It's amazing to me that this book seems so well regarded. Despite the supposed intellectual and political nature of the book, Heinlein at no time offers any credible and countervailing arguments against the naive, solipstic libertarian drivel that he places in the mouth of the Prof and most of the main characters.

When those arguments do arise ever so briefly, Heinlein places them in the vacant-headedly portrayed Wyoming Knot who of course is easily dismissed as a mere woman whose place is in the kitchen, making babies, or in the beauty parlor. She is never portrayed as a true believer in socialism or syndicalism and her thoughts and her opinions are easily swayed.

Heinlein is so notorious in regard to his portrayals of women that feminist science fiction critics have created the notion of the Heinlein heroine as:

"a strong female character: smart (often smarter than the men around her), competent, strong of will, and super-attractive, but is ultimately driven by her biological need to bear children and (in the non-YA novels) to have sex with the Heinlein heroes"

http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?tit...

Heinlein's conception of the feminine is ultimately that of the fulfillment of adolescent fantasy.

Heinlein sets up one dimensional, ridiculous, cartoonish villains in the form of world government representatives that are of course corrupt, self-interested and cruel as embodiments of not only Heinlein's conception of the very nature of socialism and government in general but also of authority (The Authority, how transparent) itself.

Yet, yet, yet, the figurehead of the Prof is the completely unchallenged, unquestioned, and unexamined authoritarian of Heinlein's libertarian dystopia. He is the unerring embodiment of a sardonic and sociopathic libertarian ethic that says you are only as free as the jackboot on your neck of unbridled "individual responsibility" allows you to be.

Pathetic.

That the ultimate denouement here is an interplanetary war of a sorts smacks of a kind of revenge fantasy as adolescent as Heinlein's ideas about sex and women.

What a treat.

ProTip: Arguments work better when you address the issues instead of characterizing the other side as "sociopathic," "solipsistic," "naive," "drivel" etc.

Which scenes gave you the impression that Wyoh is a ditz incapable of independent thought? Of the principles the Professor put forth for his ideal government, which ones do you think are untenable and why?

Sean wrote: "ProTip: Arguments work better..."

I like ProTips. Very helpful.

And while I'm not very pleased by Heinlein's women, it is helpful to remember that this is entertainment and not education. His stories don't have to be balanced and fair, just enjoyable to read. Sadly, this one seems to have failed that test for Lepton.

I read The Moon... about twenty years ago, so I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but I remember the basic story. I also remember I enjoyed it for what it was -- a fun SF story with a bit of philosophy, politics, and so on.

Anyway, it's important to regard artwork in context. Mr. Heilein was born in what, 1907? During his formative years, many of our modern attitudes regarding women and gender equality either did not exist, or they were considered bunk.

Wow. Tell us how you REALLY feel, Lepton. No, no, don't hold back.

Jon's note about Heinlein's era is worth remembering: while I sometimes think of Heinlein as contemporary, since he was still writing while I was alive, he's the product of the same era which gave us Ernest Hemingway, and only a few decades after H.G. Wells. He's certainly sexist by our standards, but fairly progressive for his own.

As for the politics, yes, I agree he fails here. He preaches (though not as badly here as elsewhere) and yes, he offers no better rationale for his 'solution' to the question of how to get along with others than those he deems the 'problem' (the 'ideal' society envisioned by Manny and the Prof. is just as violent, coercive, unsupportive of certain members, and ritualistically hidebound, in its way, as the one it replaces).

But that could probably be pointed out without quite so much invective.

Are we forgetting that at the beginning of the story, women run the show? There is no permeating government throughout the society at the onset of the novel and most of day-to-day life runs through families. The women on the moon are in the position of power. The entire family structure is centered around matriarch(s).

Additionally, any woman who is subjugated, abused, or even harassed by a man is set upon by a pack of men who will almost immediately "eliminate" the offender. This is how Heinlein introduced Stu.

I'm not saying that the female characters are all strong (though Manny's senior wife is), but he did create a functioning society where women are highly respected and have a deciding voice.

While Heinlein doesn't give the women strong words, he does give them strong actions.

***SPOILERS*** When the moon is invaded, Heinlein describes in detail the courageous actions of women. Women armed only with knives running headlong at "special forces" soldiers armed with guns. Heinlein gives some of the most memorable moments of the defense to the women, despite the fact that there are simply more men available to divvy up the story. Heinlein could have easily had the women all holed away as a "precious resource" in a locked off, guarded section of the complex. He didn't. The women were just as much a part of the fight as the men.

It's easy to criticize Heinlein when you judge him solely by today's standards. When you consider that his first published work was almost 80 years ago, it's fairly astounding that he was able to advance some of his attitudes as far as he did. He may have been trapped in a number of the social mores of his upbringing, but he seems to have wrestled successfully with a number of them. Some he didn't overcome particularly well (read 'Farnham's Freehold' for some quite unenlightened racial portrayals), but others he was able to move beyond.

For those who attack him as a 'one-note' writer, compare the societies of 'Harsh Mistress' with 'Starship Troopers', 'Citizen of the Galaxy', 'Glory Road', and 'Stranger in a Strange Land'. Each one is exploring a different landscape in a different way. Yes the rugged individualist hyper-competent 'Heinlein hero' is omni-present, as is the equally hyper-competent female companion (almost inevitably a redhead, like Heinlein's wife, Virginia), but each book looks at a different aspect of society. I've always thought of the latter-day Heinlein as more of a social critic who chose science fiction as his oeuvre.

I was working on a hoax piece a few years ago for a friend's 'zine that was purporting to be proof that Ayn Rand and Heinlein were the same person. I think a good case could be made, philosophically, at least.

Lepton wrote: "Heinlein is so notorious in regard to his portrayals of women that feminist science fiction critics have created the notion of the Heinlein heroine as:

"a strong female character: smart (often smarter than the men around her), competent, strong of will, and super-attractive, but is ultimately driven by her biological need to bear children and (in the non-YA novels) to have sex with the Heinlein heroes"

http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?tit..."

Heinlein is so notorious in his portrayal of his female characters that someone wrote a wiki entry?

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

Sheesh.

If you don't like a writer, don't read them. If you want to read an SF novel with a strong feminist, liberal viewpoint, be my guest. I'm sure it'll be a gripping read.

Harold wrote: "If you want to read an SF novel with a strong feminist, liberal viewpoint, be my guest. I'm sure it'll be a gripping read."

I'd recommend
Ursula K. Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness. And it is a gripping read.

During his lifetime, women in Heinlein's novels were much stronger and smarter than the majority of novels. As previous comments mentioned, you should place his female characters in context of the time it was written.

I would go further and argue that most novels written today feature weaker female characters. When Heinlein's female characters wanted marriage/children (or anything else), they didn't care what society thought. Very unlike today's trend of highly neurotic fictional women who must make up excuses to hide what they want from themselves and others. What we see today is not depth of character, but simply the emotionally broken with unrealistic last page growth/cures.

Heinlein published his first novel in 1939. Remember that time? I do but I'm a bit older than you I bet. He was one of the most forward thinking authors of his time and constantly pilloried for being so excessive in his views. He was not a prolific writer, he only wrote 32 novels, 59 short stories and 16 collections in his lifetime, but he permeates every nook and cranny of pop culture. Most of the living science fiction writers today will give him credit for inspiring them, and his peers made him one of the most decorated authors in Science Fiction. He has even been called the "Dean of Science Fiction". He attended the Naval Academy at Annapolis and served in the navy on an aircraft carrier during the birth of naval aviation, and this affected all his writing, using themes of authority, loyalty, leadership, and of course individualism. Arther C Clarke is not the only writer to pre-invent future items, here is a few that Heinlein came up with- mobile phones, moving walkways,solar panels,waldoes,screensavers,waterbeds,online newspapers to name a few.
I don't agree with all his views or even understand some of them. But to negate such a profound body of work simply because you dislike a social convention as portrayed in a story is not reasonable to me. He was a good citizen, a happily married man all his life, a veteran, taxpayer, voter, in short a pretty good man by most anyones standards.

George wrote: "I'd recommend Ursula K. Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness. And it is a gripping read."

Right. That's one. And you went back 40 years to find it.

I read it when it was published and I enjoyed it immensely. Lathe of Heaven is an all time favorite of mine.

I wasn't saying that a book with a feminist, liberal viewpoint wouldn't be worthwhile; I was saying for page turning enjoyment, what-is-going-to-happen-next anticipation, you'd have to have a fine writer with a great storyline to pull it off. The Stieg Larsson novels may be the last things I've read that might fall into that category.

You know, Lisbeth Salander would have been a hell of a Heinlein protagonist.

Lepton

"...a strong female character: smart (often smarter than the men around her), competent, strong of will, and super-attractive, but is ultimately driven by her biological need to bear children and (in the non-YA novels) to have sex with the Heinlein heroes"

Smart strong attractive women ruling their society and their own families who also have a strong sex drive. I'm trying to see how this is a bad thing to be.

I hate how society attempts to equate sex as a weakness in a woman, but a strength in a man. One of Heinlein's strengths was in exploring this concept.

Harold wrote: "And you went back 40 years to find it.

I read it when it was published a..."

Well, I was aiming for something published at roughly the same time as 'Harsh Mistress'. There are quite a few writers doing sf that could be classified as both feminist (or having a strongly feminist slant) and exciting reading since then. Among them I would include Connie Willis, Elizabeth Moon, the late Octavia Butler, Chelsea Quinn Yarbro, Catherine Asaro, Sheri S. Tepper and a number of others including men like Stephen Barnes and Stephen Leigh.

Men and women in Heinlein's novels have strictly defined roles in society. Men build things and explore, women run the household and raise children. Women who go against this natural law are doomed to unhappiness (see Friday - this novel is all about this concept).

Heinlein was a product of his time, but make no mistake, the attitude towards women he expressed in his books was entirely condescending. Even in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

I do find it interesting that this discussion consists mostly of guys. (I could be wrong)

Jimmy wrote: "I do find it interesting that this discussion consists mostly of guys. (I could be wrong)"

I think the subject of the original post may be deterring a lot of people from even taking a look at it.

Sidenote: for my money, the strongest female protagonist in more recent sci-fi was penned by a man -- The Diamond Age...and a liberal man, at that.

That said,

Heinlein's women are progressive icons FOR HIS TIME...but let's not confuse that with actual progressive feminism. Heinlein still holds that the biological imperative of birthing babies to the hairiest caveman around is what women *really* want, regardless of any temporary aberrational moments when they are acting within the male spheres of political power or outright violence. Wyo and 'Mike' have to get down to 'girl talk' to relate, complete with giggles, in Heinlein's novel. The womens' proper sphere is the family, not politicking with true intellectuals like the Professor (why is Manny necessary to that trip? He's pure deadweight).

John, above at #15 has it right.

P. wrote: "...Heinlein's women are progressive icons FOR HIS TIME...but let's not confuse that with actual progressive feminism. Heinlein still holds that the biological imperative of birthing babies to the hairiest caveman around is what women *really* want..."

I hold that the biological imperative of having children, a daughter, a son to carry on the family name, is what men *really* want too.

This may not be true for all, but when you get get down to basic motivations, I bet that's right for a lot of people and only wrong for a few.

Just like Heinlein :)

huh, I'm a girl and I have to say that when I read Lepton's post I thought "word". I almost posted but wanted to wait and see what others would say.

I've said elsewhere that I have trouble getting past Heinlein's squicky sexual politics and focusing on the parts of his writing that are interesting. When I was reading "Moon", I kept highlighting quotes that made me shudder. I try, try to remember the context of his writing-I ask myself if it could be irony, or intentionally confronting. I guess it's my failing and not his but I have yet to read a Heinlein book that didn't leave me feeling like I had read someone's private fantasy writings, and NOT in a good way.

Someone upthread mentioned Ayn Rand and I think in one of my more flippant moments I jokingly summarised 'Moon' as 'Heffner Shrugged' .

ETA: off the top o' my head, Philip Pullman and Neal Stephenson both feature strong female main characters...

alsoETA: it's not the polyandry/gamy thing that bothers me, that's actually kind of interesting as a solution to a problem. It's the Manny/Wyoh relationship that makes me gag.

I notice that most people are concentrating on the feminist angle of my post. For those wanting to know more I suggest googling Heinlein and feminist. It's a fairly accepted critique of Heinlein that he is as sexist as his times, which by the way is no excuse.

As to the fact of women fighting in the conflict in the book, this to me seemed a mere reflection of the Russian women that served in WWII. It's no feminist leap for Heinlein. It's an historical example brought forth to glorify the conflict and nothing more.

As to my critique of the character of Wyoming Knot, I would direct folks to the "discussion" between Prof and Knot in chapter 6, where Heinlein outlines his solipstic libertarianism by having the Prof literally schooling Wyoming in his politics. Let us remember that while Wyoming is seemingly a leader in Luna's socialist organization, Manny and Heinlein portray her as a mere sexy figurehead meant to rouse the desires and emotions of Luna's 10 to 1 male population. During this "discussion", I think you will find that Wyoming has nearly no ability to offer a counter-argument to the Prof's libertarianism despite the fact that the character is supposed to be steeped deeply in socialist rhetoric. And it is of course Heinlein's purpose here to not offer any credible countervailing argument and his hypocrisy is all the more highlighted by making the vessel of socialism Wyoming herself. Her character is the constant subject of the male gaze that not only objectifies but nearly lampoons the femininity of Wyoming's body. Her character is sex, charm, and reproduction.

What I find more disturbing is the figurehead of the Prof (how literal can you get) as this authoritarian head that espouses this ethic of "radical personal responsibility" and decries authority in all its forms. That Heinlein seems so unaware of this glaring contradiction, that he constructs no credible opposition to the Prof and to Luna, suggests to me that he is merely a fascist in sheep's clothing. By credible here I mean meaningful and sensible to the reader. The threat to Luna is never credible in that Terra's leaders are so cartoonish and transparent. The argument against libertarianism is never credible in that it is given voice by a cartoonishly sexy female character.

Heinlein's mechanic is to place ideas with which he disagrees in a false and fallible vessel, while placing his cherished ones in infallible, authoritarian figureheads like the Prof, like a self-aware computer.

It's pathetic.

I read and loathed Stranger in a Strange Land when I was in my twenties because it's so influential. At the time, I just loathed it because it made me feel icky. I recently re-read it and still loathed it. At least in my late forties, I realized that it was for the reasons that Lepton has stated in his original post. Nobody is going to convince me to give Heinlein another shot.

Lepton wrote: "As to my critique of the character of Wyoming Knot, I would direct folks to the "discussion" between Prof and Knot in chapter 6, where Heinlein outlines his solipstic libertarianism by having the Prof literally schooling Wyoming in his politics. Let us remember that while Wyoming is seemingly a leader in Luna's socialist organization, Manny and Heinlein portray her as a mere sexy figurehead meant to rouse the desires and emotions of Luna's 10 to 1 male population. During this "discussion", I think you will find that Wyoming has nearly no ability to offer a counter-argument to the Prof's libertarianism despite the fact that the character is supposed to be steeped deeply in socialist rhetoric. And it is of course Heinlein's purpose here to not offer any credible countervailing argument and his hypocrisy is all the more highlighted by making the vessel of socialism Wyoming herself. Her character is the constant subject of the male gaze that not only objectifies but nearly lampoons the femininity of Wyoming's body. Her character is sex, charm, and reproduction.
..."

Sorry, I don't buy it.

First of all, I'm not convinced that the Professor actually won their debate. He brought up points she hadn't thought of -- and remember, at the time Heinlein was writing, radical anarchist philosophy was a pretty obscure subject, especially the non-socialist variety -- but by the end of the book, the revolution seems to've gone in a direction closer to her vision than his. In fact, the implementation of the revolution seems to be the Professor's only idea that caught on.

Secondly, the fact that a female character "lost" the argument doesn't necessarily mean that Heinlein made her lose because she's a woman. Compare that scene to the very similar ones in Jack London's The Iron Heel, where the dashing socialist leader demolishes every argument put forth by the capitalist characters, who are in turn left dumbfounded by the natural rightness of his points, even though a dull-witted ten year old could point out the flaws in his logic. In London's case it's obvious that the capitalists lost because they're capitalists and London was a socialist. With Heinlein there are many more factors involved, and to say, "Ah ha! Wyoh lost beause she keeps her reproductive organs inside," is an unwarranted leap of logic.

And finally, the objectification of Wyoh doesn't come from Heinlein, but from the narrator, Manny. Without external evidence, it is always unwise to assume that any character, even the protagonist, speaks for the author.

Now, you claim that this is all part of a pattern with Heinlein's work. Fine. Point to other parts of the pattern. But saying that "it's an accepted critique" is just argumentum ad verecundiam.

That Heinlein places ideas that he does not like in a false vessel is indisputable in my opinion. The Terran officials are a false vessel due to their character and characterization. They are world government. They are Authority.

Wyoh is a false vessel due to her characterization and the near lampooning of her sexuality. She is Jessica Rabbit with bandolier. She's a joke, a musing, a fantasy, totally insubstantial. She's not a false vessel because she is a woman. She is a false vessel because of Heinlein's view of women and his characterization of them.

Also I frankly due not to accept the argument that we cannot and should not attribute the attitudes of characters to the author. He is the author. He creates the world. It is his fiction. And I'd say without exception that Heinlein's view of women and his characterization of them are well-established. This ain't his first dance.

There is one coherent "political" philosophy advanced in the book. That philosophy is placed in an unquestioned authority figure who is the intellectual and strategic leader of the revolution. That authority figure is infallible, nearly always one step ahead, and dies at the point of success of the revolution. The characterization is transparent and really intellectually weak. He might as well be a Christ-figure that is transubstantiated into the Heavens.

There is one coherent view of Wyoh presented throughout the book. It is that of the wiggling, jiggling sexpot. Heinlein puts this view of Wyoh not only in Manny's head, but in that of male children and teens that are described as paying close attention to this parade of flesh. Sorry, it couldn't be clearer.

Let's be clear about a woman's worth in Luna society. Despite the positions of power that they may inhabit, their power stems from their rarity in that society and that rarity is directly related to the valuations of men. Just because something is rare does not mean that it is valued. Luna women have power because the value that they possess (sex, companionship, reproduction) to Luna men is rare. I am not suggesting that Luna women aren't indeed powerful in Luna society, but that status is only due to their rarity and value to men. And Heinlein makes that known early on in the book through Manny's voicing of these same ideas.

As regards authorial intent, to quote Ice T: "If you believe I'm a cop killer, then you also have to believe David Bowie's an astronaut."

Lepton wrote: "Also I frankly due not to accept the argument that we cannot and should not attribute the attitudes of characters to the author. He is the author. He creates the world. It is his fiction. And I'd say without exception that Heinlein's view of women and his characterization of them are well-established. This ain't his first dance...."

Whatever you do, do not read Bret Easton Ellis. Or James Ellroy. Or Robert Bloch. Or Richard Stark. Or... Frankly, if I can read a novel and come away with an understanding of the author's views, he's a crappy author. Heinlein's not a very good author, but he's not that bad.

And again, if this is part of a pattern with Heinlein, please point to additional examples.

There is one coherent view of Wyoh presented throughout the book. It is that of the wiggling, jiggling sexpot. Heinlein puts this view of Wyoh not only in Manny's head, but in that of male children and teens that are described as paying close attention to this parade of flesh. Sorry, it couldn't be clearer.

If one ignores the part where she's a major player in organizing the revolutionary organization, and a major player in the provisional government, and a major player in the constitutional government that supplants it, and that at several points she saves the government by stepping in when events get beyond Manny and the Professor. If one ignores all that, we see that the only coherent view of Wyoh is the obviously besotted one we get from Manny, which is corroborated by a bunch of teenage boys behaving like teenage boys. And if we further ignore the way the other women in Manny's family are presented, we see that Wyoh is representative of Heinlein's views of feminimity.

With regard Heinlein's general views of women, I'm ignorant. I've only read Starship Troopers and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

Within the world of The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, I think we're forgetting that the moon was a prison colony. Its population is almost entirely comprised the of the dregs of society. These are the people which were considered so offensive to Terran society that they needed to be completely removed with no possible chance of return. Because of this fact, the culture that develops on the moon is that of criminals. These are not your everyday citizens of the Earth. These probably are not the kind of people who debate the philosophical ideas of science fiction novels on an Internet forum.

Keeping that in mind, it leads to completely different understanding of the fact that Wyoh is a "wiggling, jiggling sexpot." Women on the have been completely sexualized. This is the accepted practice. When you see an attractive woman, you are supposed to whistle and cat-call and take notice. This is the accepted practice on the moon. You can't touch women without their permission, but you can be completely forward with your feelings on how pleasing they are to look at. This fact is true for all women. Wyoh is just the only prominent female character so this facet of lunar culture is presented primarily with regard to her.

Additionally, Wyoh is fair-skinned and blonde. When considering the genetics that are present on the moon, Wyoh is a freak. Everyone has dark hair, brown eyes, and brown skin. Heinlein is simply using Genetics 101. If you have a complete melting pot of races and ethnicities that represent the population of the entire Earth, the result of generations of interbreeding will provide a population which consists dark hair, brown eyes, and brown skin. These are all genetically dominant traits. Wyoh, as I said earlier, is a freak on the moon. She stands out and because of that, is considered highly desirable because in society where women are already rare to begin with, a blonde woman is even rarer. Maybe Heinlein shouldn't have made her blonde.

Wyoh uses the fact that she can gain the gaze of every man in the room to her advantage, at least at the beginning of the story.

"Harold wrote: "If you want to read an SF novel with a strong feminist, liberal viewpoint, be my guest. I'm sure it'll be a gripping read."


Feminist sf is a deep and rich tradition.

From this years Hugo nominees (note #3 & #4). Johanna Russ is a personal favorite of mine.

Best Related Book
(259 Ballots)

Canary Fever: Reviews, John Clute (Beccon)
Hope-In-The-Mist: The Extraordinary Career and Mysterious Life of Hope Mirrlees, Michael Swanwick (Temporary Culture)
The Inter-Galactic Playground: A Critical Study of Children’s and Teens’ Science Fiction, Farah Mendlesohn (McFarland)
On Joanna Russ, Farah Mendlesohn (ed.) (Wesleyan)
The Secret Feminist Cabal: A Cultural History of SF Feminisms, Helen Merrick (Aqueduct)
This is Me, Jack Vance! (Or, More Properly, This is “I”), Jack Vance (Subterranean)

Sean wrote: "And again, if this is part of a pattern with Heinlein, please point to additional examples. "

Friday is a prime example.

IT would be much harder to name a Heinlein heroine who isn't, at her heart, a cupcake.

Impossible, probably. Even the computers.

I haven't read Moon yet (saving for vacation at beach next week) but I remember reading Number of the Beast a long time ago a d was impressed by Heinlein's tribute to the Dedga Thoris (sic) character from Mars series.

I did feel that Wyoh, for someone supposedly passionately steeped in socialist belief, didn't oppose the Prof's arguments strongly enough in that early discussion. That did seem a rigged scene to let the Prof get in the best word, and there were several other scenes that had that feel (Prof vs. strawmen opponents) throughout the book. Moreover, though I didn't feel the Prof was an absolute mouthpiece for Heinlein, the entire mood and thrust of the book suggests that the author's sympathies lie with the Prof's anarchist/libertarian philosophy.

However, I didn't feel that Wyoh was portrayed simply as an empty-headed sexpot. As pointed out, she played a crucial active role at various stages of the revolution. And women in general in Lunar society, while definitely sexualized by the male gaze of the narrator and others, seem respected for their practicality and strength as well, not just their 'rare' status. Time and again we're told that anyone in Lunar society, male or female, *has* to be tough and practical just to survive -- think of Mannie's 'Ma' telling him that she has tricks up her sleeve to violently deal with the invading Terran forces.

As for the Prof as a simple figurehead, what I liked about the book was that while Heinlein's sympathies lay with Prof's idealism, the actual course of the revolution showed the Prof having to contradict his own ideals for various practical, conspiratorial reasons, and the political entity that emerged from the Prof's successfully-led revolution also did not match his pure ideals. For those reasons it felt more nuanced and interesting than the pure "see, this is how it should be done" libertarian-wish-fulfillment-fantasy it could have been.

It seems to me that Heinlein gets a bit lazy at times in regards to women. In both this book and For Us the Living, the women seem to start strong (rebel leader and independent artist) and guide the men into worlds larger than they themselves were ready for. Later in both books the women suddenly fall into the roles of his time.

Hiding in the beauty parlor made sense as it was out of character for Wyoh in the early parts of the book. That wasn't where the Authority would look for a rebel agitator. But in the end, suddenly becoming a submissive house-wife for Manny just didn't make any sense. A similar out-of-nowhere change happened in "For Us".

Is it possible that being more progressive was a stretch for Heinlein himself? If so, when he was finishing up his novels maybe what we are seeing is the narrative trumping his characterization?

Just a thought.

Glenn wrote: "Heinlein published his first novel in 1939. Remember that time? I do but I'm a bit older that you I bet. He was one of the most forward thinking authors of his time and constantly pilloried for bei..."

+1

I myself find certain portrayals and views in books I read disagreeable to me at times. Gratuitous sex and profanity bother me, and we all know how prevalent sex and profanity is in modern SF/F books. I find reading a book without a chip on my shoulder is very helpful. After all, I am predisposed to liking any book I begin as a matter of course. Like with people, I take the good with the bad and if the bad is too distasteful for me, I move on to something I can more easily enjoy. Reading should be fun, if Heinlein isn't fun for you, by all means don't read him.

Lepton, I have similar problems with Heinlein, but I found the conversation about this thread on the recent podcast interesting. They noted that they think about the politics the way they think about the tech in the book: in other words, sometimes interesting and sometimes outdated. They basically said they choose to think about it as a sci fi book instead of as a political book.

I tend to think of Heinlein's writing as politics more than sci fi, and I don't like his politics. The libertarian aspects really annoy me. But then, I don't like libertarianism, and because lots of people are labeling themselves libertarian these days, it seems current to me. This causes me to see his faults much more clearly. I'm looking for them because I want to take them apart.

On the other hand, when reading HG Wells' The Time Machine, I found all his talk about socialism very easy to ignore, and just a quaint sign of the author's times. This is because I tend to think of his thoughts on socialism - as an idealist society - as an outmoded way of thinking, because we now have the perspective of seeing socialism in action and have seen the ways in which it tends to go wrong. For that reason I could easily ignore that part, and just enjoy the time-travel. Still, regardless of my opinion, there are lots of people who are very concerned about socialism these days, and I imagine many of those same people would have a difficult time enjoying The Time Machine specifically because of the socialism, which I find so easy to ignore.

In the end, I think if I disagree with the author's politics, whether or not I have a strong opinion about them has a lot to do with my enjoyment of the story.

Here is an interesting article from Tor.com - What do Heinlein Women Want?

Jenny, I owe you a preemptive apology :). I was prepared to rip ,er disagree energetically with you,but...
It is an excellent article, well written and very thought provoking. For the first time I see what people are saying about his stance on women. I still believe he is a brilliant author and the forefather of much of our science fiction today but alas, he was a man of his time. I guess I have a hard time taking the barefoot ,babies, in the kitchen business seriously because my mom was and is the strongest,most independent ,vibrant woman I've ever known. Double degrees, she laughs at "feminists" and says be a human first and let your sexuality follow naturally. In any case, thank you for giving me that most precious of all things, a new perspective.

Well to be fair, all I did was link to it! :)

Very good article. They cross over into my own problem with Heinlein women. I am certainly not bothered that they want to have babies. With the "man of his time" argument, a part of me wants to raise my hand and say "yeah, but Virginia Woolf came before Heinlein, with far more modern ideas about feminism." But then, Heinlein is not Virginia Woolf.

Shannon wrote: "Very good article. They cross over into my own problem with Heinlein women. I am certainly not bothered that they want to have babies. With the "man of his time" argument, a part of me wants to rai..."
Peace! I am not using the "man of time" argument. Simply stating a fact. Joan of Arc was much before Virginia Wolfe :)

Also from the Heinlein discussions over on Tor.com, "Why Heinlein Discussions frequently become acrimonious" http://www.tor.com/blogs/2010/08/a-brief... by Jo Walton, with further thoughts by John Scalzi at http://www.tor.com/blogs/2010/08/the-und...

George wrote: "Also from the Heinlein discussions over on Tor.com, "Why Heinlein Discussions frequently become acrimonious" http://www.tor.com/blogs/2010/08/a-brief-thought-about-why-heinlein-discussions-frequent..."

Wow, thank you for finding that George! I truly had not considered the implications of my age and younger readers ages in regarding Heinlein. Scalzi said it very well, or at least explained me very well to me ;P
I literally grew up on Heinlein, and he was very much a living presence to me. I truly never gave much thought to his "treatment" of women because he wrote about my dreams... the stars, and us in them! I am saddened by Lepton's views not because I disagree with her point, but only because so many of you can't see those novels through my eyes as a boy shiny and wonderful. Looking back I can see the points many of you are making and valid too. But I remember and always will, wanting to be a Space Cadet, or a Starship Trooper, or Starman Jones, or my lord, Have Spacesuit Will Travel...whatever his faults, he put the stars in my eyes and space in my soul, and for that I will always love him.

Yeah for those of us who are younger, we come out old and jaded. And space exploration is so 1964. ;)

Glenn wrote: "George wrote: "Also from the Heinlein discussions over on Tor.com, "Why Heinlein Discussions frequently become acrimonious" http://www.tor.com/blogs/2010/08/a-brief-thought-about-why-heinlein-discu..."

I hear you, Glenn. RAH was my intro to SF as a kid and his YA books are without peer, in my opinion. Red Planet, The Rolling Stones, Tunnel In The Sky(YA?) to add to yours mentioned. I think we agree that twenty-somethings shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Try out his YA books before giving up on him!

I would also recommend John C. Wright's post Ignoring the Debt You Owe Heinlein which deals with the above mentioned issues while placing them in historical context ... of his times at any rate.

I would mention that it is best not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Pretty much every time I pick up a book with Larry Niven's name on it, I know that I must brace myself for cultural mores dealing women to be set seemingly in the 1950s. I, however, manage to enjoy them anyway. All authors have their quirks. Some which I dislike, some which I don't notice until someone else mentions them.

I love Heinlein's YA novels, but never really warmed to his adult books.

I'm new here, and it's been a long time since I read this book, and I don't remember it well enough to comment on it. I do, however, remember my two favourites of Heinlein's, which I read as a sweet young high school thing: Glory Road and Farnham's Freehold. I loved them both enough to read them twice. As I recall it, GR's most sexist thing was its cover (heap big man with huge sword, woman awfully close to naked), and though female, and even in those days irritated by what we called sexism in the olden days, I never saw it in those two books. I thought them both wonderful adventures. I wasn't bothered by it then, and I was always thinking like a writer, even though I never wrote. I was also reading Crime and Punishment and other Russian novels, all of Sherlock Holmes, all of Edgar Allan Poe, and the earliest British novelists (not Austen then), so I wasn't totally incapable of putting Heinlein in perspective.

When I actually became a writer, I glanced through his book: Writing. Here's a quote I like:

"Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but do it in private and wash your hands afterwards."

I've been writing for 33 years, and never felt I had to be ashamed of my profession. But he was at the end of his writing life, more or less, when he said this. Maybe he was looking back on his own career? Or was he just joking? What do you think?

Despite freedom of speech, which I always defend, one of my very top hates as an author myself is for someone to read one of my books or all of them and then decide what kind of person I am from deconstructing my books.

In one of my books, a dog is sacrificed, a puppy really. Would I do that? Never! But the cruel people in my book would, and it was necessary in the book for them to be seen as vicious and brutal. Do I hate dogs? No, I love them; which is why I used a puppy in this scene, because the cruelty had to be that horrific to me or I couldn't write it properly. For most writers I know, things that are in one of their books are there because that's what the book needed, in order for the author to serve the book as a whole. Which, Lepton, is what most authors try to do. We have no ego when we're writing. If we did, we'd be didactic, and it would scream aloud to an editor why we're really writing the book (for fame and fortune). And then, we'd never be published.

Here's your morality check. If you place cruelty and violence in your fiction, you support it, especially if the work is designed for publication and sale. End of story. You would be profiting from depictions of suffering that you manifest.

A book or a story needs nothing. It is fiction. The author is free to create as he or she wishes. Nothing is required. It is entirely optional.

Further, the reader is embroiled in the violence and suffering that you chose to manifest by making them a mute and impotent voyeur to that violence and suffering.

An author chooses. And any author that supposes that he or she doesn't choose, that he or she has no ego, is merely delusional.

No doubt that specific neurological processes that generate creative works are not within our immediate conscious awareness. No doubt that the experience of those neurological processes could be attributed by the experiencer as something outside or beyond themselves. However, when pen meets paper, when fingers touch keys, you choose. It's that simple. And for me, it is a moral choice.

The word delusional means "Believing idiosyncratically not in accordance with a generally accepted reality." In other words: crazy.

So, let's get this clear. Are you actually calling me and Heinlein and all the other writers who let their characters have their own reasons for what they say and do: are you calling us crazy? What are your qualifications, I wonder, to say such a thing?

As for morality checks, here are some for you. Do you treat with respect complete strangers with different opinions than yours? Do you insult them and their experience by saying we delude ourselves, as do the hundreds of thousands of our readers, and the award-givers? Do you do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Do you understand that just because you believe something it doesn't make it right? Have you ever considered that maybe you are delusional?

Do you realize that there are some very good writers who are trying to deal with the same things you hate, by giving their characters dilemmas involving those things you hate, and providing them with tools or incidents or whatever that happens to occur to *their characters in the book*, given the kind of person those characters have grown into over the course of the book, to help themselves overcome tne bad stuff in their own good and powerful ways? Do you not see that a reader involved in such actions by such characters are empowered, just a little, to take action themselves?

Do you understand that writing a book where all this happens is hard work? Do you know the difference between fiction and opinion pieces?

If you don't like something in a book, and can't see why it's there, and won't allow yourself to think about it, then just don't read it. Don't read a book with sexism, violence, suffering, or any kind of action you disapprove of that characters initiate for their own clear reasons. Just close the book and send it back to the library. You are not embroiled in anything unless you choose to be. But don't expect to fix any of these issues by telling people off, on a site like this.

Do you watch TV? Even the Discovery Channel has suffering, sexism and violence. Have you suffered? I have. Have you been treated with prejudice? I have. Have you been treated violently? I haven't. I hope you haven't. But if you have, you're in the majority.

I know you don't want it to be like that, and I'm sorry it is, just as sorry as you are. The only difference is, that I try to allow my readers to explore the issues by confronting the characters with an initial dilemma that both my readers and my characters then have to deal with. I don't make anyone my voice. I don't make anyone my puppets. I create the characters at the beginning and then I listen to them. You got beat up? one of my characters whines. Well, why don't you call the police? I ask. Or did you? What you do tells me who you are. What you are tells me what you will do under other circumstances.

Everything has consequences. I ask myself what those consequences might be. I ask myself if the characters will see all the consequences? Or will they see any? What will they do, that is in their control, in a really bad situation? On the kind of people they are, which is who they've grown to be over the course of all the things they've responded to and done, hangs the book.

And whatever they do, if the reader doesn't believe it is something they *would* do, the book will fail.

Oh, and by the way, I don't write for money, and I resent it that you think I profit from others' suffering. You have come awfully close to flaming me here. If it happens again, I'll report you.