dls@hocse.UUCP (03/02/84)
A friend of mine not connected to the net wrote this up on the subject of Heinlein and Friday. *********************************FLAME ON******************************** In all the flaming of Heinlein on the net, not one person has stated the real objection I have to FRIDAY: in real life, women do not fall in love with their rapists. (In fact, no one has even mentioned the beginning or end of the novel at all.) Most women are not so calm and collected as Friday, and while she may be SUPPOSED to be extraordinary, Heinlein does a grave disservice to all of us who are not such "together" people. I suppose most of Heinlein's characters rise to the circumstances much better than we would; it's just that in all the other circumstances, I can at least imagine that I would do as well. I think it's an important consideration. That is not to say that I believe that all fiction must be "politically correct," just that one must consider the consequences of one's words. Heinlein may very well leave men with the mistaken impression that rape is no worse than purse-snatching. This is what pisses me off about FRIDAY. *********************************FLAME OFF******************************* For what its worth, I have a slightly different view on this subject. I agree that the rape was gratuitous and unlikely, stuck in to "arouse the audience(of men)." Friday even says at one point the "rape is a poor interrogation technique," which happens to be true. It seems unlikely that supposed professionals would waste what turn out to be critical minutes(more likely hours, the scene is dragged out forever)before moving on to something more likely to be effective. I call this gratuitous. The more important point is that given the character of Friday, she is unlikely to forgive the rapist as easily as she does. A much more likely outcome would be her shooting him the instant she recognizes him, and perhaps feeling a very small twinge of regret upon hearing that he's supposed to have been one of the "good guys." I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just that it happens too quickly and with too little development to have a shred of credibility. What is being requested here is a reasonable standard of characterization, consistant with actual human psychology. Friday was not portrayed as a masochist, nor as a victum of the "Patty Hearst" syndrom, nor were any other reasonable motives put forward. Hence her behavior seems absurd. Nobody forgives that easily.
andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (03/04/84)
"In all the flaming of Heinlein on the net, not one person has
stated the real objection I have to FRIDAY: in real life, women
do not fall in love with their rapists ... Most women are not
so calm and collected as Friday, and while she may be SUPPOSED
to be extraordinary, Heinlein does a grave disservice to all of
us who are not such "together" people ... Heinlein may very
well leave men with the mistaken impression that rape is no
worse than purse-snatching."
Throughout the book, Heinlein hammers away at the theme that Friday did
not consider herself to be a human being and had a far different
attitude toward sex from that of "real" women. This was instilled in
her during her upbringing as an "artificial person", the product of
genetic engineering. During her schooling, she was told daily that she
was not a real person. She was also given extensive training in
"doxology", the study of how to please a man in bed, so that when she
became of age and her contract was sold, she could serve as a
concubine.
I think that the purpose of the rape scene is to emphasize this
indifference. Friday really did believe rape to be no worse than
purse-snatching.
-- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew) [UUCP]
(orca!andrew.tektronix@rand-relay) [ARPA]friedman@uiucdcs.UUCP (friedman ) (03/06/84)
#R:hocse:-14300:uiucdcs:12500075:000:1250 uiucdcs!friedman Mar 5 09:24:00 1984 Re. the criticism of Friday for falling in love with her rapist: I don't think this is well taken. For one thing, ordinary human psychology doesn't necessarily extrapolate to Friday. For example, it's clear that the rape was not (as such) traumatic to her; with her mind control discipline, she could and did simply turn it off. In that long scene of which the rape was part, she dispassionately recounts the several responses she considered making to the rape. The only rapist with whom she was upset (and very much so) was the guy who was unclean and slapped her around. So I don't find her response to Mac/Pete/Percival all that odd, although it was kinda quick. Even that is understandable; she tends to respond to other APs wherever and whenever she finds them (witness that gallant character who runs away from her the second time she crosses from Canada to California). Despite her statements that APs don't particularly stick together, every time she discovers one, they stick together -- Mac, Tilly, whatsisname.... So it does seem to be in character. As for the rape being stuck in to "arouse the audience (of men)", I think this is nonsense. It certainly was not described in a way that I think was erotic or arousing to anyone.
dls@hocse.UUCP (03/06/84)
Once again, my off-net friend has something to say: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Throughout the book, Heinlein hammers away at the theme that Friday did >not consider herself to be a human being and had a far different >attitude toward sex from that of "real" women. and >I don't think this is well taken. For one thing, ordinary human psychology >doesn't necessarily extrapolate to Friday. For example, it's clear that the >rape was not (as such) traumatic to her; with her mind control discipline, >she could and did simply turn it off. In that long scene of which the rape >was part, she dispassionately recounts the several responses she considered >making to the rape. So why does everyone hold up Friday as an example of how well Heinlein portrays a strong female (human) character? Either she's a valid example of a strong female character (which implies some degree of believability in her portrayal as a HUMAN female), or she's not considered HUMAN (which implies that she can't be held up as a valid example of a strong female character). You can't have it both ways. It seems like the whole point of the novel was that Friday was as human as any 'normal' human. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ My two cents worth: Friday was supposed to be the best any human could be, but still human. Her reaction while being raped is not the issue; I can believe that she could "turn it off." You could find real people who could do the same in worse circumstances. The problem is with her falling for the rapist AP. The suggestion is not that this is impossible, just that it was tossed off with too little justification or development, and is fundamentally unlikly to boot.
kcarroll@utzoo.UUCP (Kieran A. Carroll) (03/13/84)
* I've got an idea: why not interpret the novel Friday based on what's in it, rather than what you wish was in it? The present controversy is over Friday's marrying a man who had previously raped her. Well, perhaps she wouldn't have thought of it that way; he was another AP like her, he was a member of her own profession (giving them a common interest), he helped her escape onto the colony planet (if I remember correctly). In addition, she wanted desperately to belong to a family; getting married is a good first step towards that. I don't remember whether or not there would have been other APs in the colonies; from what I remember, she felt that she couldn't trust regular people, because they might find out her background and turn against her. In that case, the rapist might have been the one person she could trust. Besides which, the guy had been kind to her (given that it was his job to rape her; he was kinder than the others involved), and she hadn't had to watch him as she was being raped. Perhaps that made it easier to forget the incident (especially since she'd "turned off" at the time). I must admit that I was rather lukewarm about Friday when first I read the book. Now, looking back on the half-remembered plot, and with the flames going back and forth on the net to stimulate thinking about it, I'm growing to appreciate it more. So, keep those flames burning! -Kieran A. Carroll ...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll
ron@brl-vgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (03/14/84)
I thought that it was her training as a professional cloak-and-dagger type courier that gained her the edge over the rape and torture, not the fact that she was AP. As a matter of fact, I think that using AP as a reason is contrary to some of the points that Heinlein was trying to express.