nearly axiomatic for sf, what did Heinlein overpredict? And compared to modern nanotech / gene splicing /quantum magic/ cosmic string deus ex machinae, he’s downright conservative. It just doesn’t feel that way because we don’t yet know what will turn out to be nonsense.
Carl:
High performance nuclear thermal rockets cheap enough to enable profitable uranium mining on the moon and a thriving interplanetary trade in Venusian vegetables. Magical total conversion to energy torch drives.
A privately funded multi-stage chemical rocket to the moon which is profitable because of the abundant lunar diamonds.
I should add that the privately funded chemical moon rocket was predicted to land on the moon in 1978.
Mr. McLean; if it hadn’t been for the Apollo programme there probably would have been commercial flight to the Moon by then. Apollo was a Cold War prestige stunt that set back real progress at least thirty years.
I could totally explain why you’re wrong, I just don’t wanna! You don’t know her; she’s Canadian.
Mr. Christian:
No. The business case doesn’t close, even if you assume the private Saturn V can be built for half the cost of the government one.
Heinlein wasn’t a fascist, but he did have an authoritarian streak of “take that troublemaker out and shoot him” and “inferior people should not be allowed to vote.”
There’s so much *wrong* in this statement it’s actually impossible to unpack it. So I won’t bother.
So then are you saying that limited democracy is fascism? The founding fathers would have disagreed. If you’re saying that the system in ST is not limited democracy, I suggest you read the book.
Plain inaccruate. He has quite a few pops at democracy in Glory Road from the perspective of the Empress and Rollo and the people he meets after the adventure. I’m pretty sure that the empire wasn’t presented as a libertarian idly.
Actually, the Empress is the Empress of what we would today call the Multiverse, and exercises very little government interference. Proof of this is the fact that the Earth was part of her dominion, and no one there even knew of her existence.
Right. So the bits you selectively quote and remember to back up your point are worth more than all the other bits than disagree.
Once again, read Expanded Universe. The only part of the book that would be considered “liberal” (using the current but wrong definition of that word) would be the three issues written right after WWII, when that was indisputably his political worldview.
Because I don’t think he was senile. I think he suffered a degree of brain damage from the various cardiac episodes he had due to his blocked arteries.
If he could write Friday with brain damage, then it’s borderline scary to think about what he could accomplish without it.
I’m generally prudish about incest whoever is doing it.
You’re taking things out of context. These were people with indefinite lifespans, as well as cloning and other genetic advances. Heinlein makes it clear that morals have changed due to technology.
Chris Gerrib: I haven’t written a book. Nor have I said that a 52-year-old book is obsolescent, when it’s hugely outselling my 5-year-old book. ST is probably selling better now than when it came out.
Will McLean: Heinlein would indeed be obsolescent if there were new authors to take up the mantle of optimistic hard sf. Since there are so few of them, his books still outsell most new books, and pretty much all books that are more than a few years old.
1. Does the government have any fascist elements?
No. It is a republican government in which only honorably discharged veterans can vote. Note that they have to be discharged; active military personnel cannot vote either.
2. Does the author imply any bias toward or against the government? Or is it presented in a “we report, you decide” fashion?
This is a matter of some dispute, but I would say that RAH is definitely biased toward the government. However, he made it clear later on that he was presenting a possible solution to the problem of people voting themselves largesse–not the only solution, or one that would certainly work in real life.
Zachary Sorenson: how can you say there is no frontier optimism in our culture when we have Elon Musk, Richard Branson, and Jeff Bezos bringing back space travel in a big way?
Ken – I didn’t say “Starship Troopers” was obsolescent. I said, and will defend, that the “story” of the book was a wrapping to smuggle into the editors a political tract. Whether my current book or my new one sells better or worse then Heinlein’s is irrelevant to that opinion, just as the fact that you haven’t written a book isn’t relevant.
Also, don’t get too wrapped around the axle on Amazon ranks – Tina Fey’s book is at #20, and Jim Hines’ latest is at 29. Ranks in the 3,000s on Amazon translate into 2 or 3 books sold per day.
John Scalzi immediately comes to mind as a current writer of optimistic hard SF. Depending on how you define “hard” I’d put Elizabeth Moon in that category. M. J. Locke and James S. A. Corey (newish authors) both put out optimistic hard SF novels this year.
I’m probably going to regret saying this, but if the only SF you’re reading is Heinlein, you are simply not current with modern SF. Since Heinlein died 20-some years ago, that’s almost true by definition. Heck, somebody put out an anthology of optimistic SF recently.
It is a republican government in which only honorably discharged veterans can vote.
It’s important to note that these are not necessarily military veterans. Heinlein divided the population into legal residents and citizens, of whom only the latter could vote. For a legal resident to become a citizen he had to volunteer for the Federal Service which included the Army and Navy but more besides. You could not be rejected for the Federal Service. They would find something for you to do even if you were a blind quadriplegic. This is pointed out to Johnny when he asks if he passed his application test and is told he can’t possibly fail the test. Johnny is also shown filling out his desired branch of service. He places the Army and Navy at the bottom of the list. He, of course, winds up in the Army. After one’s Federal Service ends one becomes a citizen.
Ken: I have actually read Expanded Universe, why do you want me to place more weight on it, than, say, Take Back Your Government? I get it, you like the guy and you have a firm position on your take on his politics and where they, I suspect, intersect with your own. Bully for you. I disagree.
But this single statement requires a big, fact WTF?
“You’re taking things out of context.”
Yeah, because the morals of shagging your mum have changed… Oh… hang on, isn’t this the Rand Simberg blog where there Ain’t No Such Thing as moral relativity?
Jeez.
To the optimistic “frontier” SF lists I’d add Peter F Hamilton and Allan Steele too.
As Chris says, SF has moved on a lot since Heinlein and New Wave and when you come to the point where somebody can have a best seller writing a homage to Heinlein (Saturn’s Children) then it’s time to move on and read some more.
On the WTF and that’s not even wrong stakes…
Actually, the Empress is the Empress of what we would today call the Multiverse, and exercises very little government interference. Proof of this is the fact that the Earth was part of her dominion, and no one there even knew of her existence.
Did you *read* the book? Especially the last parts?
John Scalzi immediately comes to mind as a current writer of optimistic hard SF.
And as a “pity me, I was poor” liberal.
1. Does the government have any fascist elements?
Within the context of the story not really, except for, the Federal citizenship requirements requiring “service” for citizenship, with a pretty strong feeling (at least one that I took away) that the “best” service was military and a suggestion that the military had non-trivial say in the affairs of the government. I’d need to re-read but I think there’s a throw away line to that effect from one of Rico’s parents.
What I suspect triggers the “fascist” button in many people is this relationship between government, the franchise and the military and real world experience have of government and military involvement in civilian government historically around the world during the 20th century.
As I said, I don’t think it means that Heinlein was a fascist – the man who wrote Take Back Your Government was anything but. However, I do think he liked to play with the reader’s sensibilities by presenting really, really _wrong_ things as good and therefore giving the reader something to think about.
Heinlein was a really complicated man and the simplistic portrayal of him and his politics that Ken and others are presenting is pretty wide of the mark. Fred Pohl has been writing about Heinlein a lot recently and it’s worth reading what he, as a friend and contemporary, has to say.
And as a “pity me, I was poor” liberal.
So?
I seem to recall that well known liberal Glenn Reynolds is a fan of his.
I seem to recall that well known liberal Glenn Reynolds is a fan of his.
And your point is…?
You don’t have to agree with a person politically to like their Science Fiction.
Or did Curt mean something else by referencing him like that?
Ken: I have actually read Expanded Universe, why do you want me to place more weight on it, than, say, Take Back Your Government?
Because TBYG represented Heinlein’s immature views. It was written, I believe, in 1946. Or did you have the mistaken impression that he wrote it in 1992, when it was most recently published? That would have been quite an accomplishment for someone who died in 1988.
What I suspect triggers the “fascist” button in many people is this relationship between government, the franchise and the military and real world experience have of government and military involvement in civilian government historically around the world during the 20th century.
In addition, I think Heinlein’s enthusiasm for corporal punishment for crime (flogging, etc) in the book was also a major reason for the fascist label.
Although I think most here are taking “fascist” too literally. “Fascist”, like “racist”, has long since become a generic pejorative term for policies of which one doesn’t approve.
I did read Glory Road, and it specifically states that the Empress follows the policy that the government that governs best is that which governs least. Technically I suppose that makes it not a “libertarian idly [sic],” but rather an extremely loose confederation.
As I said, I don’t think it means that Heinlein was a fascist – the man who wrote Take Back Your Government was anything but.
No, the man who wrote that was in his own words a radical. He continued to be a radical afterward, but an anti-socialist, pro-free-enterprise radical. He said something to the same effect himself.
BTW, even in TBYG, Heinlein set aside several pages to explain the dangers of letting Communists have any input into politics, and explained effective means of fighting them.
In addition, I think Heinlein’s enthusiasm for corporal punishment for crime (flogging, etc) in the book was also a major reason for the fascist label.
It was specifically done instead of incarceration or execution. If anything, it was less “fascist” than America then or now.
isn’t this the Rand Simberg blog where there Ain’t No Such Thing as moral relativity?
Yeah, this is the go-to place for the Christian Coalition.