Heinlein On Government

[mrjarrell]

Found this today on Facebook. Thought it apropos, since we're apparently already headed into silly season. Heinlein affected thousands of people politically and many, if not most libertarians, with his writings. I certainly count myself amongst those who were one of Bob's kids.

 

[jrogers]

I'd be more cautious in self-applying the term "Bob's kid" in light of the man's obsession with pedophilia and incest. Or did you just read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress because it was on your libertarian reading list and have no exposure to the balance of RAH's works?

 

[Fletch]

I'd be more cautious in self-applying the term "Bob's kid" in light of the man's obsession with pedophilia and incest. Or did you just read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress because it was on your libertarian reading list and have no exposure to the balance of RAH's works?

I've read most of his catalog. The Bible is far more disturbing, and I'll claim it as well.

 

[Birds Away]

I've read a good deal of Heinlein. I must have missed the pedophilia and incest.

 

[churchmouse]

Never saw any pedophilia in his work but we all read something different into an author. Been so many years since I sat down with any of his work. I do like his science fiction and views on Gov.

 

[cobber]

I've read a good deal of Heinlein. I must have missed the pedophilia and incest.

The Door into Summer was thematically akin to Nabokov's Lolita. That being said, whether he was "obsessed" with these themes is highly questionable. Some of his later adult fiction was certainly sexually liberated, but in comparison to prime-time TV these days? Hmm.

Lots of his writing experiments with ideas of freedom, and breaking social norms. When critiquing an author, one has to guard against reflexively attributing the characters' attitudes to that author. The more prolific an author, the more difficult that practice becomes.

Incest? Don't remember that, and I've read most of his stuff.

 

[SOCOM242]

I've read most of his catalog. The Bible is far more disturbing, and I'll claim it as well.

"Far more disturbing"? *facepalm*

 

[mrjarrell]

I'd be more cautious in self-applying the term "Bob's kid" in light of the man's obsession with pedophilia and incest. Or did you just read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress because it was on your libertarian reading list and have no exposure to the balance of RAH's works?

Never actually read any Heinlein, have you? Or, if you did, I doubt you understood it.

 

[Fletch]

"Far more disturbing"? *facepalm*

If you take the Bible seriously (granted, some don't), it should disturb the hell out of you. Jesus and James pretty much come right out and say that if it doesn't disturb you, it didn't do you any good.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

If you take the Bible seriously (granted, some don't), it should disturb the hell out of you. Jesus and James pretty much come right out and say that if it doesn't disturb you, it didn't do you any good.

The Bible wasn't even in existence when Jesus and James walked upon the earth...

 

[mrjarrell]

The Bible wasn't even in existence when Jesus and James walked upon the earth...

You're seriously going to make that statement? Despite the fact that the old testament, as the Torah and Talmud was in existence?

 

[Fletch]

You're seriously going to make that statement? Despite the fact that the old testament, as the Torah and Talmud was in existence?

Apparently when Jesus spoke of "the Law and the Prophets", he was referring to a screenplay he was working on.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

You're seriously going to make that statement? Despite the fact that the old testament, as the Torah and Talmud was in existence?

Yes, I'll seriously make that statement. The Torah and Talmud are Jewish documents and teachings. The Bible, though it contains the Torah as its first five books, did not come into existance until after they were no longer walking on earth. It was then that the New Testament, i.e. the teachings of Jesus, were contained into the book, or the variants of that we find today, known as the Bible.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Re: Incest

Farnham's Freehold

It's not a very good book and Heinlein's tone regarding the incest is unnerving. Really, it's creepy.

I'm no prude when it comes to literature and I have read most of Heinlein's novels, but this is not a great novel and it is unsettling.

Heinlein some of my favorite novels and one of my least favorite.

 

[Fletch]

Yes, I'll seriously make that statement. The Torah and Talmud are Jewish documents and teachings. The Bible, though it contains the Torah as its first five books, did not come into existance until after they were no longer walking on earth. It was then that the New Testament, i.e. the teachings of Jesus, were contained into the book, or the variants of that we find today, known as the Bible.

OK, we can quibble about the meaning of the word "Bible" and whether Jesus was self-aware enough to know that he was eventually going to be in it. Doesn't really change my position: Jesus, along with at the very least Paul and James, maintained that if the teachings (be they of the OT or "present", aka NT) didn't make you uncomfortable enough to change, you missed the point.

 

[Fletch]

Re: Incest

Farnham's Freehold

It's not a very good book and Heinlein's tone regarding the incest is unnerving. Really, it's creepy.

I'm no prude when it comes to literature and I have read most of Heinlein's novels, but this is not a great novel and it is unsettling.

Heinlein some of my favorite novels and one of my least favorite.

Farnham's Freehold is one of my favorites. I think it was written while he was still relatively green, so it's not wonderful, but I liked his explorations of lifeboat ethics, which to me seemed to be one of the primary themes.

But as far as incest goes, one of the interpretations of Genesis is that Adam and Eve's children necessarily married each other. So it's not like that's anything new.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

OK, we can quibble about the meaning of the word "Bible" and whether Jesus was self-aware enough to know that he was eventually going to be in it. Doesn't really change my position: Jesus, along with at the very least Paul and James, maintained that if the teachings (be they of the OT or "present", aka NT) didn't make you uncomfortable enough to change, you missed the point.

I wasn't quibbling and I do get your point...as well as agree. I was only making an observational clarification so that others do not confuse the teachings of Jewish religion versus the teachings of Christianity.

 

[Fletch]

I wasn't quibbling and I do get your point...as well as agree. I was only making an observational clarification so that others do not confuse the teachings of Jewish religion versus the teachings of Christianity.

In my local church scene, it's common to hear people (even pastors) saying things like "the Old Testament is the Bible that Jesus read". It's usually said as part of a larger point that the OT points to the NT, but it's a colloquial conflation to which I've perhaps become too accustomed. I do take your meaning. Around here it would be seen as unnecessary to define what the Bible is, but it's all good.

 

[mrjarrell]

Re: Incest

Farnham's Freehold

It's not a very good book and Heinlein's tone regarding the incest is unnerving. Really, it's creepy.

I'm no prude when it comes to literature and I have read most of Heinlein's novels, but this is not a great novel and it is unsettling.

Heinlein some of my favorite novels and one of my least favorite.

Did it not occur to you that it was supposed to be creepy and unsettling in that case? Heinlein did not write without purpose.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Farnham's Freehold is one of my favorites. I think it was written while he was still relatively green, so it's not wonderful, but I liked his explorations of lifeboat ethics, which to me seemed to be one of the primary themes.

But as far as incest goes, one of the interpretations of Genesis is that Adam and Eve's children necessarily married each other. So it's not like that's anything new.

Did it not occur to you that it was supposed to be creepy and unsettling in that case? Heinlein did not write without purpose.

Not trying to rain on anyone's favorite book, but I simply did not care much at all for "Freehold". I believe that the act of reading creates meaning and that reading is a unique and personal experience (gap filling, interpretation, etc), so what the story was to me is not what it was to you.

As a matter of fact, I did consider whether the incest was supposed to be creepy and unsettling, but on the whole, Farnham's freehold read to me like a fantasy projection of the author where the prepared man flies in the face of social convention and prepares for the apocalypse only to find that the apocalypse shows up and his nagging wife is proven wrong and he gets to screw his daughter and be the hero. And the black people slaughter the white people as cattle. To be honest, the "Screw me daddy" parts were not what put me off as much as that I thought it was just weak as a novel. I kept expecting it to go somewhere interesting, especially when they make their escape attempt, but the novel never really went anywhere for me. It felt like it just muddled around, broke some taboos for shock or titillation value and then ended fairly conventionally (conventionally given the context). I read this book late in my reading of Heinlein, so maybe I expected too much.



But, if someone wants to bring up incest regarding Heinlein, "Freehold" is a valid point.

My favorite Heinlein novel is probably "Stranger in a Strange Land" followed by "Starship Troopers" and then "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" with "Citizen of the Galaxy" being pretty good too. I don't remember the others, but I remember I did not care for "The Cat Who Walked Through Walls" either. "Glory Road" was ok, but a little thin if you know what I mean.

I really like some of Heinlein's works, some of his others I do not care for at all. I'm a literature junky and it does not bother me that I love some works by an author and hate others. I am not in love with the author and bound to follow them hell or high water though I love some of their thoughts.

The OP was a good point, but Heinlein also wrote some stinkers IMHO. I would be ecstatic if I wrote one thing as great as his best even if I accompanied it with hundreds as bad as his worst.