janw@inmet.UUCP (09/09/86)
>[tim@hoptoad.uucp ] >In article <20812@styx.UUCP> mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: >> The fact that Heinlein's character (and I will allow that he speaks with >>the authorial voice, as many of RAH's heroes do) dryly notes some of the >>beneficial effects the war had compared with previous wars hardly marks hims >>as being in FAVOR of a nuclear war. I fear this passage, and the other one >>quoted, were a little too subtle for Mr. Maroney. >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". Did *he* or one of the protagonists say that? Neither of you ad- dresses this crucial distinction. The nuclear war *does* occur in this novel. It proves *bad* for the country and the world. Thus the author is against it, as far as that goes. Even if good came out of the war (as it does in some science fiction, not Heinlein's) - this would only be one scenario, and not necessari- ly a *position*. It's not cricket to blame the author for what his characters say. Huck Finn uses the word "nigger". Mark Twain doesn't. Jan Wasilewsky