mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/11/86)
Tim Maroney's articles have only arrived here as exerpts, but it is clear that he continues in his usual blunderbuss for a scalpel approach to understanding fiction as argument. For instance, we have this now-notorious passage: >> Mr. Berch speaks with the fervent preconception of a fundamentalist >> inventing excuses for the slaughter of the Midianites. Heinlein was clear; >> he did not dryly note a few positive effects; he stated outright that the >> nuclear war was "good for the country". Go back and check the quote if you >> don't believe me (and I'll grant you, it's hard to believe). He then went >> on to say that it had "turned the tide" toward the triumph of freedom, and >> that the net effect would be to "improve the breed". Not hesitantly, not >> dryly, not in passing - Heinlein states outright and enthusiastically that >> nuclear war would be a wonderful thing! A Heinlein *character* makes the statement. And hasn't anyone heard anymore of overstatement as a form of irony? There is in Heinlein's writings an undeniable streak of a certain kind of elitism, coupled with a conspicuous lack of any sympathy of their opponents. My personal opinion is that this reflects the author's viewpoint. Nevertheless, Ethan Vishniac's reply brings out a point which I wish to expand upon. Let us take another Heinlein book: _Glory Road_. Here we have another supercompetent Heinlein hero (and the heroine is the absolute icon of all Heinlein heroines), but one very different from Farnham. I cannot imagine "Oscar" having anything at all good to say about nuclear war. His attitude towards incompetence is more along the lines of "fine, just leave me alone". Which are you going to choose as the mouthpiece of the author? If you choose one, you must choose the other as well. SF is innately speculative. With respect to Heinlein's books, while I'd say that the main characters do tend to speak for the author, there's generally no ratification of the societies in which they are placed. Farnham's plight is a case in point; I have little doubt that Heinlein meant approval for Franham, but clearly he thinks the situation Farnham is in is pretty rotten. (By the way, Tim, why aren't you sniping at H. G. Wells? _Farnham's Freehold_ is, after all, an out-and-out rip-off of _The Time Machine_.) C. Wingate