Praise Bob.

[masque12]

I've heard various complaints about Robert Heinlein over the years, particularly accusations of fascism and sexism in his writing, and I've never been able to see those tendencies for myself. I've read damn near everything he's written, and I don't see it. I found this article by Spider Robinson (another excellent writer), and he points out what people are generally talking about when they level those accusations at Heinlein, and promptly debunks them. I'm pretty much in agreement with Spider's assessments.

Rah, Rah, RAH!:
http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/works/articles/rahrahrah.html

Comments

[khidir.livejournal.com]

I cannot possibly see how Heinlein could be accused of fascism and sexism, to me he seems exactly the opposite! Fascism as explained by Reich goes hand in hand with baulking orgastic potential, Heinlein's writings were all about orgastic potential.

[masque12.livejournal.com]

I'm with you. If you read the article I linked to, Spider breaks down how people justify those opinions specifically, and then proceeds to shred them.

[vicki-sine.livejournal.com]

Sexism...Heinlien?

huh?

Did they read Heinlien?

Now he did on occasion write books dealing with those issues, but those are often his villains.

Someone would really have to twist and turn some to come up with that.

[masque12.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, the idea is that even though his female protagonists are super-smart, capable beyond sanity, and extremely self-determined, the fact that they tend to be beautiful, like to screw, and like to have babies makes Heinlein a male chauvinist.

I don't get it either, but there you go.

[vicki-sine.livejournal.com]

In my thin, way too cute if I do say so myself youth, it was easy for me to identify with his female characters.

He is largly responsible for my absolute decision that monogamy was absolutely silly.

Now that I am old and fat, I still think it is silly. But I try not to laugh too hard at those who practice it.

[masque12.livejournal.com]

I myself am a monogamist. I have no problem with polyamoury in a philosophical sense, but I doubt I would have the temperament for it.

[vicki-sine.livejournal.com]

Then a wise choice not to do it.

Either you are hard wired for it or you aren't, I think.

And both parties in a marriage need to be on the same page. Some of the saddest divorces I have ever seen happened because one thought they could change the other.

I have been most fortunate to find partners who were on the same page.

[00goddess.livejournal.com]

Um, no. Spider does not debunk the allegation of sexism: he merely sidesteps it. Yes, Heinlein's female characters are often strong and smart. They are also obsessed with motherhood, pregnancy, and parenting, and almost all of them want babies. His version of "smart" is manipulative, and his women usually treat men like children instead of equals.

No debunking there.

With regard to women characters: I don't think it's that Heinlein can't create believable women characters; it's that he doesn't create believable characters at all, of either sex. Heinlein is a storyteller and not a great character writer. His characters are almost universally one-dimensional. His villains are shallow and evil, his heros are shallow and good.

Spider says: "Examination shows that Heinlein's female characters are almost invariably highly intelligent, educated, competent, practical, resourceful, courageous, independent, sexually aggressive"

Almost invariably is right- Heinlein's women are basically cookie-cutter copies of one another. Of course, the evil women are fat, ugly, incompetent, impractical, manipulative, cowardly, and sexually aggressive.

Not debunked.

I don't see Heinlein as a fascist, but I do wonder why the racism wasn't confronted. Maybe because Spider really couldn't deny it?

[masque12.livejournal.com]

We'll just have to disagree on the sexism thing. A pro-motherhood attitude doesn't make one sexist in my view, even though I personally disagree with that position (being one who has no desire or fondness for children). I can certainly see him as having an oversentimental view of relationships, but from all accounts that's a reflection of the kind of relationship he had with his wife.

The believable character thing is a matter of taste. Taking account for the fact that he is writing stories, not character studies, I rarely have any problem believing his characters within the context of their stories. Is there a degree of suspension of disbelief? Sure. It's science fiction. He does a good job of creating people consistent with the worlds that they're in, in my view.

As for racism, where? Read Farnham's Freehold. One of the best denunciations of racism ever written in science fiction. It's controversial because of how he does it, reversing the racial roles, but the fact that he reverses them entirely is what makes it effective, in my book.

[00goddess.livejournal.com]

A pro-motherhood attitude doesn't make one sexist in my view

No, but that's not what we are talking about.

Actually, Farnham's Freehold is exactly the book I was thinking of when I wrote "racism." HIs depictions of black characters are racist in the extreme.

[masque12.livejournal.com]

Of course his portrayal is racist in the extreme in that book. The whole reason that the blacks are so brutal to the whites in that book is to show whites "This is what it feels like to live under a racist system." If it wasn't brutal it wouldn't be effective. To think that Farnham's Freehold says whites are superior to blacks is like thinking that Swift's A Modest Proposal is actually advocating the consumption of Irish children. It completely misses the point.